A revolution in thought - Page 1118

peacegirl · #**27926** 06-25-2013, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How can you possibly have missed the point? We can get people to "see" things through direct stimulation of the visual cortex. You don't need to involve the eyes at all. Nor does there have to be an actual object present within the patient's visual field.

Of course, you're trying to distract again, and you're blatantly shifting the goalposts.

Remember how you said that a bionic eye would be sufficient to disprove Lessans? Remember how you immediately denied that you had ever said such a thing when it was pointed out that bionic eyes already exist? Remember how you immediately shifted the goalposts when the lie was exposed?

Now you're blatantly attempting to shift the goalposts yet again, and hoping that no one notices. The problem is that you're about as subtle at it as is a rampaging bull elephant.

I really have no defense. If you think this is the nail in the coffin, then let it be.

The Lone Ranger · #**27927** 06-25-2013, 05:56 PM

And yet you'll continue to insist that Lessans was correct about such things, even though you admit that you can't defend the claim.

thedoc · #**27928** 06-25-2013, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think this is the nail in the coffin, then let it be.

That is a very insensitive thing to say about your father, and you of all people, who have been demanding that we show him some respect, and now you say something likt this.

Angakuk · #**27929** 06-25-2013, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?

You are mixing up light (like David does), which takes time to strike the wall because the laser has just been turned on, and seeing the actual object due to light's presence. These are two different things. If the Sun was just turned on, we wouldn't see the light on the wall either because it hasn't yet arrived. This doesn't contradict efferent vision in the least.

Hilarious response! Come on peacegirl, answer Ang.

"In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?"

I did answer him. Traveling light is not what is under discussion. It obviously takes time for light to travel from A to B. But when we look at a distant object, we are not waiting for light to arrive in order to see said object. We see said object because it's there to be seen due to meeting the requirements of efferent vision. In this account there is no travel time. The image that is on film is the same exact image that we see in real time. That is because the image is not reflected in the light. The light is revealing the object and it's already at the film or retina. I wonder how many more times am I going to have to repeat this!

Okay, so forget traveling light. In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?

We are seeing the light coming from the laser. The object is the laser that is emitting the light.

When we see the red spot on the wall we are not seeing the laser. The laser is the device that is projecting the light onto the wall. The laser itself is not even in our field of view. All we see is the wall and the red spot. What are we seeing when we see the red spot?

The laser is turned on, isn't it? Turn it off and see what happens.

The red spot on the wall disappears. So tell me, what are we seeing when we see the red spot on the wall? In short, what is the red spot?

bump

Angakuk · #**27930** 06-25-2013, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

There is nothing here that contradicts efferent vision. Please don't respond because I'm not going to answer anymore questions on this subject.

Then I won't ask you any questions. However, I will show you why GPS relies on the Theory of Relativity.

GPS and Relativity

GPS and Relativity

http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

Quote:

But GPS is an exception. Built at a cost of over $10 billion mainly for military navigation, GPS has rapidly transformed itself into a thriving commercial industry. The system is based on an array of 24 satellites orbiting the earth, each carrying a precise atomic clock. Using a hand-held GPS receiver which detects radio emissions from any of the satellites which happen to be overhead, users of even moderately priced devices can determine latitude, longitude and altitude to an accuracy which can currently reach 15 meters, and local time to 50 billionths of a second. Apart from the obvious military uses, GPS is finding applications in airplane navigation, oil exploration, wilderness recreation, bridge construction, sailing, and interstate trucking, to name just a few. Even Hollywood has met GPS, recently pitting James Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" against an evil genius who was inserting deliberate errors into the GPS system and sending British ships into harm's way.

But in a relativistic world, things are not simple. The satellite clocks are moving at 14,000 km/hr in orbits that circle the Earth twice per day, much faster than clocks on the surface of the Earth, and Einstein's theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly, by about seven microseconds (millionths of a second) per day.

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.

ATI Courses Technical Training Global Positioning System Tutorial by Robert Nelson

Quote:

The precision of GPS measurements is so great that it requires the application of Albert Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity for the reduction of its measurements. Professor Carroll Alley of the University of Maryland once articulated the significance of this fact at a scientific conference devoted to time measurement in 1979. He said, “I think it is appropriate ... to realize that the first practical application of Einstein’s ideas in actual engineering situations are with us in the fact that clocks are now so stable that one must take these small effects into account in a variety of systems that are now undergoing development or are actually in use in comparing time worldwide. It is no longer a matter of scientific interest and scientific application, but it has moved into the realm of engineering necessity.”

According to relativity theory, a moving clock appears to run slow with respect to a similar clock that is at rest. This effect is called “time dilation.” In addition, a clock in a weaker gravitational potential appears to run fast in comparison to one that is in a stronger gravitational potential. This gravitational effect is known in general as the “red shift” (only in this case it is actually a “blue shift”).

