A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Special relativity is a questionable theory (even though it originated from Einstein) in that there is no real proof that time slows down depending on one's inertial frame of reference...

Yeah, no evidence at all (not even confirmed at a level of one part in ten to the sixteenth power!).

You idiot. Where do you get these ideas?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yeah, no evidence at all (not even confirmed at a level of one part in ten to the sixteenth power!).

You idiot. Where do you get these ideas?

Sorry Dragar, I do not believe time bends. I also don't believe in wormholes or warped space/time. Hate me for it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

TRENDS IN SCIENCE AND CULTURE
Charles Darwin a Bit Perturbed That Seymour Lessans Failed to Explicitly Renounce Theory of Evolution


'OMGUS,' Charles Darwin says of Seymour Lessans


Seymour Lessans 'reading' a book. Unfortunately, he is holding the book upside down.

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) -- In an e-mail sent from the pit of Hell, where he was consigned for all eternity for the sin of poisoning the public mind against Jesus, Charles Darwin, the evil father of evolutionary theory, wrote that he was "somewhat concerned" that Seymour Lessans did not straightforwardly attack the theory of evolution in his groundbreaking and pudpulling book, "Decline and Fall of All Evil."

"Hell is painful -- the all-loving Jesus makes sure we are clothed 24/7 in fire (He calls it "tough love") -- but somehow it's even more painful to note that Lessans failed to explicitly renounce evolution in his book," Darwin wrote. "I mean, srsly, WTF? He's all like, 'physics is completely wrong,' but he writes nothing at all about how descent with modification is a Big Lie? What's up with that?"

"OMGUS!" Darwin added angrily, speaking of Lessans.

"Don't get me wrong" Darwin went on in his message. "I understand that his stupid ideas about eyes are completely contrary to evolutionary theory, and I note that he did write some fuckwitted stuff about germinal substance and living again and again as different people even though we die, an incoherent idea that has no support in evolutionary biology or even elementary logic. And he wrote some dumb crap about the alleged evils of homosexuality and how it will fade away in his New World Odor. I mean, I'll grant him all that. But would it have been so fucking hard for him to just come right out and say specifically that evolutionary theory is false? As it stands now, his failure to specifically disown evolution automatically makes evolution suspect in the eyes of every educated person, and that's a damned shame."

You are completely misrepresenting his work which is par for the course. He never wrote anything about homosexuality, I did. You have absolutely no understanding of his discovery regarding death. It's laughable. I do believe this knowledge challenges your worldview to such an extent that you cannot control yourself or the things you say. Do you actually believe that your misguided refutations and spoofs are going to stop this knowledge from making its way to inquisitive unbiased minds? No way.

[ceptimus]

Peacegirl, it's no good on the one hand insisting that Lessans' theories should be scientifically verified and then on the other hand rejecting any scientific evidence that goes against his theories just because "I don't believe it".

Time dilation has been demonstrated in all sorts of different ways to an almost unbelievable level of precision. Scientists never claim that they are absolutely certain about anything - there is always room for more accurate observations and improved theories. But time dilation is one thing all scientists agree about: it is most definitely a real phenomenon, whether you like it or not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never implied that the accumulated knowledge of these fields is flat-out wrong.

The point is he gave his explanation and rationale as to why he believed the eyes function differently.

Actually both you and Lessans have said that "science got it wrong" which would include the last several hundred years of accumulated knowledge. You continue to lie and misrepresent yourself and your father.

Lessans never explained anything, he just asserted that it was so, and expected everyone to accept his word for it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yeah, no evidence at all (not even confirmed at a level of one part in ten to the sixteenth power!).

You idiot. Where do you get these ideas?

See Maturin's post #35716 for an accurate statement of the source of Peacegirls ideas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Peacegirl, it's no good on the one hand insisting that Lessans' theories should be scientifically verified and then on the other hand rejecting any scientific evidence that goes against his theories just because "I don't believe it".

