A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

All you are capable of doing is laughing, which is wonderful. I can join in too, because it's fun to laugh at nothing. I love laughter more than anything, so I'm joining you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't think they can make machines with fast enough shutter speeds? Is that what you are having a hard time understanding?

I need to repeat that your analysis LadyShea, according to your own definition, doesn't add up. How can anything "send" (transmit, convey, dispatch, transpire) through time and space, information that is faster than the speed of light? Physics tells us there is nothing capable of doing this, and who am I to argue? This doesn't even relate to Lessans' claims. People are bringing in arguments that have no relationship to what Lessans is saying. I am not a fundamentalist defying the laws of physics, as you believe me to be. Therefore, how can the shutter do what it cannot do? I know I'm going to be clobbered for my apparent "ignorance," but I really don't get it, nor do I think I am violating any laws.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I need to repeat that your analysis LadyShea, according to your own definition, doesn't add up. How can anything "send" (transmit, convey, dispatch, transpire) through time and space, information that is faster than the speed of light? Physics tells us there is nothing capable of doing this, and who am I to argue? This doesn't even relate to Lessans' claims. People are bringing in arguments that have no relationship to what Lessans is saying. I am not a fundamentalist defying the laws of physics, as you believe me to be. Therefore, how can the shutter do what it cannot do? I know I'm going to be clobbered for my apparent "ignorance," but I really don't get it, nor do I think I am violating any laws.

sorry, you cannot go back on this one. I already won, remember?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

sorry, you cannot go back on this one. I already won, remember?

Oh My God (I sound like the snobby girls on t.v. with their noses stuck up ), but you did not such thing Vivisectus. Where are you coming from?

[peacegirl]

LadyShea, forgive me for talking publicly about this, but I did contact Ms. Kelley. She was so receptive, and I told her she could use the book as long as she gave credit. But I have more exciting goals for this library, thanks to you. If they are interested, I would love for them to help me build a curriculum based on this program that I developed. I therefore would be hiring them and paying them accordingly, but my program would get the credit. I would do this so that this pilot program could take off. Otherwise it would be diluted. I am banking on this because of what you told me about these women. I need your advice. We can talk about this publicly, or privately, but I would prefer publicly because of the investment of time and energy that people gave to this thread. They deserve to know what's going on. I would love to give you credit for your wonderful contribution, if anything comes from this.

[Vivisectus]

You said so, just a while back.

Anyway we established that information originating from point A somehow ends up in point B. The FLAW in your idea is that this is not carried by anything (another thing that is impossible) but you were not able to deny that the man on Rigel saw me on the beach in stead of Columbus, thus gaining information faster than light.

Now stop acting like an idiot and just either concede that this creates what looks like a paradox and stop wriggling, moving the goalposts and being generally dishonest. It is clearly a major problem, and one that you do not have a cogent answer to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You said so, just a while back.

Anyway we established that information originating from point A somehow ends up in point B. The FLAW in your idea is that this is not carried by anything (another thing that is impossible) but you were not able to deny that the man on Rigel saw me on the beach in stead of Columbus, thus gaining information faster than light.

Now stop acting like an idiot and just either concede that this creates what looks like a paradox and stop wriggling, moving the goalposts and being generally dishonest. It is clearly a major problem, and one that you do not have a cogent answer to.

Vivisectus, you have screwed up this book to a new height. Why do you keep telling me that there is a paradox, when there is no paradox (if it turns out that efferent vision is correct). Yes, there would definitely be a paradox if afferent vision was correct, but that's what we're testing, so we don't have the answers yet. I can feel your hatred and resentment growing, but I can't lie just to make you less resentful. That would be lying to myself.

[LadyShea]

Have you gone to your own local library's children's librarians? I don't think ours are all that terribly unique. I think they are special, of course, but it's one library in one small town and there are thousands nationwide. Since your name is on the book you would sort of automatically get credit...as author's do.

Also, curriculum of all kinds are bought by homeschoolers. You can work up anything you want and sell it directly at currclick.com

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, you have screwed up this book to a new height. Why do you keep telling me that there is a paradox, when there is not, if efferent vision is correct. Yes, there would be a paradox if afferent vision was correct, but that's not proven. I know you hate me, but I can't lie just to make you happy.

