A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At first I thought it was some lurker, not Mr. Stewart. Lurkers sometimes come out of the woodwork to say something sarcastic, which is why my guard is up. I have it hard enough with the participants. I wish he had introduced himself first so I would know who I was talking to.

If you weren't such a dishonest weasel you wouldn't need to have your guard up in the first place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why don't you try reading it?

How are we meant to read what you refuse to share?

I am not opening this can of worms. The truth is it is impossible to understand a difficult concept such as what happens after death just by being fed short excerpts. It doesn't surprise me that people refute it in spite of this lack of understanding, thinking they know better than the author.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't argue with success no matter what anyone says.

GPS devices and Lidar (among many, many other technologies) rely upon the assumption that Lessans was wrong about how we see. Interestingly, these technologies have proven quite successful.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you weren't such a dishonest weasel you wouldn't need to have your guard up in the first place.

This is a chicken and egg question, and I think the egg came first.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

GPS devices and Lidar (among many, many other technologies) rely upon the assumption that Lessans was wrong about how we see. Interestingly, these technologies have proven quite successful.

You are so wrong about this. These technologies do not change just because we see efferently. Light works the same way it always has. Geeeeeze!!!!!!!!!!!

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just reading over the conversation he had with David makes me feel compassion toward him. Anytime someone has a new idea, it's immediately rejected which puts the person on the defensive..

I wouldn't worry about him too much because they weren't attacking each other. It's just the sophisticated and highly educated kind of snark that these guys have fun with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Trust, like respect, is something that is earned over time, and neither you nor Lessans has earned any of either on this forum. Since Lessans writings have conistantly been found to be based on fantasy rather than reality, there is little to trust. And since you have been caught in numerous untruths, there is also with you little reason to trust.

You are the one not to be trusted because you make misleading statements. This is not fantasy at all. You don't know what his first discovery is even about, so how can you, in all honesty, be respected for trying to be the devil's advocate? You can't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, could you please explain how it is possible that for so long, you strenuously denied that Wayne Stewart was arguing for the same thing as Lessans, without having read what Wayne Stewart wrote?

Because of what you told me about Mr. Stewart's philosophy. Maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm curious to hear more, but I hope this is a pleasant discussion, not an argument. I'm so tired of arguing.

Originally Posted by davidm

You didn't even realize that he wrote a book on this subject? I linked the book to you for the first time, perhaps eighteen months ago.

I only saw an essay. I am just now reading the links you gave for Clark and Waller on determinism. Thanks!

Originally Posted by davidm

You see, this is what makes people take personal umbrage with you. It's not Lessans' claims. It's your dishonesty.

I never said I read his work. I can't read everything people link me to. I would never have a life, which is already questionable as much time as I spend here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Whose entire thesis? Lessans, or Clark and Stewart, or all three?

Yes, I DO know what it is; do you? In the post that you quoted, I was merely trying to establish the thesis that Wayne AGREES with Lessans that x, qua x, is permanently extinguished. Nothing more.

Fine, so let's start from there. I never wanted to get into this chapter. Why are you so insistent? I know you're not doing this to support Lessans. There has to be an ulterior motive; I just can't put my finger on it yet.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so wrong about this. These technologies do not change just because we see efferently. Light works the same way it always has. Geeeeeze!!!!!!!!!!!

So you say. Thousands of experiments and observations -- not to mention the laws of physics -- say otherwise. According to the laws of physics, Lidar and GPS could not work if Lessans was right.

Let's see: Lessans or the laws of physics? I know which one I think is more reliable and trustworthy.

And how can you say this anyway? As you continually demonstrate -- and frequently admit -- you don't understand the relevant science. So by your own logic, what business have you in criticizing it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you doing this? To start an argument? What he is explaining is very important, but you obviously understand nothing, you never did. You are now on probation along with Vivisectus.

Oh goodie, goodie, now it's pretend probation instead of pretend ignore? Is there an Pobation Island to go with that?

Peacegirl, can you get any more Juvenile? show me please.

If I were very cruel, I would get you and Kuznetzova together, but I'm not.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't help determine the trajectory or location of a planet.

Mars Exploration Rover Mission: Technology

And, once again, this is why people find you ... well, contemptible.

Your link does not address my question. And you know this.

Lessans claims that when we see Mars in the sky, it is actually at that location, where we see it. That is, real-time seeing entails that there is no difference between the apparent location of Mars, and its actual location.

Science knows better. NASA calculates trajectories to Mars, and other bodies, based on a difference between the actual location of the objects, and its apparent location. I.E., Lessans' claims are wrong.

And you will NOT address this, because you are dishonest. Instead, you come up with irrelevant links like this one, or simply run away from the question.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a chicken and egg question, and I think the egg came first.

You finally got something right, because whatever hatched from the egg was the same creature that was inside the egg. The confusing part to some people is that you don't need a creature that is exactly a chicken to lay a chicken egg, it could easily have been a cross breed of two slightly "Not Chicken" creatures.

