A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You should be able to explain the moons of Jupiter observation then using the principles of efferent vision

Don't hold your breath waiting.

[thedoc]

Interesting chart, and the folks on Rigel would not have been able to watch Columbus landing yet. They'll need to wait another 877 years. Assuming they will have a lens or mirror big enough to gather enough photons from the event.

403 Forbidden

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Vivisectus, how are you? It's been a long time we've talked. I'm not lazily opining. I have heard the arguments. I remember yours in particular where you questioned why the planet isn't where we see it, so how can we see in real time? This has recently been brought up. I also remember you denouncing the right-of-way system as being a flawed concept. I haven't changed my presentation because that's the basis of the knowledge I'm presenting. I understand that scientists work tirelessly in their effort to know the truth, and I respect their efforts, but to make fun of his discovery just because he came to a different conclusion regarding the eyes, is highly unfair. I hope for his his day in court (even if it's a century from now) where his observations will be taken seriously.

Heya Pg! I was not talking to you there, I was addressing thedoc who was doing his usual party trick of posting without actually engaging his brain in any way by simply giving his lazy preconceptions direct access to the keyboard. He really is a prodigy: a man whose brain would produce the exact same amount of original thought floating around in a specimen jar full of formaldehyde as it does now.

As for the real-time seeing, I really do not see why people are getting hung up on this. Lessans did not set out to write a book on optics, or on physics, or on medicine or biology. He wrote a book about human behavior and metaphysical reality. And the truth is, we really are not that certain yet about the nature of light, or even about the nature of time, or any of the basics of physics. Just look at the amazing (and fascinating) new paper that Stephen Hawking has just co-authored. In order to explain black holes and the way they seem to make information disappear (something that is not supposed to be possible according to modern physics) he has come up with a model where the information's relative time slows down asymptotically as it approaches, but never reaches, the center of a black hole.

If someone wanted to be ungenerous one could say that that is not so much a theory, as a bandaid to cover one of the gaping holes in our theoretical model of the universe as it stands today. But hey, the math adds up, so physics majors like it. It is at least a good indication that almost everything we know about physics is up for discussion and re-examination.

But let us not get into that - it makes so little difference. Let's leave that to physicists to figure out. If there was some mistake, or if the truth is even more complicated - and yet similar to what your father said - then he himself would have been the first to admit it, and eagerly absorbed the new knowledge. Let us simply take note that there are differences between mainstream science and the way your father saw it, and then leave those differences for specialists to figure out in due course. In the meantime, we should simply proceed to look for evidence of the important parts of the book: the ones about human behavior, and how we can make it more harmonious.

I have to scoot now as I am already late for work - alas! Enlightenment moves but slowly and the basic wage has not yet reached me here! - but I will see if I can post some more later. There is more interesting news to report you see.

Meanwhile - what is your reaction to the strange evidence we see coming out of the Netherlands and other places? Remove blame from something simple as traffic, make it someone's actual responsibility to drive well in stead of obeying traffic signs (and knowing you will be blamed if you ignore them) and lo and behold! Traffic becomes more responsible and safer!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Welly welly well, look what the efferent cat dragged in! Good to see ya, V!

I too am now down with the clown, having opened a string of high-end translucent fuck garment boutiques. Our clothing is all hand sewn by Chinese slaves guest workers at factories in the Marianas Islands. When the Golden Age comes, those workers will be guaranteed their kingly present incomes, but they'll continue working 20 hours per day because the very thought of sitting on their asses and collecting a guaranteed $1.25 per day will fill them with crippling guilt.

Hallo Stephen! Howsit hanging?

Ah you scoff and joke and jibe, my friend, but little do you know how delighted I am that you bring up this exact part of the good book. You see, I have a dutch oven full of crow stewing away just for you with some juniper berries, bay leaf, rosemary, onions, chestnut mushrooms and just a dash of cognac.

The exact enlightened principles of Lessanism that you are scoffing at are being applied, you see.

