A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has not been proven to be part of a coordinate system, so it's not a dimension by definition where the axis of time and space come together.

That is not what you originally said! Are you so brain-damaged you cannot keep track of elementary conversations, and of your own words?

You denied that time had a coordinate system. And I pointed out that no one ever said that it did! Objects and events have coordinate systems; time is neither!

Now you are denying that time is part of a coordinate system, which is completely different from what you said before! What you said before was meaningless claptrap; what you're saying now is simply wrong.

The sweep, grandeur and audacity of your utter stupidity never ceases to amaze and gratify!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just quoted another website (infinite-energy) and they are saying the same thing Savain says.

Who woulda thunk it? More crackpot nonsense!

[davidm]

Infinite energy website? Oh, let me guess, perpetual motion machines, right?

Peacegirl has simply lost her mind. She is so far around the bend that she will deliberately embrace every crackpot notion on earth. Soon she'll be denying evolution and if this goes on long enough, she'll start quoting flat-earth websites. Why? Because they're anti-science, and that will be good enough for her!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was a simulation.

No, liar, it was not. Did you not read the description? The video was made by actually photographing the Jovian satellites' orbits.


The Voyager probes measured and photographed the orbits of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn from up close. NASA video showing the satellites' orbits is widely available.

But it doesn't matter. You've already announced that you don't care in the least about evidence against Lessans' claims. You'll ignore it if you can; if you can't ignore it, you'll lie about it.

[davidm]

Several years before Einstein introduced relativity theory, H.G. Wells, in his novel The Time Machine, correctly described the world as four-dimensional.

That is, anticipating Minkowski, the protagonist of the novel, the time traveler, correctly deduced that all objects in physical space must be described by a four-dimensional spacetime coordinate system, though he did not use that phrase.

The narrator, talking with a group of gentlemen in some fancy Victorian-era drawing room, I believe it was (you know how the Brits were back then), wanted to know the neccessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of any physical object. I think his example was a cube, though it could have been any object at all. A cube, however, is the simplest.

It is, he explained, a neccessary, though not sufficient, condition, that a cube have at least one dimension: a line. But there are no line-like cubes; in fact nothing could exist as a line only: a line is a mathematical abstraction. (a line drawn on paper, of course, has three dimensions; it is just that two of them are barely noticeable. So there are no actual lines; i.e., there are no true one-dimensional objects).

Therefore one must introduce a second dimension, width. Two dimensions are a necessary, but still not sufficient, condition for a cube to exist.

Then one introduces a third dimension, height. And now one has a cube.

Or does one?

Through his narrator, Wells pointed out that three spatial dimensions indeed constitute a necessary, though still not sufficient, condition for the existence of a cube. For a cube (or for any object) to physically exist, length, width, and height -- the three spatial dimensions -- are necessary, but not sufficient. A fourth dimension is required: time. In addition to possessing length, width and height, the narrator explained, any existent object must have duration. It must extend through three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. If a cube lacked duration, it would no more exist than it would if it lacked any of the three spatial dimensions. An instantaneous cube is impossible. All physical objects necessarily extend through space as well as time.

Hence, time is indeed part of a coordinate system, in which there are three coordinates of space, and one of time. Therefore time is indeed the fourth dimension, of neccessity. And therefore peacegirl is, indeed , WRONG AGAIN.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That is not what you originally said! Are you so brain-damaged you cannot keep track of elementary conversations, and of your own words?

You denied that time had a coordinate system. And I pointed out that no one ever said that it did! Objects and events have coordinate systems; time is neither!

You are playing with semantics. There is no space/time axis where the coordinates of events in the future can be located.

Originally Posted by davidm

Now you are denying that time is part of a coordinate system, which is completely different from what you said before! What you said before was meaningless claptrap; what you're saying now is simply wrong.

What's wrong? That time is not part of a coordinate system? Of course I'm denying that because time is just a measurement of change as we move from moment to moment in the present. If time doesn't actually exist, how can it be part of a coordinate system in the way you describe?

