A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't find any proof of this. Call it what you want, I really don't care Angakuk.

You think reading, which is recognizing 2 dimensional, abstract and arbitrary symbols, is less difficult than recognizing a face because of language? Babies can recognize faces, but not read! LOL! The lengths you will go to to adhere to your faith are astounding.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you actually think I'm going to answer you when you have failed to understand any of his writing up to now and actually had the gall to call his discoveries crap?

LOL what a cop out and weasel! You have been answering me for weeks after calling Lessans ideas crap, why stop now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think reading, which is recognizing 2 dimensional, abstract and arbitrary symbols, is less difficult than recognizing a face because of language? Babies can recognize faces, but not read! LOL! The lengths you will go to to adhere to your faith are astounding.

This is not about reading LadyShea. This is the ability of a baby to recognize differences early on, not by just what they see, but what they have already been taught. They know I am not mommy, so they look with wonder who this person is because they have already associated the sound "mommy" with a certain facial construction. You're all washed up as usual, and it's your faith in your abilities that goes way beyond what your actual abilities are.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why did you put all this math along with terms you don't understand in your post as if you knew what you were talking about? What a scoundrel you are.

Dragar understands that level of math, since he is an astrophysicist, so I quoted his posts demonstrating in a step by step fashion where Savain got the math wrong.

Are you confident enough that Savain- a computer programmer who thinks superbeings designed us as an experiment and left us secret messages- got it right and Dragar-a trained and experienced physicist- got it wrong, that you would put your hand on the chopping block for Savain*?


*This is how Lessans suggested we assess the truth right? Our willingness to cut off our hand for a piece of information?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL what a cop out and weasel! You have been answering me for weeks after calling Lessans ideas crap, why stop now?

For the very reason you just said. I'm stopping the bleeding. I will never talk to you about his chapter on death. You wouldn't get it, but you would certainly try to show him up by misconstruing words and propositions. As I said, you're all washed up and you're the last to know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dragar understands that level of math, since he is an astrophysicist, so I quoted his posts demonstrating in a step by step fashion where Savain got the math wrong.

Are you confident enough that Savain- a computer programmer who thinks superbeings designed us as an experiment and left us secret messages- got it right and Dragar-a trained and experienced physicist- got it wrong, that you would put your hand on the chopping block for Savain*?

I don't go by that. If Einstein got it wrong, then what?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*This is how Lessans suggested we assess the truth right? Our willingness to cut off our hand for a piece of information?

Not at all. That was his confidence that he would chop off his hand. That wasn't the proof. You are such a deceptive individual. This is what he said but you ignore it because you can't handle the truth. The truth of something is not based on who says it is due to anything but the truth's veracity, not on someone's credentials, which means nothing if they aren't right. You have been unable to deny anything he has proposed that comes close to any form of conclusivity.

This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOU have no idea what you're talking about, moron. You were also just busted blatantly LYING yet again.

Using the rotation of the Earth to determine where we are according to clock time does not prove that we are in different "nows", or we will ever be in different nows. What a crock of you know what. Let it go Spacemonkey. I'm delusional, right? So why continue with this charade? You should have nothing to worry about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about reading LadyShea. This is the ability of a baby to recognize differences early on, not by just what they see, but what they have already been taught. They know I am not mommy, so they look with wonder who this person is. You're all washed up, and it's your faith in your abilities that goes way beyond what your actual abilities are.

Quit changing the subject, Weasel. The dogs read words! Which means they recognized a series of abstract symbols and assigned meaning to it. A human baby can't even do that, but dogs can.

Why would dogs be able to do that but not ascribe meaning to a familiar series of facial features? Why would efferent vision allow reading but not allow facial recognition?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why don't you try writing what you actually mean, for a change?

Highly regarded by whom?

By the very physics community that you look to for confirmation.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't go by that. If Einstein got it wrong, what then?

If Einstein got it wrong, then some ambitious scientist- that actually understands the math- will be able to refute it coherently, back it up with hard evidence, and become very famous...the man/woman who disproved Einstein! S/He would be the new Einstein!

Not at all. That was his confidence that he would chop off his hand.

Yes, I know. See how I used the word "confident" when I asked the question? So I ask again, are you confident enough that Savain got it right and Dragar got it wrong to put your hand on the chopping block for Savain's views?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By the very physics community that you look to for confirmation.