Once again the Dutch are leading the way to the brave new world: as it turns out, not all dutchies have turned into ignorant (semi)crypto-racist nationalists just yet. The city of Utrecht, as forward thinking as it's name is unpronounceable to anyone who did not cut their teeth on a clog, is running an experiment with an unconditional basic income.

Basic income is a universal, unconditional form of payment to individuals, which covers their living costs. The concept is to allow people to choose to work more flexible hours in a less regimented society, allowing more time for care, volunteering and study.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-city-of-utrecht-to-experiment-with-a-universal-unconditional-income-10345595.html

It is a comprehensive experiment that will feature 5 groups of 250 recipients each. One group will receive normal (conditional) welfare payments, which have the usual conditions attached. 3 more groups will have progressively fewer conditions attached to their payments, and a last group will simply receive a basic income without any conditions attached at all.

The study will look into traditional work primarily, but will also measure other contributions that recipients of free money will make towards society such as volunteer work, care work, the levels of success of children in school, etc.

Several other cities in the Netherlands are already considering similar projects to measure once and for all the effects of a guaranteed basic income. Switserland is going right ahead and is going to have a referendum to start basic, unconditional income - which is to be held sometime in 2016.

The revolution is now, ladies and gentlemen. There is plenty of straw on the wind for the careful observer, and I for one can smell some delicious crow cooking away, ready to be served with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So you admit that there is no factual grounding because there have been no empirical tests. Everything is based on Lessans imagination, and nothing on reality at all. When did Lessans actually observe dogs not recognizing their masters in a photo, or did he just make that up, as usual.

No, his observations were correct, and they can be confirmed empirically if that's what people want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You should be able to explain the moons of Jupiter observation then using the principles of efferent vision

No LadyShea, that's not my job. Romer came to a certain conclusion that appeared as the only possible answer. My only job is to share Lessans' observations and hopefully in the future have scientists test those observations rigorously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Heya Pg! I was not talking to you there, I was addressing thedoc who was doing his usual party trick of posting without actually engaging his brain in any way by simply giving his lazy preconceptions direct access to the keyboard. He really is a prodigy: a man whose brain would produce the exact same amount of original thought floating around in a specimen jar full of formaldehyde as it does now.

As for the real-time seeing, I really do not see why people are getting hung up on this. Lessans did not set out to write a book on optics, or on physics, or on medicine or biology. He wrote a book about human behavior and metaphysical reality. And the truth is, we really are not that certain yet about the nature of light, or even about the nature of time, or any of the basics of physics. Just look at the amazing (and fascinating) new paper that Stephen Hawking has just co-authored. In order to explain black holes and the way they seem to make information disappear (something that is not supposed to be possible according to modern physics) he has come up with a model where the information's relative time slows down asymptotically as it approaches, but never reaches, the center of a black hole.

If someone wanted to be ungenerous one could say that that is not so much a theory, as a bandaid to cover one of the gaping holes in our theoretical model of the universe as it stands today. But hey, the math adds up, so physics majors like it. It is at least a good indication that almost everything we know about physics is up for discussion and re-examination.

But let us not get into that - it makes so little difference. Let's leave that to physicists to figure out. If there was some mistake, or if the truth is even more complicated - and yet similar to what your father said - then he himself would have been the first to admit it, and eagerly absorbed the new knowledge. Let us simply take note that there are differences between mainstream science and the way your father saw it, and then leave those differences for specialists to figure out in due course. In the meantime, we should simply proceed to look for evidence of the important parts of the book: the ones about human behavior, and how we can make it more harmonious.

I have to scoot now as I am already late for work - alas! Enlightenment moves but slowly and the basic wage has not yet reached me here! - but I will see if I can post some more later. There is more interesting news to report you see.

Meanwhile - what is your reaction to the strange evidence we see coming out of the Netherlands and other places? Remove blame from something simple as traffic, make it someone's actual responsibility to drive well in stead of obeying traffic signs (and knowing you will be blamed if you ignore them) and lo and behold! Traffic becomes more responsible and safer!