GPS satellites revolve around the earth with a velocity of 3.874 km/s at an altitude of 20,184 km. Thus on account of the its velocity, a satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 microseconds per day when compared to a clock on the earth’s surface. But on account of the difference in gravitational potential, the satellite clock appears to run fast by 45 microseconds per day. The net effect is that the clock appears to run fast by 38 microseconds per day. This is an enormous rate difference for an atomic clock with a precision of a few nanoseconds. Thus to compensate for this large secular rate, the clocks are given a rate offset prior to satellite launch of - 4.465 parts in 1010 from their nominal frequency of 10.23 MHz so that on average they appear to run at the same rate as a clock on the ground. The actual frequency of the satellite clocks before launch is thus 10.22999999543 MHz.

Although the GPS satellite orbits are nominally circular, there is always some residual eccentricity. The eccentricity causes the orbit to be slightly elliptical, and the velocity and altitude vary over one revolution. Thus, although the principal velocity and gravitational effects have been compensated by a rate offset, there remains a slight residual variation that is proportional to the eccentricity. For example, with an orbital eccentricity of 0.02 there is a relativistic sinusoidal variation in the apparent clock time having an amplitude of 46 nanoseconds. This correction must be calculated and taken into account in the GPS receiver.

The displacement of a receiver on the surface of the earth due to the earth’s rotation in inertial space during the time of flight of the signal must also be taken into account. This is a third relativistic effect that is due to the universality of the speed of light. The maximum correction occurs when the receiver is on the equator and the satellite is on the horizon. The time of flight of a GPS signal from the satellite to a receiver on the earth is then 86 milliseconds and the correction to the range measurement resulting from the receiver displacement is 133 nanoseconds. An analogous correction must be applied by a receiver on a moving platform, such as an aircraft or another satellite. This effect, as interpreted by an observer in the rotating frame of reference of the earth, is called the Sagnac effect. It is also the basis for a laser ring gyro in an inertial navigation system.

I don't understand any of that, therefore it does not not refute my claim that efferent sight does not change anything with regard to how GPS technology works. ~ peacegirl

p.s. I am still not talking about this anymore.

When you have a tin ear and can't carry a tune in a bucket, all songs are equally easy to sing. ~Angakuk the Diva

Vivisectus · #**27931** 06-25-2013, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How can you possibly have missed the point? We can get people to "see" things through direct stimulation of the visual cortex. You don't need to involve the eyes at all. Nor does there have to be an actual object present within the patient's visual field.

Of course, you're trying to distract again, and you're blatantly shifting the goalposts.

Remember how you said that a bionic eye would be sufficient to disprove Lessans? Remember how you immediately denied that you had ever said such a thing when it was pointed out that bionic eyes already exist? Remember how you immediately shifted the goalposts when the lie was exposed?

Now you're blatantly attempting to shift the goalposts yet again, and hoping that no one notices. The problem is that you're about as subtle at it as is a rampaging bull elephant.

I really have no defense. If you think this is the nail in the coffin, then let it be.

Translation: despite her lack of a rational explanation for any of this, she am going to continue to believe this. This is fair enough: loads of people have irrational beliefs.

But on top of this, she is going to pretend that her belief is completely rational, that it is scientific, and that she believes it for completely rational reasons which other people would share if only they were not so unwilling to even consider it. In fact, she will maintain that it is THEY who reject this idea on irrational grounds, such as bias, closed-mindedness, or just plain old malice, and she is going to stick by this despite the fact that she is utterly unable to deal with their objections to her ideas.

It is a wonderful example of Peacegirlian circle-think: the very lack of her ability to refute the objections to her ideas becomes, in her mind, evidence of everyone elses irrationality.

As usual, for things to add up in Lessansworld, you require the ability to have your cake and eat it.

peacegirl · #**27932** 06-25-2013, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yet you'll continue to insist that Lessans was correct about such things, even though you admit that you can't defend the claim.

Why shouldn't I? I believe his explanation was correct. Until it can be seen that light carries an image (or pattern) of the past, I will stand by his claim. I'm sorry if that upsets you.

Vivisectus · #**27933** 06-25-2013, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What then? Well, if any decent evidence would turn up, I would change my mind. Simple as that.

Maybe this isn't good evidence to you, but there IS evidence.

That is a lie: you are aware that there is NO evidence that sight works as you say it does, and NO evidence that conscience works the way you say.

If this is not the case: produce the evidence. You have been unable to for about a year or so. But do stop lying. It is uncomfortable for me to watch you demean yourself like that.