Time dilation has been demonstrated in all sorts of different ways to an almost unbelievable level of precision. Scientists never claim that they are absolutely certain about anything - there is always room for more accurate observations and improved theories. But time dilation is one thing all scientists agree about: it is most definitely a real phenomenon, whether you like it or not.

This has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. Time is not a dimension; it is a measurement of change. The present is all that exists.

A Time Dimension Forbids Motion or the Case of the Missing Time Dimension
What I am about to say may sound amazing but do not take my word for it. Figure it out on your own, for your own satisfaction. The moment one postulates the physical existence of a time dimension (as in string theory, for example), motion immediately becomes an impossibility. Note that, in this context, dimension is defined as a degree of freedom such as an axis in a coordinate system. And it is not a matter of motion in time being possible in one direction only as most people assume. A time dimension forbids motion altogether, forward or backward, or any other direction. Conclusion: There is no time dimension along which we move in one direction or the other. There is only the ever changing present. The so-called "arrow of time" is an absurdity and to speak of the possibility of time travel through wormholes is the ultimate in crackpottery.

Passage of Time?

People often talk about the passage of time. They say that time flows or changes. However, logically speaking, it is a fallacy that time changes. Clocks change, physical processes change but time is invariant. Why? Because, again, 'changing time' is self-referential. The truth is that nobody has ever observed time changing. We only use the changes in our clocks to derive unchanging time intervals. The nasty and shocking little truth is that time does not change, a million wormhole and time travel fanatics wearing their little Klingon and Ferengi outfits notwithstanding.

The above may come as a shocking revelation to many but it is a logical fact, one that makes a lot of celebrated time travel and wormhole physicists look rather silly.

Should We Stop Using Time?

Of course not. As long as time is seen for what it is, an abstract evolution (change) parameter, there is no problem. The whole thing is analogous to the unemployment rate. No one is arguing for its physical existence but it is nevertheless useful. The same goes for time. Just as the unemployment rate is derived abstractly from the number of employed and unemployed people, time is also derived abstractly from the magnitude or rate of motion or change. The greater the magnitude of the motion or the change, the shorter the time. It is only when one decides to make time an independent variable or a dimensional axis (degree of freedom), that one moves into crackpot territory.

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.

Why Do People Believe in an Arrow of Time?

Here is what one or my readers (19 year-old Preston Sumner) wrote in this regard:

I think the reason so many latch onto an "arrow of time" is because of the human mind. We store memories and information in our brains, and so we have a "past" that exists in our heads. All our lives we have this mental function and never question it, and because of this, it's easy to envision that the past is actually "alive" and a co-existing plane of existence of some sort. The concepts of past and future become so engrained in our worldviews that we can't separate ourselves from it. Sci-fi also aids in this.

I often marvel that young people can have so much more insight into the nature of things than some of society's most celebrated and admired scientists and thinkers. Is it because the young have not yet been completely indoctrinated into the Borg-like hive mentality that is so prevalent in society. A mind is terrible thing to assimilate.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

[davidm]

Lincoln's Classic Meditation on this 'Mighty Shitty Thread'

[davidm]

Just had to get Darwin and Lincoln back to back, as they were born on the same day and year.

[LadyShea]

We don't test a dog's ability to smell, or taste, or feel, or hear,

of course we do

And Louis Savain is not a reliable source of scientific information, he is a kook. As has been demonstrated to you repeatedly. Do you have anyone credible to quote to support your views on the non-existence of time dilation?

[LadyShea]

Wait, there's more Louis Savain!

Originally Posted by Hermit

Oh, the irony of quoting Louis Savain, the crackpot who "As a Christian, I had long suspected that some of the metaphorical passages in several Old and New Testament books were scientific in nature", (1) and then proceeds to base his "scientific" theories on the books of Zechariah and Revelations, and opines that "Anybody with more than two neurons between their ears knows that evolution is a religion of cretins, created by cretins for cretins." (2)

(1) Rebel Science News: Secrets of the Holy Grail, Part V
(2) http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.au/2...36280150191616

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Last I heard about Louis Savain, he'd conclusively proven that the Bible is complete, technically accurate description of the neurology of the human brain. He was also planning to build a Christian artificial intelligence using the Book of Revelation as a blueprint.