Originally Posted by davidm

The sweep, grandeur and audacity of your utter stupidity never ceases to amaze and gratify!

You're all washed up!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Who woulda thunk it? More crackpot nonsense!

Unbelievable how people are brainwashed! Did you actually go to the link and read it or are you just calling every critical review of Einstein's theories, as more crackpot nonsense?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether it is partly filled, a little filled, or completely filled is less important than the fact that space is not empty which scientists once thought. This makes a difference in terms of the direction light may take (refraction) and what we will ultimately see as a consequence.

You wrote that it was filled with intergalactic matter. If that is not what you meant, why did you write it? I can't intuit what you mean. I have to go with what you wrote. I can't read you mind and wouldn't want to if I could.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Do you think anyone here has any emotional investment in any of this, except you?

That is exactly what she claims to think. All opposition to Lessans is, according to peacegirl, based on an emotional attachment to worldviews that are threatened by Lessans' alleged discoveries.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As an example, no one has proven that dogs can recognize their master from a photograph yet you ignore this or use sketchy findings to confirm what has not actually been replicated. That's what I mean by confirmation bias. So why can't dogs recognize their masters if all the other senses are working perfectly?

Nor has anyone proven that they can't. Given that the claim that dogs can't recoginise their masters from a photograph has not been demonstrated to be true you can't reasonably use that claim as evidence in support of the claims regarding efferent vision. Yet that is what you and Lessans are doing. That is, using an unproven claim as evidence in support of some other unproven claim. The whole efferent vision business is a house of cards, and just as insubstantial.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Moreover, an observation can be accurate but the inferences can be wrong.

This same criticism can just as easily (and even more aptly) be applied to Lessans' so called observations and the inferences he draws from them.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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).

If that is why you brought it up it was waste of effort on your part because it demonstrates nothing of the sort.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you tell me what his observations were?

Can you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Infinite energy website? Oh, let me guess, perpetual motion machines, right?

Peacegirl has simply lost her mind. She is so far around the bend that she will deliberately embrace every crackpot notion on earth. Soon she'll be denying evolution and if this goes on long enough, she'll start quoting flat-earth websites. Why? Because they're anti-science, and that will be good enough for her!

You have selective hearing.

Since December 2001 our Germany based Research Project “95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of
Relativity (1908-2003)” has been presented to the public through the distribution of free copies of our
documentation in printed form and as pdf-datafiles on CDROM.

The 2001 edition has documented the existence of 2896 publications which appeared since 1908 until today in
all languages and all countries, with criticism on special relativity and some items on general relativity. The latest
edition of the documentation (text version 1.2 of 2004) has added some 900 new items resulting in a total number
of 3789 critical publications.
The documentation has been delivered to a selection of some 1480 addressees, mostly in the German speaking
countries, together with the invitation to inform the general public about the existence of this documentation and
to give rise to a public discussion about the problems brought to light by the documentation. Additionally since
2004 the documentation has been offered for download in the Internet and has been discussed on several German
discussion panels.
If we take into account that each CDROM will come to the knowledge of at least two persons, and summing up
all visitors of the internet discussion panels during two and a half year with only 20 % of the registered visitors
(several thousand), the total number of persons actually informed about the existence of our Research Project
probably exceeds 4000.

Which are these problems brought to light?

(1) Academic physics until today pretend to present with special relativity the greatest achievement of physics
in the last century. - The problem: The critics of special relativity show many fundamental flaws of the theory
which lead to the judgement about the theory to be sheer nonsense.

(2) Academic physics pretend that many experiments have confirmed the theory of special relativity, especially
the succesful operating of the atomic bomb, nuklear power stations, the GPS system. - The problem: The critics
refute all pretended confirmations or as (a) being irrelevant to the Relativity Theories or (b) forged by the
experimenters as ardent relativists or (c) intentful selection of certain data (and discarding the rest) or (d)
inconclusive interpretations of experimental data, very often disregarding the theory’s own principles.

