A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

What you are saying is that the photon that is supposed to be at the eye hasn't arrived (the one with the information), so how can you be talking about another photon? If the eyes are efferent it doesn't matter which photon has arrived because we're not talking about the time it takes for light to bring the information. It is bringing no information through space/time. It is revealing the object in real time, which is a different account altogether. The belief that light travels through space/time -- which the brain then decodes into an image -- is so entrenched in your mind that you cannot extricate yourself from it, and because of this, you think your analysis renders this model unplausible. If you want to explain your refutation to me then go ahead but I will not be constantly interrogated when your questions don't even apply to this account and therefore cannot be used to negate it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

That is in no way an explanation. How does the lens bend light?

Convex lenses are thicker at the middle. Rays of light that pass through the lens are brought closer together (they converge). A convex lens is a converging lens. When parallel rays of light pass through a convex lens the refracted rays converge at one point called the principal focus. The distance between the principal focus and the centre of the lens is called the focal length.

For a magnified image to be observed the distance between the object and the lens has to be shorter than the focal length of the lens. The image formed is upright, magnified and virtual.

Convex & Concave Lenses - Pass My Exams: Easy exam revision notes for GSCE Physics

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say the eyes don't contain afferent nerves. You're such a liar.

He said "The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ."

Lessans said exactly "there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.", which in plain English means that not only are there no particular afferent nerve endings for vision, there aren't even any afferent nerve endings that are similar to the other afferent nerve endings in the other sense organs. If you are claiming that he meant something different, What did he mean? And if he did mean something different, then what he wrote exactly, was a mistake.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean I can't change the phenomenon I am describing? All I'm doing is offering an alternate explanation as to how Lessans believed the eyes work. How am I no longer explaining or describing the same phenomenon that I purported to be explaining?

Because the phenomenon your are describing is not the phenomenon that has been observed in the real world.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well obviously if the alternate account is different from the original account the phenomenon changes, but what's more important is that this change does not violate the laws of physics.

But it does. Real-time seeing contradicts relativity.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did over a hundred times. Efferent vision.

That explains nothing, and means even less.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by But

But it does. Real-time seeing contradicts relativity.

I believe I was the first one to point this out to her, about three years ago. Reality makes no difference to her tiny little mind.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess you're going to have to trust me. My father would not have put a math problem in the book that he knew the answer to, and make that kind of mistake. He was using a manual typewriter and it is not beyond a reasonable doubt that this is exactly what happened. Your agenda to portray my father, a man you didn't know, in a negative light is not going to work LadyShea because none of your accusations has anything to do with the veracity of his 3 discoveries.

Oh My Goodness! That is just about the biggest stretch yet. We are being asked to trust someone who has been repeatedly demonstrated to have lied. There's no way in hell or anywhere else that I would trust you with anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

But it does. Real-time seeing contradicts relativity.

I don't think so. Can you show me where?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I can't believe how appropriate peacegirl's avatar is. A goggle-eyed cretin with a Stepford wife grin, and now I just noticed that the cretin is saluting while that "Join the Revolution" shit blinks off and on. It's something so self-refernetial as this that makes me again wonder, as I do from time to time, whether peacegirl is actually the Internet's most successful troll, not believing a word of what she writes but stringing people along for more than a decade now.

Yep, I think we have agreed on that for some time now. I forget when I mentioned it the first time, and I'm too lazy to look it up.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by davidm

I can't believe how appropriate peacegirl's avatar is. A goggle-eyed cretin with a Stepford wife grin, and now I just noticed that the cretin is saluting while that "Join the Revolution" shit blinks off and on. It's something so self-refernetial as this that makes me again wonder, as I do from time to time, whether peacegirl is actually the Internet's most successful troll, not believing a word of what she writes but stringing people along for more than a decade now.

That has long been my suspicion. How could anyone with a minimally-functioning brain be as mind-bogglingly ignorant as she claims to be? And how could anyone as unbelievably stupid as she appears to be manage to be even minimally functional?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well obviously if the alternate account is different from the original account the phenomenon changes, but what's more important is that this change does not violate the laws of physics. If the phenomenon didn't change (seeing in real time), then there would be nothing to correct.

Except that the laws of physics correspond to the original (afferent) account and do not correspond to the alternate (efferent) account. So the alternate account does violate the known laws of physics.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think so. Can you show me where?