In reference to the other question, is was your dishonest weaseling that caused others to react, and you put your guard up. Your dishonest weaseling was the egg.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not right Vivisectus. It is extremely useful. In fact, I use it in my life now and it has saved countless arguments.

Ermmm.. with whom?

It can very easily be seen that conscience needs an excuse to do bad things to others, even if the justification isn't overt.

I know you want it to be so. But that does not make it so - and you have been unable to provide a reason to believe it is.

It's true that the only way to find out what leads to the "greater desire" is to see what people choose. The only predictive power this knowledge provides is the fact that, under the changed environmental conditions, man will be unable to derive greater satisfaction out of hurting others when not to becomes the preferable choice.

Hence the fallacy.

You keep going back to the flat earth theory. I already said that each claim has to be judged on its own merit. You cannot compare the two in all fairness. You are conflating two different trains of thought, with completely different proofs, as if they are one and the same.

I use it as a way to show what kind of ideas fit inside the standard of truth that is required to make your idea seem even remotely plausible, a fact that seem to consitently go over your head.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You finally got something right, because whatever hatched from the egg was the same creature that was inside the egg. The confusing part to some people is that you don't need a creature that is exactly a chicken to lay a chicken egg, it could easily have been a cross breed of two slightly "Not Chicken" creatures.

In reference to the other question, is was your dishonest weaseling that caused others to react, and you put your guard up. Your dishonest weaseling was the egg.

There is a simpler answer. There were eggs long before there were chickens.

[davidm]

If people want to further the discussion on Lessans' third claim, I suggest reviewing these links, for those who haven't already.

Originally Posted by wstewart

Isolating one essay scenario,

and placing it under the spotlight,

I'll ask:

Does Old Paul pass to New?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of couse you do.

Well, I can't worry about what you think because I have more important things to do.

You have stooped pretty low yourself to tell me I look like an idiot and world-class hypocrite when I have shared with you his findings which came from outside of the field, and are compelling whether you think so or not.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that if you insist that essentially all of modern science is completely wrong but can't provide a single piece of evidence to support that extraordinary claim, you look like an idiot. And the fact that you hold Lessans to completely different standards than science makes you a hypocrite. That's not a judgment or opinion; it's a fact.

Would you please stop it? I don't hold Lessans to a different standard. Yes, these are extraordinary claims, and I maintain that he has proven them. And I never said modern science is completely wrong.

Nope I don't, this is about trust which you can't handle. You have no trust at all; you are a very suspicious person which works in some situations but can backfire in others.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Only an idiot would accept a revolutionary, world-shaking claim that contradicts absolutely everything we know about physics, astronomy, optics, Relativity Theory, visual anatomy, neural physiology, etc. -- merely on "trust."

This one claim does not have the power to do all that. It does not contradict all of physics, astronomy, optics, relativity theory (depending on what is meant by that), visual anatomy (although he does claim the ciliary muscle is not the reason for the eyes being unfocused), or neural physiology.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

For all the hand-waving, the only "evidence" you've been able to provide is your assertion that Lessans made certain (conveniently unspecified) "astute observations." Every time anyone asks for details about these alleged "observations," you become petulant and try to change the subject.

That's not true. I am just tired of talking about it. It isn't getting us anywhere.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Only an idiot would accept someone's word as legitimate and adequate evidence for such a claim, no matter the source.

I agree. That's why I said time will tell. I don't expect you to agree. I just hope you keep an open mind, and when I leave here the seed will be planted.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And given how often you flat-out lie, you're anything but a trustworthy source.

I don't want you to trust me as the only source, not that I have ever purposely lied to anyone. Like I said, my only hope is that people will remember his claim and not give up on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I wouldn't worry about him too much because they weren't attacking each other. It's just the sophisticated and highly educated kind of snark that these guys have fun with.

I hope that's true. So far I don't see much conversation between the two of them. He is probably wondering if this is a thread he wants to invest time in because the tone in here is angry and disrespectful. I hope he does join the conversation; it will hopefully take the heat off of me. The truth is that without any new people, this thread isn't going to last.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So you say. Thousands of experiments and observations -- not to mention the laws of physics -- say otherwise. According to the laws of physics, Lidar and GPS could not work if Lessans was right.

That's not true. Time dilation is a theory Lone Ranger. Whatever the reason, GPS systems have nothing to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Let's see: Lessans or the laws of physics? I know which one I think is more reliable and trustworthy.

And how can you say this anyway? As you continually demonstrate -- and frequently admit -- you don't understand the relevant science. So by your own logic, what business have you in criticizing it?

I am not criticizing the relevant science, especially science that works. How can I? You can't argue with success. But the conclusions you are drawing regarding what the world look like if the eyes were not a sense organ are false. The world would not be destroyed just because we see in real time, nor would the stars be so close that the sky would be all white, nor would the planet burn up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

And, once again, this is why people find you ... well, contemptible.