(3) Academic physics pretend that there has been some criticism of special relativity only in the first years
which has been overruled by the majority view, and since then there has not been any serious criticism. - The
problem: The text version 1.2 of our documentation shows the existence of 3789 critical writings on special
relativity having been published during the last 95 years until today; these writings offer valuable critical
arguments from different aspects of the theory: negation of experimental results, wrong physical assumptions,
inherent contradictions, mathematical errors, neglect of the fundamentals of the theory of cognition.

(4) Academic physics suppress any critical statements or publications and calumniate the critics as cranks,
crackpots and antisemites and the like. - The problem: Our documentation shows the critical arguments to be of
high quality and generally free from antisemitic tendencies - with the exception of less than 1 percent of all
publications, mainly published between 1922 and 1944 in Germany. That means: 99 percent are free from any
expressions of antisemitism.

(5) Academic physics thus suppress the democratic rights of freedom of research and teaching in universities
und high schools, and through their informal influence on the printed media their representatives suppress the
freedom of speech for the critics in the media. - The problem: In all Western countries the critics as persons are
denied fundamental democratic rights.

In Germany the constitution (our Grundgesetz) guaranties in article 5 the freedom of arts and of scientific
research and teaching; in other Western democratic countries there are similar legal regulations. The general
public in Germany and other Western countries does not know anything about this suppression of fundamental
rights of the critics; as a consequence the general public does not know anything about the existence of a strong
and continuous criticism which has never been disproved.
The arguments of a criticism that has not been discussed cannot have been refuted. The general public does not
know the real status of the theory as a merely unconfirmed hypothesis.

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If that is why you brought it up it was waste of effort on your part because it demonstrates nothing of the sort.

Says Angakuk, the all knowing!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As an example, no one has proven that dogs can recognize their master from a photograph yet you ignore this or use sketchy findings to confirm what has not actually been replicated. That's what I mean by confirmation bias. So why can't dogs recognize their masters if all the other senses are working perfectly?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Nor has anyone proven that they can't. Given that the claim that dogs can't recoginise their masters from a photograph has not been demonstrated to be true you can't reasonably use that claim as evidence in support of the claims regarding efferent vision. Yet that is what you and Lessans are doing. That is, using an unproven claim as evidence in support of some other unproven claim. The whole efferent vision business is a house of cards, and just as insubstantial.

He made this claim based on his observations of how humans identify other people. Because dogs don't have this capacity due to the fact that they cannot photograph the word/object relationship between their master and their individual features (which requires language), he was able to make this claim without resorting to tons of experiments. So far no one has disproven this claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Moreover, an observation can be accurate but the inferences can be wrong.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This same criticism can just as easily (and even more aptly) be applied to Lessans' so called observations and the inferences he draws from them.

Obviously, the same criticism can be applied to anyone who makes an observation and a subsequent claim. It is true that the accuracy of the observations all depends on the capability of the observer.

No need to reply.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is exactly what she claims to think. All opposition to Lessans is, according to peacegirl, based on an emotional attachment to worldviews that are threatened by Lessans' alleged discoveries.

Wouldn't you be threatened if you knew these were genuine discoveries that could revolutionize our world in amazing ways? It is very upsetting that I don't have connections to the right people who could thoroughly investigate this knowledge and bring it to light. These principles are God given and time is of the essence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, liar, it was not. Did you not read the description? The video was made by actually photographing the Jovian satellites' orbits.


The Voyager probes measured and photographed the orbits of the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn from up close. NASA video showing the satellites' orbits is widely available.

But it doesn't matter. You've already announced that you don't care in the least about evidence against Lessans' claims. You'll ignore it if you can; if you can't ignore it, you'll lie about it.