Jesus fucking Christ, you are a goddamned idiot.

It has been repeatedly shown to you. By myself and others. I showed it to you three years ago, with Einstein's own train thought experiment, which would have been impossible under real-time seeing. What do you think the relativity of simultaneity means, you ignoramus?

Do you seriously believe anyone* is going to waste time showing you again how Lessans' claims are contradicted by relativity? We all know by now that you are either a troll, or one of the stupidest people on the planet. Your Swiss-cheese brain retains nothing.

There are pages and pages and pages of discussion, in this thread, about how real-time seeing is absolutely incompatible with the theory of relativity. Go look back through what has already been written to receive an answer to your question, you fucking half wit.

*Well, perhaps But will want to demonstrate it, since your question was directed to him, but he should know this topic has been gone over, in this thread, in great detail. So if But takes a crack at this, he should bear in mind that he is addressing the village idiot, and everything he says has already been said before, repeatedly, and it will go in one ear and out the other, since peacegirl lacks anything between the ears.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus fucking Christ, you are a goddamned idiot.

It has been repeatedly shown to you. By myself and others. I showed it to you three years ago, with Einstein's own train thought experiment, which would have been impossible under real-time seeing. What do you think the relativity of simultaneity means, you ignoramus?

Do you seriously believe anyone* is going to waste time showing you again how Lessans' claims are contradicted by relativity? We all know by now that you are either a troll, or one of the stupidest people on the planet. Your Swiss-cheese brain retains nothing.

There are pages and pages and pages of discussion, in this thread, about how real-time seeing is absolutely incompatible with the theory of relativity. Go look back through what has already been written to receive an answer to your question, you fucking half wit.

*Well, perhaps But will want to demonstrate it, since your question was directed to him, but he should know this topic has been gone over, in this thread, in great detail. So if But takes a crack at this, he should bear in mind that he is addressing the village idiot, and everything he says has already been said before, repeatedly, and it will go in one ear and out the other, since peacegirl lacks anything between the ears.

(Phys.org) -- Philosophers have debated the nature of time long before Einstein and modern physics. But in the 106 years since Einstein, the prevailing view in physics has been that time serves as the fourth dimension of space, an arena represented mathematically as 4D Minkowski spacetime. However, some scientists, including Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, argue that time exists completely independent from space. In a new study, Sorli and Fiscaletti have shown that two phenomena of special relativity - time dilation and length contraction - can be better described within the framework of a 3D space with time as the quantity used to measure change (i.e., photon motion) in this space.

The scientists have published their article in a recent issue of Physics Essays. The work builds on their previous articles, in which they have investigated the definition of time as a “numerical order of material change.”

The main concepts of special relativity - that the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and that there is no absolute reference frame - are traditionally formulated within the framework of Minkowski spacetime. In this framework, the three spatial dimensions are intuitively visualized, while the time dimension is mathematically represented by an imaginary coordinate, and cannot be visualized in a concrete way.

In their paper, Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that, while the concepts of special relativity are sound, the introduction of 4D Minkowski spacetime has created a century-long misunderstanding of time as the fourth dimension of space that lacks any experimental support. They argue that well-known time dilation experiments, such as those demonstrating that clocks do in fact run slower in high-speed airplanes than at rest, support special relativity and time dilation but not necessarily Minkowski spacetime or length contraction. According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities.

“With clocks we measure the numerical order of motion in 3D space,” Sorli told Phys.org. “Time is 'separated' from space in a sense that time is not a fourth dimension of space. Instead, time as a numerical order of change exists in a 3D space. Our model on space and time is founded on measurement and corresponds better to physical reality.”

To illustrate the difference between the two views of time, Sorli and Fiscaletti consider an experiment involving two light clocks. Each clock's ticking mechanism consists of a photon being reflected back and forth between two mirrors, so that a photon's path from one mirror to the other represents one tick of the clock. The clocks are arranged perpendicular to each other on a platform, with clock A oriented horizontally and clock B vertically. When the platform is moved horizontally at a high speed, then according to the length contraction phenomenon in 4D spacetime, clock A should shrink so that its photon has a shorter path to travel, causing it to tick faster than clock B.