Not you, just your willfully ignorant behavior.

I hold up a sign. It says "42". Man on Rigel sees sign through telescope as described in book in stead of seeing Columbus. Now man on Rigel knows the information roughly 800 years before any light reaches Rigel. Ergo - information has traveled from earth to Rigel a LOT faster than light, and we have a paradox. I shall henceforth refer to this as Information Does Travel In Efferent Sight Proof, or Standard Paragraph 1 to save me typing it over and over.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Have you gone to your own local library's children's librarians? I don't think ours are all that terribly unique. I think they are special, of course, but it's one library in one small town and there are thousands nationwide. Since your name is on the book you would sort of automatically get credit...as author's do.

Also, curriculum of all kinds are bought by homeschoolers. You can work up anything you want and sell it directly at currclick.com

LadyShea, I've been ill. I could have done so much more if I had been well. But I believe there is a reason for everything. Do you know anything about chronic fatigue syndrome, or fibromyalgia which is closely related? I doubt it, and I hope you never have to go down this road. It's not just about giving me credit. I want to make money from all the hard work I've done. What do you think all the intellectual lawyers are hired to do when music gets diluted by pirates? I'm not saying this is the same thing, but everyone wants to get credit for their accomplishments. I am no different.

Hmmm, I never heard of currclick.com. I actually went underground when I homeschooled my two younger ones. I was so nervous when the bus came and went that early morning when school began, but I never regretted it.

Seriously, I would love this library to get involved in my national program. They could help me develop a curriculum based on my guidelines. How wonderful would that be?

[Vivisectus]

oh and to spare you the effort - just because "nothing is emitted" (incidentally, that is tantamount to saying "it happens by magic" but that does not seem to bother you) does not mean that the information does not travel in this model. Somehow, it clearly does, or else the man on Rigel could not know anything about earth. The complete lack of anything travelling is actually another one of the reasons why efferent vision is patent nonsense that is flatly rejected by anyone who knows anything about physics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, you have screwed up this book to a new height. Why do you keep telling me that there is a paradox, when there is no paradox (if it turns out that efferent vision is correct).

If it is correct it is correct is not a satisfactory answer. There is a paradox created between the real time seeing claimed by Lessans and SR and causality.

Nobody will test these claims as you want them tested unless/until you are able to explain the mechanism by which efferent vision allows the information about an object at some other point in space to get into the seers brain without that information transferring between the object and the brain.

Saying there is no transference doesn't work, because it is very clearly the fact that the properties of the object at point A are information, and the brain at point B has acquired that information, and that there is space between point A and point B.

You sound like a crazy person with your denials of this fact, and no scientist will even consider the issue without a rational explanation from you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not you, just your willfully ignorant behavior.

I hold up a sign. It says "42". Man on Rigel sees sign through telescope as described in book in stead of seeing Columbus. Now man on Rigel knows the information roughly 800 years before any light reaches Rigel. Ergo - information has traveled from earth to Rigel a LOT faster than light, and we have a paradox. I shall henceforth refer to this as Information Does Travel In Efferent Sight Proof, or Standard Paragraph 1 to save me typing it over and over.

I'm getting tired too Vivisectus. If there is no information in the light, then your entire premise and conclusion is wrong. I've said my piece, now it's up to you to do what you want with it. I am not indebted to you to explain anymore than I already have.

[LadyShea]

You offered to donate a book to me, personally. I asked you to donate to my local library instead. How is that a money making proposition? The library would stock your book on the shelf, with your name as the author. And if they chose to read it aloud would also, of course, tell the audience the name of the author as they do any book read aloud anyplace in the world.

You mentioned working up a curriculum for use in my public library (which would be a free program), I asked why you haven't done so with your own public library, then I gave you a commerce site where people sell curriculum and thousands of homeschoolers buy it. Homeschooling is perfectly legal and there are well over 2 million families homeschooling right now and it's growing every year. Had you bothered to read any threads here, especially regarding my educational explorations, you would know this.

