A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So how can we have a different "now" LadyShea on a timeline that doesn't exist? You are the expert so go ahead. Explain this so I can get it.

"Have a different now" in what way? What silly strawman have you created as my argument?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know that when you don't even know how he used it in the context of his writings?

WTF? He made up the term, and you have offered a dozen different definitions, none of which make sense in the context of what he wrote. If he meant gametes why didn't he use gametes? If he meant genes why didn't he use genes? If you know what it really means, why are you unable to define it consistently?

I think he meant it in a metaphysical sense, but you insist he was referring to a material substance with weight that takes up space. So what the hell is this stuff?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said it exists outside of our bodies? The germinal substance is the substance that is carried along from generation to generation that is within each of us. That's what gives baby boys semen, and little girls ovum. It is this material that is the geminal substance of mankind, so that mankind can propagate. This is the C that A and B are derived from. But...and this is an important point: no matter how many times A and B dies (the genes that create our personal characteristics), C (the germinal substance itself) does not die. Do you get it now?

LOL

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, I'm not. You'll just have to buy the book or the .pdf if I get it online. I know this bothers you, but oh well...

The man's writing is a product of his thinking, and Lessans writing is very confused.

FYI, why should I buy something I already have? When you had the book posted for free on line I down loaded it as a PDF so I can read it any time I like, and I have read it, and some parts, several times.

If you are the High Priestess of Lessanology, then Lessanology is in trouble.

[LadyShea]

why should I buy something I already have?

It didn't include Chapter 10

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It didn't include Chapter 10

I am aware of that, but I read ch 10 when it was posted as part of a book review, but I didn't down load it. Probably should have, and deleted the rest of the review.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance is the substance that is carried along from generation to generation that is within each of us. It is this material that is the geminal substance of mankind, so that mankind can propagate. This is the C that A and B are derived from. But...and this is an important point: no matter how many times A and B dies (the genes that create our personal characteristics), C (the germinal substance itself) does not die. Do you get it now?

This clearly illustrates the confusion evident is Lessans writings and Peacegirl's posts. They have found the term "germinal", a process, and due to a lack of understanding, have misconstrued it as some physical substance. This is typical of Lessans idiosyncratic redefinition of words due to not understanding them in the first place. It's amazing to consider that just a little education would have saved Lessans a lot of trouble.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Have a different now" in what way? What silly strawman have you created as my argument?

So explain how we can have time dilation when there is no time dimension.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This clearly illustrates the confusion evident is Lessans writings and Peacegirl's posts. They have found the term "germinal", a process, and due to a lack of understanding, have misconstrued it as some physical substance. This is typical of Lessans idiosyncratic redefinition of words due to not understanding them in the first place. It's amazing to consider that just a little education would have saved Lessans a lot of trouble.

No, germinal substance is not a process. This is not a redefinition. Once again, you're making stuff up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just because it's legal doesn't make it honest

The term "compile" means to assemble information collected from other sources.

We're talking about the compilation of a book. I added nothing that anyone would consider different enough to be copyrightable.

Derivative work
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

L.H.O.O.Q. (1919). Derivative work by Marcel Duchamp based on the Mona Lisa (La Gioconda) by Leonardo da Vinci. Also known as The Mona Lisa With a Moustache. Often used by law professors to illustrate legal concept of derivative work.

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since the way your talking indicates you don't know yet what time dilation even is, I will say again, Time Dilation does NOT refer to time being a material substance that physically bends!

Let's not get confused with words. If time is not a dimension, then how can time dilate?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's not get confused with words.

Too late.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not even true, as was pointed out to her years ago.

For example, we have a sense known as proprioception. We have two independent senses of equilibrium -- static equilibrium and rotational equilibrium (they use different sensory receptors). We have nociceptors as well -- specialized receptors that detect and respond to tissue damage, giving us a sense of pain.

There's some evidence that humans may have a limited ability to sense magnetic fields. It's well-established that at least some mammals can sense magnetic fields -- for example, Red Foxes can use the Earth's magnetic field to orient themselves.

And don't even get me started on what's generally lumped into the "sense of touch." That "sense" includes at least 4 different types of mechanoreceptors that respond to different types of mechanical stimulation (including pressure and vibration, for example), as well as at least 2 different types of thermoreceptors.

And it's not like Lessans couldn't have learned this for himself if he'd ever bothered to crack open any introductory-level A&P textbook.

Where does any of this take away from his claim of efferent vision? The dictionary definition that he used was accurate.

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is defined as
any of certain agencies by or through which an individual receives
impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five senses.
Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it doesn't discuss time itself slowing down. From Wiki: time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses. Actual, observed, difference between clocks. You have admitted this phenomena exists, it is called time dilation.

Difference between clocks doesn't prove that time slows down.

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.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

For time to expand, contract, dilate, or bend, what else could it be but physical? How else could it be conceptualized?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, I am pretty sure those words are used analogically or metaphorically to explain the physics to laypeople like us, due to the inadequacies of language...as I already discussed.

I don't think it's metaphorical. If they say that time is relative, then according to them if we were traveling at different inertial speeds, theoretically I could end end up living to 200 years.