Nope, no crackpottery there.

show spoiler

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dragar's is the actual definition as used in physics and Savain's is not. He used the wrong definition of a term that is key to his argument.

Did you miss the list I compiled of your exact quotes about the germinal substance that are inconsistent and contradictory to each other? If you could explain it effectively they would not be inconsistent and contradictory. Shall I repost them?

Savain used the wrong definition for a key term in his argument, an argument you found convincing was based on an incorrect premise. When Dragar tried to explain how this was the wrong definition you attacked him as playing word games because you don't understand the physics or math well enough to understand the explanation. But, you feel confident criticizing the physicist? Really?

He discussed light as being comprised of molecules...this is using the wrong definition of light.

I am not the one trying to get my ideas taken seriously by scientists, am I? I am not the one with a "Revolution in Thought" as a worldview that needs validating by science to be accepted. I am not the one claiming to hold the key to world peace and prosperity but needing it to be validated by scientists first. I am not the one who has dedicated my life to promoting a worldview in need of scientific validation.

Who is going to need to validate Lessans work to get the Golden Age started? Scientists. I don't need science to validate my life's work and my entire worldview or vindicate my father, but you do.

So your criticizing them at every turn is kind of a stupid PR move on your part.

LOL, intrinsic? Is that the word you meant to use?

I understand that time dilation is a fact and understand why it must be corrected for with GPS. I researched it when looking into GPS earlier in this discussion. No, I don't know all of it, I certainly don't understand the math, but I do know that the time dilation part is empirically observed and tested and in daily practical use.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I told you already. It's defined as rate of change with respect to the proper time - a separate variable, usually denoted by the Greek symbol tau. The proper time is the time an observer experiences. In fact, the rate of change of coordinate time with respect to proper time gives you something called the Lorentz factor, which is used to calculate things like time dilation and -

Oh, I forgot you don't care about learning or facts or science. You don't even care if this guy has his basic maths right: he (in your bizarre interpretation) agrees with Lessans, so you believe everything he says. And that's why you end up linking to crackpots.

More whining. He's a crackpot; his observations aren't observations, their nonsense assertions based on his crackpot interpretation of the world. Sound familiar?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They have proven to not be credible, so why bother trying to suss out whether anything they say is right or not? There are plenty of credible sources of all kinds of information out there, I don't need to waste my time with demonstrated cranks.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, you do love your nutjobs don't you?

Rebel Science News: Who Am I? What Are My Credentials?

Laugh along with Louis Savain – Stranger Fruit

The Nasty Little Truth about Idiots Who Don’t Understand Dimensions

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

of course we do

They don't train dogs through a reward system in any test that I've seen other than sight. Why is that?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And Louis Savain is not a reliable source of scientific information, he is a kook. As has been demonstrated to you repeatedly. Do you have anyone credible to quote to support your views on the non-existence of time dilation?

Savain might not be a reliable source of information to you, but he is to me. He might not be correct in everything he espouses, but that does not mean I have to throw out everything he has to say on a given subject. You can believe in the sources that tell you time bends and wormholes exist and we can go back in the past or forward to the future because of the block universe theory, and I'll believe what I want to. I don't judge the credibility of an individual the same way you do. It's questionable who the real crackpots are.

A Crackpot Is a Crackpot

Crackpottery in High Places is the Most Dangerous form of Crackpottery

Readers should feel free to suggest more names to include in my list of notorious time travel crackpots. Please use the email address at the bottom of the page. This is important because the correctness of humanity's fundamental understanding of nature is crucial to further progress. Crackpottery in high places is the most dangerous form of crackpottery. It condemns generations of young people to believe in lies and, as a result, scientific progress suffers. In fact, this whole motion in spacetime nonsense has already cost humanity close to a century of wasted time and wasted minds. In my opinion, we would have figured out the exact causal mechanism of gravity by now if our young people had not been falsely taught that Albert Einstein had already figured it out close to a century ago.