I already said that my father may have been wrong about the eyes not being a sense organ, so what's the problem? That should make you feel good. If you're right, I can accept that. I'm not here to prove my father correct just because he was my father. I want to know the truth just as much as you do. I cannot disregard his claims though because I believe his observations as to how the brain becomes conditioned, is accurate. But maybe these observations don't contradict delayed time vision after all. Wouldn't that be a win/win.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Several years before Einstein introduced relativity theory, H.G. Wells, in his novel The Time Machine, correctly described the world as four-dimensional.

That is, anticipating Minkowski, the protagonist of the novel, the time traveler, correctly deduced that all objects in physical space must be described by a four-dimensional spacetime coordinate system, though he did not use that phrase.

The narrator, talking with a group of gentlemen in some fancy Victorian-era drawing room, I believe it was (you know how the Brits were back then), wanted to know the neccessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of any physical object. I think his example was a cube, though it could have been any object at all. A cube, however, is the simplest.

It is, he explained, a neccessary, though not sufficient, condition, that a cube have at least one dimension: a line. But there are no line-like cubes; in fact nothing could exist as a line only: a line is a mathematical abstraction. (a line drawn on paper, of course, has three dimensions; it is just that two of them are barely noticeable. So there are no actual lines; i.e., there are no true one-dimensional objects).

Therefore one must introduce a second dimension, width. Two dimensions are a necessary, but still not sufficient, condition for a cube to exist.

Then one introduces a third dimension, height. And now one has a cube.

Or does one?

Through his narrator, Wells pointed out that three spatial dimensions indeed constitute a necessary, though still not sufficient, condition for the existence of a cube. For a cube (or for any object) to physically exist, length, width, and height -- the three spatial dimensions -- are necessary, but not sufficient. A fourth dimension is required: time. In addition to possessing length, width and height, the narrator explained, any existent object must have duration. It must extend through three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. If a cube lacked duration, it would no more exist than it would if it lacked any of the three spatial dimensions. An instantaneous cube is impossible. All physical objects necessarily extend through space as well as time.

Hence, time is indeed part of a coordinate system, in which there are three coordinates of space, and one of time. Therefore time is indeed the fourth dimension, of neccessity. And therefore peacegirl is, indeed , WRONG AGAIN.

YOUR BIG FONT DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANY MORE RIGHT.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He made this claim based on his observations of how humans identify other people. Because dogs don't have this capacity due to the fact that they cannot photograph the word/object relationship between their master and their individual features (which requires language), he was able to make this claim without resorting to tons of experiments. So far no one has disproven this claim.

Neither has it been proven. At this point it is simply another of Lessans' claims that remains unsupported by evidence. The whole business of taking a photograph of the word/object relationship is just another one of Lessans' unsupported claims. It cannot reasonably be used as evidence in support of his other claims. Still just a house of cards.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Neither has it been proven. At this point it is simply another of Lessans' claims that remains unsupported by evidence. The whole business of taking a photograph of the word/object relationship is just another one of Lessans' unsupported claims. It cannot reasonably be used as evidence in support of his other claims. Still just a house of cards.

Whatever you say Angakuk!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wouldn't you be threatened if you knew these were genuine discoveries that could revolutionize our world in amazing ways?

It is very upsetting that I don't have connections to the right people who could thoroughly investigate this knowledge and bring it to light. These principles are God given and time is of the essence.

What you are claiming is no threat to anyone.

Then why are you wasting your time here? rather that trying to find those people? You need to make the connection to them, they are not going to come looking for you if you are hiding behind your computer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that the accuracy of the observations all depends on the capability of the observer.

And neither you nor Lessans have demonstrated any ability to make accurate observations.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf

Another obvious crank. He claims that not only Einstein, but also Newton and Maxwell are wrong. His arguments are complete nonsense.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Time does not have a coordinate system...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What you are claiming is no threat to anyone.

Then why are you wasting your time here? rather that trying to find those people? You need to make the connection to them, they are not going to come looking for you if you are hiding behind your computer.

I am not sure which direction to go or who to contact. It seems like one dead end after another because no one seems that interested in giving this book the serious attention it deserves; not that I've contacted that many people.