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.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, germinal substance is not a process. The act if procreation contains this substance but the substance itself is not a process. This is not a redefinition. Once again, you're making stuff up.

Germinal substance was a popular topic of study in the early 20th century, but I haven't found any references more recent than 1955. Most of what I read concerned material that was involved in the germination of seeds. However some papers prior to 1900 did refer to a substance that was thought to be present during procreation of living things. It seems that Lessans took some of these old ideas and ran with them, letting his imagination run wild.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where does any of this take away from his claim of efferent vision?

Lessans was using his claim that the eyes were not sense organs as part of his support of instant vision and the projection of words onto reality. It has been demonstrated that the eyes are sense organs, we do not see instantly, and the projection that Lessans misunderstood, occurs inside the brain as a psychological process, and not as an external process like a slide projector.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And we have a physical record of the past in our own bodies and everything else that exists.

So what? Did you not understand anything he wrote? It's like it went in one ear and out the other. Socrates never lived in the past. He lived in the present although our recollection of him allows us to think back to that time period. Artifacts and physical records of times gone by may remind us of certain events that took place, but this recollection is occurring in the present. You are misinterpreting what he was saying. He didn't say the past didn't exist. He said that we live, eat, breathe, learn, sleep, and even die in the present and if we lost our memory, then these artifacts and memorabilia would be meaningless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That physical record proves that the past has existed just as surely as the present exists. So that only leaves the future in debate, and if the past and present can be shown to have some form of physical existence, surely the future has an equivalent form of existence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read the part about germinal substance, how else would we have heard of it?

And no, I am not nitpicking. Lessans used a term and you can't even begin to define or explain it!

So if you read it explain how it was used?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not discussing copyright at all! What is wrong with you? You own the copyright, you can do whatever the hell you want. You can legally rewrite the whole damn thing, change every word and still attribute it to Lessans...because Lessans isn't here to complain or assert his original copyright.

I took great pains not to change the original concept. He would have been proud. The changes I made are so trivial that they don't require a copyright. If the original concept was altered (which it wasn't) or I added something entirely new, that would be a different story.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Unaltered writing means no alterations...no additions, no wording changes. Compiled means assembled from other sources (assembling his writings from different books into one book).

So, if you were an honest person, you wouldn't alter and add and change things and then claim to be offering an unaltered product that you compiled and "that's it".

I did assemble his work from different sources. I put his 7 books together as one. This is a compilation. To add a phrase: "As we have seen" because I was repeating a sentence for clarification does not entitle me to be called a co-author.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF? He made up the term, and you have offered a dozen different definitions, none of which make sense in the context of what he wrote. If he meant gametes why didn't he use gametes? If he meant genes why didn't he use genes? If you know what it really means, why are you unable to define it consistently?

I think he meant it in a metaphysical sense, but you insist he was referring to a material substance with weight that takes up space. So what the hell is this stuff?

Germinal [substance] is related to the germ cell.

Definition of GERMINAL

: of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a germ cell or early embryo.

This term would not be confusing to anyone who reads it in the context it was written.

A germ cell is any biological cell that gives rise to the gametes of an organism that reproduces sexually. In many animals, the germ cells originate in the primitive streak and migrate via the gut of an embryo to the developing gonads. There, they undergo cell division of two types, mitosis and meiosis, followed by cellular differentiation into mature gametes, either eggs or sperm. Unlike animals, plants do not have germ cells set aside from in early development. Instead, germ cells can come from somatic cells in the adult (such as the floral meristem of flowering plants).[1]

<snip>

Introduction

Multicellular eukaryotes are made of two fundamental cell types. Germ cells produce gametes and are the only cells that can undergo meiosis as well as mitosis. These cells are sometimes said to be immortal because they are the link between generations.

Germ cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So explain again what you were saying? The past, present, and future are not different states of being.

The state of everything that exists changes from moment to moment. The Earth is spinning as well as orbiting. Organic cells are metabolizing and dying. Things are decaying. Now and now represent different states.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Difference between clocks doesn't prove that time slows down.

That's the definition of it, you idiot.

I don't think it's metaphorical. If they say that time is relative, then according to them if we were traveling at different inertial speeds, theoretically I could end end up living to 200 years.

Only according to someone else's clock. You'd understand that if you tried to learn about relativity from a textbook rather than a crackpot's personal webpage.

But that's too much like hard work, isn't it? Actually learning something for once?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have nothing on me at all...

I have refuted your father's claims to the point that you won't even respond to my posts. I have you on record lying, evading, and weaseling in response to perfectly reasonable questions. And above I have you demonstrating an inability to read or write basic English at a grade school level.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just mad because you don't understand how light can be at the eye without getting there.

You're a colossal idiot, as well as a dishonest weasel. You know light cannot be anywhere before it has had time to get there. You even admitted this. And now you refuse to answer these questions because you know efferent vision is completely impossible.


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 thedoc

The man's writing is a product of his thinking, and Lessans writing is very confused.

FYI, why should I buy something I already have? When you had the book posted for free on line I down loaded it as a PDF so I can read it any time I like, and I have read it, and some parts, several times.

If you are the High Priestess of Lessanology, then Lessanology is in trouble.

I was talking about Chapter Ten.