Do Not Be Afraid

If you decide to enter a name for the crackpot list, do not be afraid of legal repercussions or your standing in the scientific community. When all this stuff comes out in the open--and it will, you will congratulate yourself on your bravery. Consider also that a crackpot is a crackpot regardless of how famous he or she is, or his/her reputation in the scientific community, or even how many lawyers he or she can muster. Some of the people on the list are obvious frauds, in my opinion.

And by the way, should some in the physics community choose to take offense, they are welcome to chip in to form a legal fund that they can use to sue the heck out of everybody in order to preserve the good names of their favorite gurus. Fire away.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait, there's more Louis Savain!

Nothing here proves that time is a fourth dimension. The changes in clock time as we get further and further from earth is a real phenomenon. This mismatch of clock time needs to be adjusted in order to give us a precise GPS location, but this can be done without having to resort to the underlying presupposition that time itself is dilating and bending.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpot...us.htm#Nothing

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They don't train dogs through a reward system in any test that I've seen other than sight. Why is that?

That only means you've never looked. All testing of dog behavior includes some training with rewards.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm bored, is all. I have nothing planned today and I'm in a feisty mood. It's as simple as that.

Why don't you find something productive to do with your time instead?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That only means you've never looked. All testing of dog behavior includes some training with rewards.

There is no reward system in this test:

Canine Hearing Test at UC's FETCH~LAB - YouTube

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no reward system in this test:

Canine Hearing Test at UC's FETCH~LAB - YouTube

You said we don't test a dog's hearing, and now you post a video of just such a test. Congratulations you have just proven yourself wrong, again. And just because the video didn't show the reward, doesn't mean there wasn't one.

[LadyShea]

That's not a scientific experiment, that's a medical test. Pets become deaf sometimes.

[LadyShea]

Try these

The purpose of this project was to provide data on the success rate of dogs identifying people by scent when working in conditions similar to those used by the police in Holland and Germany. Over 700 scent samples were collected from people of both sexes and a wide age range and seven dogs, Canis familiaris, were trained to match human body scents. The test conditions were carefully controlled to eliminate any cue other than the body scents presented to the dog. Each dog sniffed a piece of cloth which had been in contact with an unspecified part of the body of a person and then indicated which of a selection of blank or body-scented cloths bore the same scent. The handler did not know the location of the target scent. The average score of the dogs working with body-scented cloths from six donors was 80% correct whereas a random choice of cloth would have been 17% correct. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...03347284713807

In a scent identification line-up, a trained dog matches the scent trace left by a perpetrator at the crime scene to the odour of a suspect in a line-up of different odours. The procedures are strictly defined and the results are routinely used by the police and as evidence in court in a number of European countries. This paper describes the effect of ageing of the odour trace collected at the crime scene on the performance of the dogs in recognising the perpetrator in a line-up.

Elsevier

Dogs were trained to detect the bed bug (as few as one adult male or female) and viable bed bug eggs (five, collected 5–6 d after feeding) by using a modified food and verbal reward system.
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

We tested whether dogs have a cross-modal representation of human individuals. We presented domestic dogs with a photo of either the owner's or a stranger's face on the LCD monitor after playing back a voice of one of those persons. A voice and a face matched in half of the trials (Congruent condition) and mismatched in the other half (Incongruent condition). If our subjects activate visual images of the voice, their expectation would be contradicted in Incongruent condition. It would result in the subjects’ longer looking times in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. Our subject dogs looked longer at the visual stimulus in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. This suggests that dogs actively generate their internal representation of the owner's face when they hear the owner calling them. This is the first demonstration that nonhuman animals do not merely associate auditory and visual stimuli but also actively generate a visual image from auditory information. Furthermore, our subject also looked at the visual stimulus longer in Incongruent condition in which the owner's face followed an unfamiliar person's voice than in Congruent condition in which the owner's face followed the owner's voice. Dogs recall their owner's face upon hearing the owner's voice - Springer