Your link does not address my question. And you know this.

Lessans claims that when we see Mars in the sky, it is actually at that location, where we see it. That is, real-time seeing entails that there is no difference between the apparent location of Mars, and its actual location.

Science knows better. NASA calculates trajectories to Mars, and other bodies, based on a difference between the actual location of the objects, and its apparent location. I.E., Lessans' claims are wrong.

And you will NOT address this, because you are dishonest. Instead, you come up with irrelevant links like this one, or simply run away from the question.

I do not believe that this light/time delay factored into their calculations is the reason we hit the object. These targets are huge and they also travel. It also takes time for us to get to the target, which could easily account for the difference in location by the time we get there. I would also like to add at this juncture that you have blurred the lines between science-fiction and real science if you actually believe we can theoretically go back in time with a time machine. It's hard to take anything you say seriously now.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. Time dilation is a theory Lone Ranger. Whatever the reason, GPS systems have nothing to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

1. Time dilation is a prediction, or consequnce, of the theory of special relativity, and in confirmation of the theory, it is an empirically observed fact.

2. If we saw in real time as Lessans claimed, the theory of relativity would not only be false, it would never have been developed to begin with; and there would be no GPS devices at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Is it OK for me to ask what might be dumb questions as I read the links as I go along or would you rather that I waited until you guys were done?

I'm assuming this was meant for David but since you are sandwiched in between two of my posts I wanted to make sure because I don't want to appear rude by not answering.

[ChristinaM]

Thanks but I did mean David. He already knows that I don't speak fluent philosophy.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not believe that this light/time delay factored into their calculations is the reason we hit the object. These targets are huge and they also travel. It also takes time for us to get to the target, which could easily account for the difference in location by the time we get there. I would also like to add at this juncture that you have blurred the lines between science-fiction and real science if you actually believe we can theoretically go back in time with a time machine. It's hard to take anything you say seriously now.

This is quite incorrect, and I'm sure on some level you know that you are lying. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to calculate the distance we would overshoot or undershoot Mars if we accepted Lessans' claim that we see in real time, and that the apparent and real location of Mars in the sky were the same. If NASA used Lessans' real-time seeing claim to navigate to Mars, we would miss it every time. The fact that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations conclusively disproves Lessans' claims.

And, yes, under the solutions to general relativity, it is theoretically possible to build a time machine between two otherwise causally disconnected regions of spacetime, connected by a wormhole. The physcist Paul Davies, who is quite prominent in his field, even wrote a book entitled "How to Build a Time Machine." Why don't you, peacegirl, e-mail Paul Davies, and inform him that according to you, he knows nothing about science. That should be a hoot! Sort of like Lessans calling up Will Durant and pestering him on the phone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

1. Time dilation is a prediction, or consequnce, of the theory of special relativity, and in confirmation of the theory, it is an empirically observed fact.

In confirmation? An empirically observed fact? We cannot observe the dilation of time. It has to be an inference, and inferences can be wrong. Isn't that what you've said about Lessans' observations?

“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.”

Read more at: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

Originally Posted by davidm

2. If we saw in real time as Lessans claimed, the theory of relativity would not only be false, it would never have been developed to begin with; and there would be no GPS devices at all.

I believe this guy is on track whether you do or not.

Is Relativity Wrong?

Does the impossibility of motion in spacetime invalidate Einstein's relativity? The answer depends on whether one takes spacetime to be physically existent (as relativists do) or as an abstract, non-existent, mathematical construct for the historical mapping of measured events. If one chooses the former, one is obviously a crackpot or a fraud, or both. If one chooses the latter, then general relativity is to be seen as a mere math trick: the physical mechanism of gravity is still out there and it is incumbent upon physicists to find it.

Not Against Relativity

I get angry emails from people accusing me of badmouthing relativity, one of the most corroborated theories of physics. I am not. In my opinion, the special and general theories of relativity are mathematically correct and make correct predictions. What is wrong are all the obviously false claims made on the basis of their correctness. Relativity does not allow motion in spacetime or time travel, as Dr. Wheeler, Sir Stephen Hawking, Dr. Kip Thorne and the others claim. It forbids motion in spacetime! It is important that people see relativity for what it is, a mathematical trick for the prediction of macroscopic phenomena involving the motion of bodies in a spatial coordinate system. Spacetime is an abstract mathematical construct, that is all. The other stuff (motion in spacetime, time travel, advanced and retarded waves, wormholes, etc...), is pure hogwash. This stuff is so trivially proven wrong in fact, that it is insulting to the lay public, the same public that funds most scientific projects. Even the relativity-derived notion of time dilation is hopelessly misleading. Time does not dilate (as if time could change!). On the contrary, it is the clocks that slow down (for whatever reason) resulting in longer measured intervals.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics