A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if that part of the orbit is obstructed in some way which causes the moon to be delayed as it moves around it?

Do you realize this doesn't make any sense at all? You are saying that there is something in the way which slows the moon down.. and then what? How is it going to speed up again afterwards?

[Stephen Maturin]

It's a conspiracy, But. Io is the ringleader. Jupiter's moons are using space magic to speed themselves up and slow themselves down because they hate Lessans for challenging their precious worldview.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if that part of the orbit is obstructed in some way which causes the moon to be delayed as it moves around it?

Here's a much more compelling hypothesis: What if your Daddy was a numbskull?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why can't humans recognize their beloved dogs by smelling their urine on a tree if all our other senses are working perfectly? It doesn't add up unless our noses don't work like the other senses in relation to the brain.

It is true that our olfactory system is weaker than that of a dog's. We identify through sight whereas they identify through smell and sound. Thank you for finally admitting that although dogs are known to see quite well, they cannot identify what it is they are seeing without their other senses to help them. The reason they cannot identify their beloved master from a picture no matter how clear the picture is, is because of their inability to take a photograph of the individual features with the person to whom these features belong, which requires language that dogs do not have.

p. 123 At a very early age our brain not only records sound, taste, touch
and smell, but photographs the objects involved which develops a
negative of the relation whereas the brain of a dog is incapable of this.
When he sees the features of his master without any accompanying
sound or smell he cannot identify because no photograph was taken.
A dog identifies predominantly through his sense of sound and smell
and what he sees is in relation to these sense experiences, just as we
identify most of the differences that exist through words and names.
If the negative plate on which the relation is formed is temporarily
disconnected — in man’s case the words or names, and in the dog’s
case the sounds and smells — both have a case of amnesia. This gives
conclusive evidence as to why an animal cannot identify too well with
his eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if dogs can't recognize faces from photographs (which you have not proven or even evidenced, merely asserted) it would only point to differences in cognitive function, not a difference in the eyes.

Of course it is cognitive function. The brain and the eyes are connected and if the brain cannot use language in the same way humans do, dogs will be unable to associate features the way humans do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Do you realize this doesn't make any sense at all? You are saying that there is something in the way which slows the moon down.. and then what? How is it going to speed up again afterwards?

I gave that as an example only. All I can say is that as much as you believe the Jupiter Io moon observation proves that we see in delayed time, I believe that Lessans' observations prove that we see in real time. Only time will tell whether he was wrong or right. I am almost certain we won't be here by then, so you won't have to worry about me saying "I told you so."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All of the weird ass, counterintuitive things science has investigated...gravitational lensing, dark matter, supermassive black holes at the center of the galaxy, multiple dimensions, extrasolar planets made entirely of diamond...and you think the effects of dust and gaseous matter on light is something nobody ever thought of? That is something they've studied it here on Earth

Actually, intergalactic dust has been a pretty recent finding as far as what I've read. The only reason I brought this up is to show that when light interacts with matter even coming from another galaxy, we would be able to see this dust in real time (using a telescope, of course).

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here's a much more compelling hypothesis: What if your Daddy was a numbskull?

If Seymour were a numbskull, he would have claimed knowledge that human will is not free means that Thou Shalt Not Blame. He would then have claimed that no one armed with the requisite knowledge would ever harm anyone again because the actor would know the victim would never blame him, so the actor's conscience would kick in and prevent him from desiring to act harmfully in the first place. He'd then bring the entire idiotic edifice down on his own head by saying that Thou Shalt Not Blame applies only before a harm is delivered, not after.

Oh wait ...

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is more than an arbitrary name; it suggests that time is a 4th dimension that can bend, curve, contract, and expand.

Only if you get your education on relativity from crackpots. Try actually learning something from a textbook.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to whom? If time doesn't exist as a dimension, how can time dilation be a correct explanation for why clocks run slow?

Time dilation isn't an explanation; time dilation is a description of clocks running slow. And time does exist as a dimension in relativity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's such a bunch of bull, and I think you know it. He does not rummage around for any old crap.

Sure he does. His maths is crap; his physics is crap, his reasoning is crap.

And don't tell me that the author of these articles doesn't have an impact on the ideas that you form. If Einstein wrote the article, you would think twice before calling him a crackpot.

Sure, experts are worth listening to (though I know enough about relativity to say that stuff is crap even if Einstein had written it). Lessans wasn't an expert; he was a crackpot. That guy you're quoting isn't an expert; he's a crackpot.

You only like that guy because his 'ideas make sense': you like his conclusions. You don't understand his reasoning, don't care it's crap, don't care about evidence. You just like the end result, and that means you believe it. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only time will tell whether he was wrong or right.

It's already told us you're wrong.

But you will never know, because no matter what is presented. you'll just proudly reassert you're belief in Lessans. Stop being so deceiptful and saying such things as if you give a damn about evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that matter is different from light. We can see light when it arrives but we're right back to the question of whether the image of an object is actually reflected through space/time or not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am only asking about visible supernova right now, specifically sn1987a, because they are exactly analogous to Lessans Sun scenarios (1. Sun turned on at noon and 2. Sun exploding). The Sun is a star and supernova are stars so should be a literal extension of the principles he was illustrating.

Now, can you think of any reason his principles shouldn't extend to supernova 1987a? He said real time vision extended to everything we could see, including distant stars.

Okay, Supernova 1987a will be our example, as it was naked eye visible, so obviously met the requirements of real time seeing as per Lessans. It was close enough and bright enough and big enough to be seen, and we know this because it could be seen.

Maybe the light from the explosion did show up many lightyears later or maybe it didn't. I know all about neutrinos.

It shouldn't be confusing to you at all. Lessans specifically included distant stars in his real time seeing idea...he said it takes no time to see the Sun, the moon, and distant stars.

I am just trying to separate light that travels at 186,000 miles a second with the idea that we can still see in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why? Your model is supposed to explain everything we see. We see distant stars and we see supernova, and sn1987a was even naked eye visible. Efferent vision either applies to everything we see, or it doesn't apply to anything. You don't get to separate it!

Logically, if light from an explosion traveled over the course of many lightyears and finally reached our telescopes, we would see the light from this star suddenly become bright because the light would have arrived. I can't argue with this. The question then becomes: Would we theoretically be able to see past events (such as Columbus discovering America) from light itself even though the event was long gone? I don't think so although logically you could make the case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because we receive light at the same time the neutrinos arrive does not mean that real time vision is out of the question.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it doesn't mean that...it is a direct observation in need of an explanation (this is "working it backwards", which science does too). So, since it is exactly analogous to Lessans Sun on at noon scenario, if the hypothesis of efferent vision is true, the direct observations should be explainable using the principles of efferent vision.

I can't explain it. That must mean your version of sight is the correct one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this light travels long after the event, we would get light but I don't believe we would get an exact image of what happened 68 million light years ago.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

168 thousand years if we stick with sn1987a

You are assuming that these neutrinos came from millions of lightyears ago. How do you know that?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said millions of years? I am talking about SN 1987A (as it is the best investigated example and was naked eye visible, and the first time we verified neutrinos prior to the supernova event), and the neutrinos traveled 168,000 years to reach Earth.

How do you know that the explosion is not in real time?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, we know that neutrinos travel at the speed of light, and the neutrinos arrived within hours of us being able to see the star get bigger and brighter in a single day. If we saw the explosion (brightening and enlarging) in real time, as it happened, then the traveling neutrinos would not have arrived until 168,000 after we saw the supernova....just as Lessans stated the we would see the ignition of the Sun in real time, as it happened, while the traveling photons would not arrive on Earth for 8.5 minutes.

I am using Lessans illustration and trying to extend it to other stars, and it doesn't seem to work.

If the Sun was just turned on we would expect to see neutrinos at the same time the light arrives 81/2 minutes later. Where does this conflict?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We can't see neutrinos, we detect them. And, it conflicts because we should have been able to see the supernova 168 thousand years before the neutrinos arrived, just as we Lessans said we would see the Sun 8.5 minutes before the photons arrived.

That makes logical sense.

Originally Posted by peacgirl

Seeing light though is different from the image of the Sun in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seeing a star is seeing a star, right? The Sun is a star as is the star that went supernova. Both are visible, so meet the requirements of efferent vision. Lessans specifically said we see the Sun, moon, and stars in "no time". Why are you introducing a difference between these two visible objects in the context of efferent vision, when Lessans said there was no difference?

Your logic appears impeccable so I have no rebuttal. I still believe there are loopholes in what seems to be a perfectly airtight demonstration, but I can't prove it. Therefore, I think it's best we leave this discussion on that note. I am not convinced that we would see events from the past even if it were falsifiable. I know you don't agree based on your analysis, and I can accept that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's already told us you're wrong.

But you will never know, because no matter what is presented. you'll just proudly reassert you're belief in Lessans. Stop being so deceiptful and saying such things as if you give a damn about evidence.

All I can do is give you his version of why he believed the eyes were efferent, and why this mattered to him. This discussion has become a train wreck because the issue of delayed or real time vision has no personal value to anyone other than astronomers. What I do care about is how we become conditioned and how this conditioning is based on words that have no corresponding accuracy in the real world yet they have hurt so many. I am really tired of discussing this topic especially because there's nothing to be gained. His first discovery was never carefully analyzed and this is the discovery that matters most. Unfortunately, my father has already been portrayed as someone who didn't have the ability to make such a discovery, which is not true.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, my father has already been portrayed as someone who didn't have the ability to make such a discovery, which is not true.

Why is that?

Oh yeah, the first part of your post:

All I can do is give you his version of why he believed the eyes were efferent, and why this mattered to him.

Yes, all you can do is tell us 'astute observations' and give some ridiculous reasoning about dogs not recognising their owners. No wonder we don't take him seriously. You don't take it seriously yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to show that if light strikes interstellar dust, we will see the image instantly, not in delayed time.

Wow. Now 'interstellar dust' has become the new mirror image/closed system/proportionality - her new magic word that supposedly makes the impossible possible. What a dingbat.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are getting more and more infantile as the days go by. Na na na na na.

I know you are but what am I? - Pee-Wee's Big Adventure - YouTube

I Know You Are But What Am I with Pee Wee Herman - YouTube

I was being serious. Not all vantage points are equal, and you are completely insane.

[Spacemonkey]

Those questions Peacegirl is too stupid and/or dishonest to even try to 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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

If Seymour were a numbskull, he would have claimed knowledge that human will is not free means that Thou Shalt Not Blame. He would then have claimed that no one armed with the requisite knowledge would ever harm anyone again because the actor would know the victim would never blame him, so the actor's conscience would kick in and prevent him from desiring to act harmfully in the first place. He'd then bring the entire idiotic edifice down on his own head by saying that Thou Shalt Not Blame applies only before a harm is delivered, not after.

Oh wait ...

Of course "Thou Shall Not Blame" has to be applied before something is done because this is what creates a new set of antecedent conditions that force a change in behavior. In fact, the most important concept went right over your head. You asked one question and falsely concluded that he must be wrong because you misinterpreted what he meant by this statement. Then because you felt you were right, you decided to poke fun at him because you like your lulz, and who is going to be targeted for your comic enjoyment but someone who has made extraordinary claims that you believe are false? The thing is they are not false. This knowledge will change our world for the better in spite of you. You are the biggest jerk ever! Moral of story: Don't trust jerks for your information!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why is that?

Oh yeah, the first part of your post:

Yes, all you can do is tell us 'astute observations' and give some ridiculous reasoning about dogs not recognising their owners. No wonder we don't take him seriously. You don't take it seriously yourself.

You keep evading my question. Can you tell me what his observations were?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic appears impeccable so I have no rebuttal. I still believe there are loopholes in what seems to be a perfectly airtight demonstration, but I can't prove it.

Exactly. You don't give two shits about evidence, reason, logic, or the truth. You intend to stick with faith in Daddy no matter how airtight the evidence against him turns out to be. Even when you have no rebuttal at all, you will still just assume there must be completely unknown and undetectable loopholes, because you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that Daddy was wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep evading my question.

You pathetic hypocrite. You didn't even ask a question in the post Dragar was responding to, and you've been blatantly evading our questions for fucking YEARS now!


Those questions Peacegirl is too stupid and/or dishonest to even try to 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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you tell me what his observations were?

No-one here can tell you what his observations were, because they aren't in the book, and you have never told us what they were. Here I'm using the term "observation" as some thing, or some event, that is seen and recorded, not some idea that I have on some subject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Only if you get your education on relativity from crackpots. Try actually learning something from a textbook.

Is that why the list of scientists who are in crackpot territory is quite long? Since I know you won't go to the link I provide, I'll post the list here but I still can't make you read it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I applaud this guy for his courage.

The List

Are We Being Taken to the Cleaners by Spacetime Physicists?

Some of the most famous physicists in the world are not telling the truth about one of the most taken for granted concepts in scientific history. They are not telling us how they can come up with their fanciful time travel theories (wormholes, advanced and retarded waves traveling in spacetime, etc...) using a model of the universe that precludes the possibility of motion. Nothing can move in spacetime or in a time dimension-axis by definition. This is because motion in time is self-referential. It is for this reason that Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein's spacetime to Parmenide's unchanging block universe[*], in which nothing ever happens.

The following is a short list of notorious time travel and spacetime crackpots, not necessarily in order of crackpottery. Some, like Hawking, Wheeler and Feynman, are venerated by the physics community and are considered by many to be among the most brilliant scientific minds that ever lived. Too bad they believe in time travel.

Before I continue, lest I be immediately branded as an anti-relativity crank, let me make it perfectly clear that I agree with the mathematical and predictive correctness of both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity.

Stephen Hawking
Kip Thorne
John A. Wheeler
Richard Feynman
Michio Kaku
John Gribbin
Carl Sagan
John Kramer
J. Richard Gott III
Hans Moravec David Deutsch
Igor Novikov
John Baez
Ronald Mallett
Jack Sarfatti
Kurt Gödel
Paul Davies
Albert Einstein


I include Dr. Feynman and Dr. Wheeler in the list because of their Absorber Theory in which they posited the existence of advanced and retarded waves that can travel in spacetime. Here is a quote from Feynman's "The Reason for Antiparticles" in "Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics - The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures": "... So the requirements of positive energies and relativity force us to allow creation and annihilation of pairs of particles, one of which travels backwards in time." This gem of pseudoscience comes from one of the most celebrated physicists of the twentieth century.

Dr. Sarfatti, of course, is the well-known internet crackpot who believes in all sorts of paranormal phenomena, time travel being just the tip of the iceberg.

Dr. Kip "Wormhole" Thorne, long revered by science fiction fanatics, is renown for his time travel theories which he "derived", of course, from the mathematics of general relativity. Dr. Thorne believes it is possible to travel into a wormhole and reappear some time in the past. More than anyone else, Dr. Thorne has legitimized one of the most absurd concepts in science and turned it into a cult. A quick search on Google for 'wormhole' will give one a sense of the extent of the cult and its hold on the public's imagination.

Dr. Michio Kaku is an evangelizer for string theory. String theory postulates that time is one of the 10 dimensions of nature and that dimensions can be "compactified" or curled up into tiny little balls, so tiny, in fact, they can never be detected. The brains of string theorists can be described in a similar fashion.

Dr. Carl Sagan is the noted astronomer and science popularizer who spent a good part of his life trying to contact aliens and had a special fondness for the possibility of time travel. It is a pity Dr. Sagan passed away because I liked him, crackpot or not.

Dr. David Deutsch, an Oxford physicist, is well known for his ideas on the "many-universes interpretation" of quantum mechanics, a sort of fanciful way of looking at time travel that attempts to solve the obvious contradictions. The many-universes interpretation suffers from the same fatal flaw as the single-world spacetime interpretation: they are equally motionless. But this does not seem to trouble Dr. Deutsch in the least. In fact, he has built a career out of what he calls "quantum computers", fictitious magical machines conjured up out of an equally magical hat filled with zillions of changeless parallel universes. Dr. Deutsch is a veritable magician when it comes to making voodoo appear like legitimate science.

Dr. Hans Moravec is a noted roboticist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania. In his weird science book, Mind Children, Moravec claims that it will be possible to achieve immortality by uploading the contents of one's brain onto a digital computer but somehow forgets to explain how he proposes to transfer the brain's consciousness into the computer. Needless to say, he has no clue as to the nature of consciousness, any claim to the contrary notwithstanding. Dr. Moravec's belief in time travel is on a par with his equally wacky ideas on artificial intelligence and the mind.

Dr. Igor Dmitrievich Novikov is a renown Russian physicist who specializes in black holes. His book "The River of Time" is a favorite of time travel devotees. "River of Lies" would be a more appropriate title, in my opinion.

Dr. J. Richard Gott III is a professor of astrophysics at Princeton University and is the author of the time travel book, "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities Of Travel Through Time". Dr. Gott believes it might be possible to travel back in time using hypothetical cosmic strings to curve spacetime. Strange, I never knew that Einstein had his own universe.

Dr. Ronald Mallett is a professor of physics at the University of Connecticut who would like to achieve his childhood dream of going back in time to warn his father of the dangers of heavy drinking and smoking. According to a recent article in New Scientist, Mallett believes he has found a way to the past by using, not a wormhole, but twisted light. Twisted science is more like it.

Dr. John Baez, a physics professor at the University of California at Riverside, is also a famous usenet denizen. Dr. Baez is a rather curious individual in that he can hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. He accepts that nothing can move in spacetime but he does not let this little fact bother him. On the contrary, he embraces a temporal dimension and asserts that there are infinitely many "nows", past ones and future ones, all existing together. He conveniently declines to explain how we are able to move from one "now" to the next, given that nothing can move in spacetime.

No need to introduce Sir Stephen "Black Hole" Hawking. The man is a legend in his own time. Check out his "A Brief History of Time", not that he needs the money, of course. Sir Stephen is undoubtedly the Pope of the time travel religion while Kip Thorne is his number one Cardinal. Note: I had previously heard from a source that Sir Stephen had been knighted but apparently the information is incorrect. However, considering that Sir Stephen, in his brilliance, figured out that the impossible is possible, I will continue to use the honorific 'Sir' in deference to his uncommon achievement.

Kurt Gödel (how could I forget him?) is one of the gods of the voodoo science pantheon. Gödel is certainly the most often quoted yet inconsequential mathematician of the world. He is known for his incompleteness theorem, the most non-scientific, chicken-feather-voodoo nonsense ever penned by a member of the human species. In 1949, Gödel announced to the world that Einstein's general theory of relativity allows time travel to the past via "closed time-like curves." The only thing Gödel proved, in my opinion, was the incompleteness of his frontal lobe.

Paul Davies is a prolific science popularizer and a theoretical physicist at the Australian Center for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney. He recently wrote an article for Scientific American in which he writes that time dilation "illustrates a limited type of time travel." I include both Davies and the editors of Scientific American on my list of notorious time travel crackpots. In my opinion, Scientific American is mostly a propaganda rag for the charlatans and crackpots of the scientific community. Their dependence on advertising revenues makes them suspect at best. Their idea of science publishing is to develop a readership among wild-eyed Star-Trek fanatics. Hence their penchant for articles on time travel, black holes, parallel universes, wormholes, warped space and the like.

Having said that, I must make an exception for SciAm author Gary Stix who had the courage and honesty to admit that the "pace of living quickens continuously, yet a full understanding of things temporal still eludes us." SciAm does not deserve Stix.

I placed Albert Einstein at the bottom of the list because he, of all people, should have known better. The man needs no introduction, of course, but why is he on the list? Because he (reluctantly but who cares?) agreed with his good friend, Kurt Gödel, that the spacetime of general relativity allows time travel to the past via closed time-like loops even though other prominent thinkers, including Sir Karl Popper, had pointed out that nothing happens in spacetime. See Popper below.

The others on the list are, for the most part, hangers-on although they are notorious in their own right. I shall expand the list as more names come to my attention.

The Crackpottery

Michio Kaku

Michio Kaku Online: Black Holes, Worm Holes and the 10th Dimension

"Because of the enormous amount of work done by theoretical physicists within the last 5 years or so, Hawking has since changed his mind, and now believes that time travel is possible (although not necessarily practical)."
[...]
"In conclusion, don't turn someone away who knocks at your door one day and claims to be your future great-great-great grandchild. They may be right."


John Gribbin

Time travel for beginners

"In the 1980s, though, Kip Thorne, of CalTech (one of the world's leading experts in the general theory of relativity), and his colleagues set out to prove once and for all that such nonsense wasn't really allowed by Einstein's equations. They studied the situation from all sides, but were forced to the unwelcome conclusion that there really was nothing in the equations to prevent time travel, provided (and it is a big proviso) you have the technology to manipulate black holes."

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

[Spacemonkey]

Those questions Peacegirl is too stupid and/or dishonest to even try to 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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. You don't give two shits about evidence, reason, logic, or the truth. You intend to stick with faith in Daddy no matter how airtight the evidence against him turns out to be. Even when you have no rebuttal at all, you will still just assume there must be completely unknown and undetectable loopholes, because you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that Daddy was wrong.

Again, this is coming from someone who can't even recite what Lessans' claims were let alone understand them. That being said, maybe he was wrong. Maybe he didn't know what he was talking about in regard to light and sight. But I cannot give up entirely on this claim, especially if his observations as to how we become conditioned [by words] turn out to be accurate. You should be happy Spacemonkey? I gave in. I said that I really don't know. Maybe science is right and my father's observations don't rule out delayed time vision after all.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that why the list of scientists who are in crackpot territory is quite long? Since I know you won't go to the link I provide, I'll post the list here but I still can't make you read it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. I applaud this guy for his courage.

...

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

Not that idiot again.