Quote:

As far as sight goes, the verdict is still out no matter how much you believe this is a proven fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

At the moment, there is a vast preponderance of evidence that points to your ideas being complete twaddle. It is so strong and comes from so many different areas that it is hard to imagine the circumstances in which all those things could be observed and your idea be correct at the same time. It would have to involve some weird galaxy-wide conspiracy by vastly powerful supernatural beings or something. It literally boggles the mind to even try to reconcile your ideas with what we know to be true. I don't think it can be done.

How would it involve some weird galaxy-wide conspiracy or supernatural beings? What the hell are you talking about? The properties of light remain the same, the world remains the same, galaxies remain the same, stars remain the same. Everything remains the same except for seeing in real time because of how the eyes function.

Do please stop pretending you do not remember. We have been over this again and again. There are the probes we skim off planets where we cannot see them... some strange force must be pushing them off course just enough and in exactly the right way to make it seem as if there is a delay in sight.

Something else is apparently speeding up and slowing down the moons of Jupiter.

And yet another weird force is making the stars behave exactly as if we just detect light, since we can see the stars themselves and their light in the same spot.

You know all this. You have no answer to it. And yet here you are again, pretending it is all news to you. Lying for Lessans! Some philosophy, if it needs all this dishonorable bullcrap.

Quote:

As far as the right-of-way system, there is no doubt that it prevents arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please to provide some support for that claim. As we have alsready seen, both in small-scale examples as in extreme ones, it leads to absurdities unless you qualify your rule so heavily as to make it completely useless.

Nope, it's because you're not seeing the full picture. You are taking snippets out of this system and turning it into what it's not. You are forgetting that in marriage, we want to please the other if we want our marriage to last, which means we will go out of our way to help our partner when they ask for it, but, in turn, our partner would never want us to make that sacrifice just for us, if it meant that it was a strain, or something the other partner really didn't want to do but would do to make us happy.

... and yet more baseless claims. Where is the support?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oooo there's a boyfriend in the picture now? Good on you! DO NOT SHOW HIM THE BOOK.

If you keep this sarcasm up, don't expect me to answer your posts.

I am in no way sarcastic. If there is a BF on the horizon, then it just may be an opportunity for something real and meaningful in your life. Do not let this stupid book mess it up. Oh and try to stand up for what you want and need a bit. This is easier if you do it right from the start. Feel free to tell me to stop trying to be an agony aunt when you didn't ask for one by the way

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, your rule if quite obviously nonsense. Please to explain the math behind this principle: I am all agog to follow your calculations.

As for your example: it depends on the circumstances who is wrong.

No, this is very clear cut.

Really? No circumstances cna influence that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If he has stood you up for 6 movie visits in a row

Stood me up? This would never happen in the new world so your beginning premise is already down the drain.

Rather, your principle needs special circumstances and qualifications to protect it from reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

and you have pointed out this is a big thing for you, then his refusal to go because he is a bit tired is wrong - and obviously so. If this is a random thing with no real history to it, then he is fully in the right.

He would go out of his way to satisfy her, even if he was tired, but she, knowing this, would never want to take advantage if this was not something he enjoyed doing. Again, you are making up hypothetical situations that would never occur. But because you want him to be wrong in the worst way, you actually think you've outwitted him. You have done no such thing. This system works, and there's nothing you can do to change that.

:lolfruit:

I love it when you argue my point for me. I am fully in agreement: the rule works perfectly, in a world where there is absolutely no need for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your right-of-way rule is once again pretty useless for determining what is OK and what is not, and it is trivially easy to come up with examples where it gets it rather hillariously wrong.

That's because you haven't analyzed it correctly. It's as simple as that.

And yet you cannot refute it, except by saying "Ah yeah but that just would not happen!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So: please explain to me if it is wrong for your boyfriend to refuse to go to the movies when you have waited for months to go and see it, you bought tickets months in advance, you have reminded him weekly of the upcoming event which you made clear was very important to you and which he agreed to go to, and for which you have hired a stretch limo complete with strawberries and champagne... because he is a bit tired.

He would never disappoint her if they had made plans in advance. You are losing it Vivisectus. You have no idea what you're even talking about.

Ah, so you agree that it would be wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

According to your rule, it is wrong of you to even feel let down.

It's not a matter of being wrong or right. It's a matter of wanting to please your partner, but if something comes up such as an illness, the other partner would understand. Disappointment happens, but disregard for the other's feeling will not happen.

Not because of the rule. Disregard needs to not be possible in the first place, or the rule is useless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When youa re done that, please show me how mathematics is applicable to ethics in any way. It should make for an interesting read.

These are undeniable (mathematical) principles that are applicable because they clearly show who must yield in situations where two desires are in conflict. The interesting thing is that this system is able to create a more loving relationship than anything we now see. The people who have loving relationships are already using this system, even though they may be unaware of the principles they are using.

You have not shown anything, so I am going to have to draw the conclusion you are unable to.

peacegirl · #**27934** 06-25-2013, 09:10 PM