To examine the role of these structures in auditory memory, we performed rhinal, hippocampal, and combined lesions in groups of dogs trained in auditory delayed matching-to-sample with trial-unique sounds. The sample sound was presented through a central speaker and, after a delay, the sample sound and a different sound were played alternately through speakers placed on either side of the animal; the animal was rewarded for responding to the side emitting the sample sound. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...06452201001403

Ooh look. A dog learning symbolic language! There are some videos of this

A female mongrel dog was submitted to a training schedule in which, after basic command training and after acquiring the verbal labels of rewarding objects or activities, she learned to ask for such objects or activities by selecting lexigrams and pressing keys on a keyboard. Systematic records taken during spontaneous interaction with one of the experimenters showed that lexigrams were used in an appropriate, intentional way, in accordance with the immediate motivational context. The dog only utilized the keyboard in the experimenter’s presence and gazed to him more frequently after key pressing than before, an indication that lexigram use did have communicative content.A dog at the keyboard: using arbitrary signs to co... [Anim Cogn. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

[LadyShea]

I'm bored, is all. I have nothing planned today and I'm in a feisty mood.

And the last 2 weeks you've been here after a fairly prolonged absence? Boredom as well? LOL

It's as simple as that.

Whatever you say

Why do you constantly read into my motives?

I asked what your motives were. Asking straight up is kind of the opposite of reading into things.

And why do you keep coming back

I've never left , I come back to this thread when it gets bumped up. So I "come back" because of you.

as if to say I need to leave in order for you to stay away?

No, I stated pretty clearly you need to leave if you don't want to listen to Lessans ideas being "bashed". You know we will do so, so why do you come back for more of the same? Unlike you, I don't loudly wail about crucifixion and burning at the stake and gang rapes and all your martyr shit. If you think that is truly what is happening here, and voluntarily expose yourself to it repeatedly, then you must enjoy it, or maybe appreciate it because it feeds a persecution complex. If there are other rational motivations for subjecting yourself to people you think are small minded and cruel and unable to grasp the information you are presenting, to throw your pearls before swine (to use a colorful homily like you are fond of), I'd love to hear it.

[LadyShea]

Speaking of deaf dogs, how do you suppose deaf dogs are routinely trained using hand signals, since they don't have visual recognition abilities according to you?

Deaf dogs learn sign language| Latest News Videos | Fox News (no embed available)

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry Dragar, I do not believe time bends. I also don't believe in wormholes or warped space/time. Hate me for it.

That's nothing to do with special relativity, and nor do I hate you. I do hate that you lie though: there's huge amounts of evidence for time-dilation, you know that, so why did you claim otherwise?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That only means you've never looked. All testing of dog behavior includes some training with rewards.

Show me where this is the typical test that is done to prove that hearing is a sense organ, or tasting is a sense organ. They are only trying to refine their testing, but they do not for a second see a problem. There is a problem with the eyes. You can argue with me until the cows come home, but there is a difference in their testing apparatus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's nothing to do with special relativity, and nor do I hate you. I do hate that you lie though: there's huge amounts of evidence for time-dilation, you know that, so why did you claim otherwise?

Because it's a wild theory and it's trusted only because the people who offer this theory are looked up to as gods. How dare anyone argue with the likes of famous physicists. And you know who they are.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's a wild theory...

Wild? Like, this is a theory that goes to Ibiza takes its bra off and dances naked while drinking vodka surrounded by adoring theories of the opposite gender, sort of wild?

What the heck?

...and it's trusted only because the people who offer this theory are looked up to as gods.

I'm glad you think of me this way, but I'm not a god, nor are most people who talk about it.

How dare anyone argue with the likes of famous physicists. And you know who they are.

I'm sure I do. That's what famous means.

How does this answer the question I posed, peacegirl? You lied because the theory is 'wild' (wey-hey!) and, charitably interpreted, because famous physicists are regarded highly and are the ones telling people it's true? How is this possibly a good answer for your blatant dishonesty?