Oh? How did you ascertain that he is highly regarded by anyone but himself? All of his papers are published on a free blog, I couldn't find his name using arXiv.org and the T.E. Institute of Larissa (his affiliation) doesn't have a physics department, so what does he do there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit changing the subject, Weasel. The dogs read words! Which means they recognized a series of abstract symbols and assigned meaning to it. A human baby can't even do that, but dogs can.

Why would dogs be able to do that but not ascribe meaning to a familiar series of facial features? Why would efferent vision allow reading but not allow facial recognition?

Because these differences in facial structure require language that dogs don't have. You can't compare seeing shapes on a few cards that dogs have been trained to recognize (I hope the dog didn't recognize by the order in which she displayed the cards, which would invalidate everything), and recognizing their masters because light is bouncing off the photograph and traveling to their eyes and into their brain for decoding, which, by the way, is the definition of sense organ.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? How did you ascertain that he is highly regarded by anyone but himself? All of his papers are published on a free blog, I couldn't find his name using arXiv.org and the T.E. Institute of Larissa (his affiliation) doesn't have a physics department, so what does he do there?

Hey, that's a good thing. Can't you read for yourself? You are always throwing names around, as if this means anything. This is exactly what Lessans was demonstrating people like you do. You can't see the relation for yourself so you depend on other people to tell you what's right and wrong.

[LadyShea]

You can't compare seeing shapes on a few cards that dogs have been trained to recognize, and recognizing their masters

Of course I can compare recognizing shapes to recognizing shapes. What do you think facial features are? And I call myself "Mama" and refer to the other people in the house by name to my dog all the time, why would she not learn that word and associate it with my face?

You are too funny.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hey, that's a good thing. Can't you read for yourself? You are always throwing names around, as if this means anything. This is exactly what Lessans was demonstrating people like you do. You can't see the relation for yourself so you depend on other people to tell you what's right and wrong.

You asserted he was a highly regarded physicist in the physics community. Did you just make that up? Why do you lie all the time?

You can't understand Savain's math, so depend on what, exactly to determine he was correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If Einstein got it wrong, then some ambitious scientist- that actually understands the math- will be able to refute it coherently, back it up with hard evidence, and become very famous...the man/woman who disproved Einstein! S/He would be the new Einstein!

Yes, I know. See how I used the word "confident" when I asked the question? So I ask again, are you confident enough that Savain got it right and Dragar got it wrong to put your hand on the chopping block for Savain's views?

No, I will put my hand on the chopping block for my father's views. What about you? Will you put your hand on the chopping block for Einstein's views who admitted that he isn't positively sure about his own convictions?

Einstein's Doubts

Einstein himself at various times had expressed doubts about the edifice of modern physics that he had helped to create— witness the remarks that follow. Perhaps his most serious expression of doubt came in a 1954 letter, the year before he died, to his friend Michel Besso: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of modern physics."13 Biographer Abraham Pais hastens to excuse this slip from contemporary certainty about relativity theory, claiming that virtually all physicists think that this self-assessment at the end of Einstein's life was "unreasonably harsh." But just a few years earlier (1948), in an introduction to a popularized book about relativity, Einstein was also circumspect about physics, in a more general sense: ". . .the growth of our factual knowledge, together with the striving for a unified theoretical conception comprising all empirical data, has led to the present situation which is characterized— notwithstanding all successes— by an uncertainty concerning the choice of basic theoretical concepts."14

In my estimation, Einstein was a person much more cautious about dogmatic expression than those who have claimed invincibility for his relativity theories. In a letter to J. Lee in 1945, Einstein wrote: "A scientific person will never understand why he should believe opinions only because they are written in a certain book. Furthermore, he will never believe that the results of his own attempts are final."15

On the other hand, Dr. James DeMeo has unearthed ambiguities in Einstein's reaction to the threatening experimental results from Dr. Dayton C. Miller, who in June 1933 published in Reviews of Modern Physics, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth."16 In the present issue, DeMeo (p. 72) provides an outstanding critique of the Miller work and its apparently glib rejection by others, such as Einstein's biographers, who dismiss Miller's work outright. Though Miller's extensive experimental work is not crucial to Einstein criticism, Einstein's and others' reaction to it is very telling.

The Einstein Myths

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You asserted he was a highly regarded physicist in the physics community. Did you just make that up? Why do you lie all the time?

You can't understand Savain's math, so depend on what, exactly to determine he was correct?