Jesus woman what is the matter with you? What does your illness have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm getting tired too Vivisectus. If there is no information in the light, then your entire premise and conclusion is wrong. I've said my piece, now it's up to you to do what you want with it. I am not indebted to you to explain anymore than I already have.

Not true. If the information moves by any means at all then a paradox is there.

Thus efferent, instant sight is disproven.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I need to repeat that your analysis LadyShea, according to your own definition, doesn't add up. How can anything "send" (transmit, convey, dispatch, transpire) through time and space, information that is faster than the speed of light? Physics tells us there is nothing capable of doing this, and who am I to argue? This doesn't even relate to Lessans' claims. People are bringing in arguments that have no relationship to what Lessans is saying. I am not a fundamentalist defying the laws of physics, as you believe me to be. Therefore, how can the shutter do what it cannot do? I know I'm going to be clobbered for my apparent "ignorance," but I really don't get it, nor do I think I am violating any laws.

The shutter is not working faster than the speed of light. That's the whole point of the experiment with the high shutter speeds.

The shutter is faster than the time it takes the light takes to travel from A (emitter) to B (a mirror) and back to the observer at point A.

I do not understand what is confusing you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo doc, I never said the other senses can be conditioned. Do not play games with me. Show me where I said this and I will kiss your smelly feet.

In your quote above you clearly state that it is a different 'type of conditioning' clearly implying that is conditioning, just a different type. But even this is wrong, because the eyes, according to you, are conditioned with words, and in these examples it was the words (the name of the kind of food) that caused the reaction, and this IS conditioning with words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Have you gone to your own local library's children's librarians? I don't think ours are all that terribly unique. I think they are special, of course, but it's one library in one small town and there are thousands nationwide. Since your name is on the book you would sort of automatically get credit...as author's do.

Also, curriculum of all kinds are bought by homeschoolers. You can work up anything you want and sell it directly at currclick.com

When I wrote the book, I performed in the library circuit, but I was ill. I couldn't do it again, even when they asked me. This has nothing to do with anything Ladyshea. I really don't know what you're getting at. Are you implying I'm not truthful, or a liar, or don't have a good program? Tell me, I really would like to know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it is correct it is correct is not a satisfactory answer. There is a paradox created between the real time seeing claimed by Lessans and SR and causality.

Nobody will test these claims as you want them tested unless/until you are able to explain the mechanism by which efferent vision allows the information about an object at some other point in space to get into the seers brain without that information transferring between the object and the brain.

Saying there is no transference doesn't work, because it is very clearly the fact that the properties of the object at point A are information, and the brain at point B has acquired that information, and that there is space between point A and point B.

You sound like a crazy person with your denials of this fact, and no scientist will even consider the issue without a rational explanation from you.

You are very confused about causality, which is why you are so resistant. It's the same resistance to Lessans' other discovery. Just think about it. How could he make so many mistakes based on one proof? Very strange indeed. But, of course, you will find a way to explain it. Who is actually wrong in their interpretation is not yet determined, so please hold your horses before getting the Academy Award for Nothingness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not you, just your willfully ignorant behavior.

I hold up a sign. It says "42". Man on Rigel sees sign through telescope as described in book in stead of seeing Columbus. Now man on Rigel knows the information roughly 800 years before any light reaches Rigel. Ergo - information has traveled from earth to Rigel a LOT faster than light, and we have a paradox. I shall henceforth refer to this as Information Does Travel In Efferent Sight Proof, or Standard Paragraph 1 to save me typing it over and over.

Stop with the 800 years before light reaches Rigel, as if this is important. There is nothing in the light so it doesn't matter how long it takes for the light to reach Rigel. If efferent vision is correct, what matters is if the object or image is large enough or bright enough to be seen from that great distance. Since it is impossible to glean any information from light itself, we would fail to see Columbus discovering America in 2011, which would confirm what Lessans has been saying all along.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I wrote the book, I performed in the library circuit, but I was ill. I couldn't do it again, even when they asked me. This has nothing to do with anything Ladyshea. I really don't know what you're getting at. Are you implying I'm not truthful, or a liar, or don't have a good program? Tell me, I really would like to know.