But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the length contraction of clock A and subsequent difference in the ticking rates of clocks A and B do not agree with special relativity, which postulates that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames. They say that, keeping the photon speed the same for both clocks, both clocks should tick at the same rate with no length contraction for clock A. They mathematically demonstrate how to resolve the problem in this way by replacing Minkowski 4D spacetime with a 3D space involving Galilean transformations for three spatial coordinates X, Y, and Z, and a mathematical equation (Selleri's formalism) for the transformation of the velocity of material change, which is completely independent of the spatial coordinates. Sorli explained that this idea that both photon clocks tick at the same rate is not at odds with the experiments with flying clocks and other tests that have measured time dilation. This difference, he says, is due to a difference between photon clocks and atom-based clocks.

“The rate of photon clocks in faster inertial systems will not slow down with regard to the photon clocks in a rest inertial system because the speed of light is constant in all inertial systems,” he said.

“The rate of atom clocks will slow down because the 'relativity' of physical phenomena starts at the scale of pi mesons.”

He also explained that, without length contraction, time dilation exists but in a different way than usually thought. “Time dilatation exists not in the sense that time as a fourth dimension of space dilates and as a result the clock rate is slower,” he explained. “Time dilatation simply means that, in a faster inertial system, the velocity of change slows down and this is valid for all observers. GPS confirms that clocks in orbit stations have different rates from the clocks on the surface of the planet, and this difference is valid for observers that are on the orbit station and on the surface of the planet. So interpreted, 'time dilatation' does not require 'length contraction,' which as we show in our paper leads to a contradiction by the light clocks differently positioned in a moving inertial system.” He added that the alternative definition of time also agrees with the notion of time held by the mathematician and philosopher Kurt Gödel.

“The definition of time as a numerical order of change in space is replacing the 106-year-old concept of time as a physical dimension in which change runs,” Sorli said. “We consider time being only a mathematical quantity of change that we measure with clocks. This is in accord with a Gödel view of time. By 1949, Gödel had produced a remarkable proof: 'In any universe described by the theory of relativity, time cannot exist.' Our research confirms Gödel's vision: time is not a physical dimension of space through which one could travel into the past or future.”

In the future, Sorli and Fiscaletti plan to investigate how this view of time fits with the broader surroundings. They note that other researchers have investigated abolishing the idea of spacetime in favor of separate space and time entities, but often suggest that this perspective is best formulated within the framework of an ether, a physical medium permeating all of space. In contrast, Sorli and Fiscaletti think that the idea can be better modeled within the framework of a 3D quantum vacuum. Rather than viewing space as a medium that carries light, light's propagation is governed by the electromagnetic properties (the permeability and permittivity) of the quantum vacuum.

“We are developing a mathematical model where gravity is a result of the diminished energy density of a 3D quantum vacuum caused by the presence of a given stellar object or material body,” Sorli said. “Inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same origin: diminished energy density of a quantum vacuum. This model gives exact calculations for the Mercury perihelion precession as calculations of the general theory of relativity.”


Read more at: Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Convex lenses are thicker at the middle. Rays of light that pass through the lens are brought closer together (they converge). A convex lens is a converging lens. When parallel rays of light pass through a convex lens the refracted rays converge at one point called the principal focus. The distance between the principal focus and the centre of the lens is called the focal length.

For a magnified image to be observed the distance between the object and the lens has to be shorter than the focal length of the lens. The image formed is upright, magnified and virtual.

Convex & Concave Lenses - Pass My Exams: Easy exam revision notes for GSCE Physics

You are still dodging the issue of refraction which is what is actually bending the light. Refraction is caused by a change in the speed of traveling light. How does the efferent model explain refraction?
Also, don't you realize that everything you keep cutting and pasting is completely based on afferent vision. That is saying that the eye sees light. Youre the one trying to make a square peg (efferent vision) fit in a round hole (optics).

So again please explain in your own words how refraction works without the speed of light being a factor.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You are still dodging the issue of refraction which is what is actually bending the light. Refraction is caused by a change in the speed of traveling light. How does the efferent model explain refraction?
Also, don't you realize that everything you keep cutting and pasting is completely based on afferent vision. That is saying that the eye sees light. Youre the one trying to make a square peg (efferent vision) fit in a round hole (optics).

So again please explain in your own words how refraction works without the speed of light being a factor.

I never said light wasn't a factor. In fact, the properties of light are what allow us to see the object. The only difference is that we are not waiting for the light to travel 81/2 minutes because we're not interpreting the image from light itself. We are using the light to seeing the actual object which means that if it is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the light becomes a mirror image. If this light strikes a convex lens we will see a magnified object, but this does not mean that the brain is decoding a delayed image. I am not trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I'm explaining why light is a necessary condition of sight in both accounts.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well obviously if the alternate account is different from the original account the phenomenon changes, but what's more important is that this change does not violate the laws of physics. If the phenomenon didn't change (seeing in real time), then there would be nothing to correct.

You really are a complete idiot. You are still confusing explanans and explanandum. You have no idea of what an explanation actually is.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you are saying is...

Nope. What I am doing is asking you perfectly reasonable questions about your own account. And what you are doing is lying, evading, and weaseling because your delusions have made you constitutionally incapable of even attempting an honest answer.


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think so. Can you show me where?

Relativity forbids any transmission of information faster than the speed of light.

Let's say Alice has a friend, Bob, on a fast spaceship which is travelling away from Earth and has a telescope and a numerical display on board. Alice shows this week's winning lottery numbers to Bob using her own numerical display. Both of their displays have large, bright numbers ("Meets the requirements of Efferent vision (TM)" it says on the package).

Bob sees the lottery numbers instantly using his telescope. He shows them to Alice using the display on the spaceship. Because he is quickly moving away from Earth, in Bob's reference frame Alice sees the lottery numbers in her own past, before the lottery takes place. She wins the lottery, takes a trip to the Bahamas and promptly forgets to send Bob the winning numbers.

[davidm]

Hey, goofball (that's you, peacegirl), when you copypasta stuff that you desperately Google up in the vain hope that it supports your nonsense, it makes you look real stupid. The wall of text you pasted does NOT question special relativity, it questions the reality of Minkowski 4D spacetime as an ontological representation of SR. Not that you would understand any of that, though it has been explained to you.

The authors are not questioning SR. And SR is wholly incompatible with real time seeing.

Idiot.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(Phys.org) -- Philosophers have debated the nature of time long before Einstein and modern physics. But in the 106 years since Einstein, the prevailing view in physics has been that time serves as the fourth dimension of space, an arena represented mathematically as 4D Minkowski spacetime. However, some scientists, including Amrit Sorli and Davide Fiscaletti, founders of the Space Life Institute in Slovenia, argue that time exists completely independent from space. ...


Read more at: Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

Looks like garbage.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You really are a complete idiot. You are still confusing explanans and explanandum. You have no idea of what an explanation actually is.

I know the difference. An explanandum (a Latin term) is a phenomenon that needs to be explained and its explanans is the explanation of that phenomenon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Looks like garbage.

Lack of popularity doesn't mean these physicists are wrong. To call it garbage that quickly makes me wonder if you even read it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, goofball (that's you, peacegirl), when you copypasta stuff that you desperately Google up in the vain hope that it supports your nonsense, it makes you look real stupid. The wall of text you pasted does NOT question special relativity, it questions the reality of Minkowski 4D spacetime as an ontological representation of SR. Not that you would understand any of that, though it has been explained to you.

The authors are not questioning SR. And SR is wholly incompatible with real time seeing.

Idiot.

You can't read David. Because there are actual physicists who have reason to believe there is no fourth dimension, you fire more insults at me, as if this changes reality?

According to the conventional view, clocks run slower at high speeds due to the nature of Minkowski spacetime itself as a result of both time dilation and length contraction. But Sorli and Fiscaletti argue that the slow clocks can better be described by the relative velocity between the two reference frames, which the clocks measure, not which the clocks are a part of. In this view, space and time are two separate entities.

Read more at: Physicists continue work to abolish time as fourth dimension of space

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. What I am doing is asking you perfectly reasonable questions about your own account. And what you are doing is lying, evading, and weaseling because your delusions have made you constitutionally incapable of even attempting an honest answer.


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Forget it Spacemonkey. I asked you to explain why you feel the efferent model is implausible (by answering your own questions) and I can agree or not agree, but of course that's not good enough. You want me to be interrogated until I give in. You are trying to use a prosecutor's strategy where the defendant gets cornered and can only answer with yes and no, and then when he thinks he's got you in the palm of his hand he says, "No further questions." Well guess what? There are further questions but they are not going to come from you.