I'm not depending on Savain's math. I am only using it to add weight to what my father knew all along. There is no time dimension to speak of, so all the stuff about the dilation of time, the bending of time, wormholes that take you back in time or into the future, the warping of time due to gravitational shift, is unmitigated bullshit. Can I make myself any more clear?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Will you put your hand on the chopping block for Einstein's views who admitted that he isn't positively sure about his own convictions?

Of course not! I readily admit Einstein may have gotten things wrong, I admit any scientist can and will get things wrong, and I will always follow the best evidence to any conclusions I draw or opinions I form. As I've said since day 1. That's how science works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will put my hand on the chopping block for my father's views.

Putting your hand on a chopping block for a viewpoint is not rational or scientific, it's religious fanaticism. It's also histrionic in the extreme...which makes sense since Lessans wrote it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not depending on Savain's math. I am only using it to add weight to what my father knew all along.

You are using someone considered a crackpot all over the Internet, who used wrong math in his refutation, to add weight to your father's views. Good job! That should get you some credibility!

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to. I know my father was right. We only have the present even though clocks slow down due to velocity and the conservation of energy. Time is not a coordinate system where a position on a time index can be established.

O RLY?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where he is wrong, or is this only because he refutes special relativity? Can you put your money where your mouth is?

Sorry, but there isn't anything of substance there. He just claims that relativity is wrong. There is a bit of calculating, but in the end he just claims that the result is wrong because there are wrong assumptions, without going into detail. In another article, he tries to explain the physics of nucleons using classical electromagnetism, which is pure idiocy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think reading, which is recognizing 2 dimensional, abstract and arbitrary symbols, is less difficult than recognizing a face because of language?

It may seem counter intuitive, but I'm looking for the proof, and I haven't seen it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Babies can recognize faces, but not read! LOL! The lengths you will go to to adhere to your faith are astounding.

Babies cannot read but they can associate certain sounds that identify mommy from everyone else. The lengths you will go to try and discredit Lessans is astounding.

To understand this better let us
observe my granddaughter learning words.

It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees
various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of
differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference
to another, or may prefer to play with one toy over another, but in so
far as she is concerned all she sees are a bunch of objects. However,
as her eyes are focused on one of our canine friends I shall repeat the
word ‘dog’ rapidly in her ear. When she turns away I stop. This will
be continued until she looks for him when hearing the word which
indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has
been established and a photograph taken. Soon this relation is
formed which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists
in the external world. As she learns more and more words such as cat,
horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these
differences which no one can deny because they are seen through
words or slides that circumscribe accurately these various bits of
substance.

This is exactly how we learn words only I am speeding up
the process. Before long she learns house, tree, car, chair, door,
kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl,
boy, and so on. Until she learns the word cat she could very easily
point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the
difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be
differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been
developed. She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy,
Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam,
Jennifer, Meredith, etc.

My granddaughter can identify her mother
from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is
a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not.
In other words, as she learns these names and words her brain takes a
picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees these differences
again she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any
picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences
that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through
taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are
related to words, names or slides that we project for recognition. If we
would lose certain names or words we would have amnesia because
when we see these ordinarily familiar differences we are unable to
project the words or names necessary for recognition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

O RLY?

This whole discussion went right over your head Cynthia. These events did not happen in the past. They happened in the present and it is our recollection of them that allows us to think back to that time period. I'm sure the book is interesting as we recall those events.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Sorry, but there isn't anything of substance there. He just claims that relativity is wrong. There is a bit of calculating, but in the end he just claims that the result is wrong because there are wrong assumptions, without going into detail. In another article, he tries to explain the physics of nucleons using classical electromagnetism, which is pure idiocy.

He does not just claim that relativity is wrong. And it's not just a bit of calculating. If you can't explain what those calculations mean, how do you know they're wrong? How do you know they're wrong assumptions? He goes into quite a bit of detail. Could it be that you're head is in the sand? Here's another .pdf that questions the validity of relativity.

http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandac...Relativity.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are using someone considered a crackpot all over the Internet, who used wrong math in his refutation, to add weight to your father's views. Good job! That should get you some credibility!

I don't care what he is considered or whether this accusation is all over the Internet. Shame on you. You should know that once something goes viral on the Internet (as if this is proof of any kind ), a person's reputation can be marred. I will use my own judgment. You think my father was a crackpot, so I know you're estimation of people is completely skewed.