I am offering you free business advice. I get paid for doing this normally.

I was questioning why you would work with a librarian in a completely different state to present a curriculum you wish to charge for*, instead of either (A) working with your own local library/school district or (B) creating a curriculum and selling it directly. Seems a convoluted way to go about it and makes no business sense. Much like your paying someone to edit your .pdf file.

I haven't read the book and I've no idea what kind of program or curriculum you have in mind so can't comment on it's value.

*Donating your book to libraries would be great free marketing for the accompanying curriculum, by the way. It would also get your name out there amongst librarians, who could then make recommendations to the public and schools etc. if it's a good book

[LadyShea]

I am not confused about either causality or relativity.

As I said: Saying there is no transference doesn't work, because it is very clearly the fact that the properties of the object at point A are information, and the brain at point B has acquired that information, and that there is space between point A and point B.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop with the 800 years before light reaches Rigel, as if this is important. There is nothing in the light so it doesn't matter how long it takes for the light to reach Rigel. If efferent vision is correct, what matters is if the object or image is large enough or bright enough to be seen from that great distance. Since it is impossible to glean any information from light itself, we would fail to see Columbus discovering America in 2011, which would confirm what Lessans has been saying all along.

He is talking about information not light. Lessans stated that an observer near Rigel with a powerful enough telescope would not see the happenings on Earth as it was 800 years in the past (as SR and causality would require ), but happenings on Earth as they are happening right now on Earth (as per Earth time).

If the happenings on Earth seen through the telescope was a man holding up a sign with the number 42 on it, and the observer near Rigel saw the sign with the number 42 on it. The information "42" has been gained by the observer near Rigel without an 800 year interval.

That is instantaneous information transfer. That is the paradox you must address.

And once again saying there is no transference doesn't work, because it is very clearly the fact that the properties of the object at point A, the number 42 in this case, is information, and the brain at point B has acquired that information, and that there is space between point A and point B.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am offering you free business advice. I get paid for doing this normally.

I was questioning why you would work with a librarian in a completely different state to present a curriculum you wish to charge for*, instead of either (A) working with your own local library/school district or (B) creating a curriculum and selling it directly. Seems a convoluted way to go about it and makes no business sense. Much like your paying someone to edit your .pdf file.

I haven't read the book and I've no idea what kind of program or curriculum you have in mind so can't comment on it's value.

*Donating your book to libraries would be great free marketing for the accompanying curriculum, by the way. It would also get your name out there amongst librarians, who could then make recommendations to the public and schools etc. if it's a good book

This book definitely has value if children learn from it. This has nothing to do with the book's value. It's about using the material to develop a curriculum, from the elementary grades all the way up to middle school. I have wanted to do this for a long time, as well as create a CD, for starters. I would love someone who is already a teacher to help me because she would be more familar with this type of format.

This is the reason companies that need extra creativity are called "Help for hire". It's a contract that allows someone to be creative under the auspices of that company, so that the individual gets credit for the creative aspect, but the company can sell the product under its name. This is a very important distinction in business, as you can see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He is talking about information not light. Lessans stated that an observer near Rigel with a powerful enough telescope would not see the happenings on Earth as it was 800 years in the past (as SR and causality would require ), but happenings on Earth as they are happening right now on Earth (as per Earth time).

If the happenings on Earth seen through the telescope was a man holding up a sign with the number 42 on it, and the observer near Rigel saw the sign with the number 42 on it. The information "42" has been gained by the observer near Rigel without an 800 year interval.

That is instantaneous information transfer. That is the paradox you must address.

And once again saying there is no transference doesn't work, because it is very clearly the fact that the properties of the object at point A, the number 42 in this case, is information, and the brain at point B has acquired that information, and that there is space between point A and point B.

You keep saying this over and over again as if to say, "you don't get it." I do get it. But if your premise that efferent vision involves information transfer, and because of this belief you will tell me I'm wrong, that does not mean I am wrong. I can't fight you on this, just as I can't fight someone who believes man has free will and doesn't understand the reason why this is not true.