Thanks Vivisectus. It's amazing how one positive comment can do so much for my morale. You're right about the whole issue surrounding light and time and what science knows or doesn't know. As pertains to this discussion, the value of this book has been lost because no one is listening. People won't allow me to move forward because they've already made up their mind that he is wrong. Just that one article about traffic confirms what Lessans knew to be true. Do you think people care? Rather than showing interest, they will find a way to shoot down the article and turn it into something trivial. It makes me very sad. The fact that you are looking at my father's book with fresh eyes may help turn the tide. Greater miracles have happened.

[Vivisectus]

Thanks Vivisectus. It's amazing how one positive comment can do so much for my morale. You're right about the whole issue surrounding light and time and what science knows or doesn't. As pertains to this thread, the value of this book has been lost because no one is listening. People won't allow me to move forward. Just that one article about traffic confirms what Lessans knew to be true. Do you think people care that there may be a connection to what my father said? Rather than showing interest, they will find a way to refute the article so that we will not make any progress whatsoever. It makes me very sad. Maybe the fact that you are looking at my father's book with fresh eyes will help turn the tide. Greater miracles have happened.

It is a sad fact that people value evidence that confirms what they already believe higher, and that they are less critical of it than they are of evidence that challenges their convictions.

Evidence that goes against what they already believe, on the other hand, is often expected to meet impossible standards that are not applied to evidence from the former category.

With that in mind, expect this evidence to be scrutinized, nit-picked, outright denied, to have it's relevance put into question and possibly even have people attribute dishonest or ideological motives to the people doing the testing. This is all par on the course.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, that's not my job. Romer came to a certain conclusion that appeared as the only possible answer. My only job is to share Lessans' observations and hopefully in the future have scientists test those observations rigorously.

These observations have been confirmed thousands of times and can be confirmed anytime by anyone. Nobody is reliant on Romers conclusions.

This is one aspect of reality your idea must be able to address and explain, otherwise it can be dismissed outright.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These observations have been confirmed thousands of times and can be confirmed anytime by anyone. Nobody is reliant on Romers conclusions.

This is one aspect of reality your idea must be able to address and explain, otherwise it can be dismissed outright.

Absolutely and positively not. It has not been confirmed thousands of times that we interpret the light without the object being there. This is an an inference made based on the afferent theory. So no, his claim cannot be dismissed outright unless they want to remove any objection, kind of like what they do with vaccines.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is a sad fact that people value evidence that confirms what they already believe higher, and that they are less critical of it than they are of evidence that challenges their convictions.

Evidence that goes against what they already believe, on the other hand, is often expected to meet impossible standards that are not applied to evidence from the former category.

With that in mind, expect this evidence to be scrutinized, nit-picked, outright denied, to have it's relevance put into question and possibly even have people attribute dishonest or ideological motives to the people doing the testing. This is all par on the course.

Yup, I've already gotten a taste of it, and it's not fun. But truth always wins in the end which is why I chug along dejectedly knowing that Lessans will be looked at as a crackpot long before he is looked at as a genius. This is par for the course. I'm saying that tongue and cheek because he never thought of himself as a genius although he had analytical abilities that surpassed even the most profound thinkers.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely and positively not. It has not been confirmed thousands of times that we interpret the light without the object being there. This is an an inference made based on the afferent theory. So no, his claim cannot be dismissed outright unless they want to remove any objection, kind of like what they do with vaccines.

It has been confirmed that we do not see the Moons of Jupiter where they actually are, instantly, in real time.

[GdB]

Found this perl:

Nevertheless, at the subsequent "opposition" viewing six months later, all the moons are found to be back on schedule! It's as if a clock runs slow in the mornings and fast in the afternoons, so that on average it never loses any time from day to day. While mulling over this data in 1675 on a visit to Paris, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer thought of a beautiful explanation based on a remarkable hypothesis: "sight" is not instantaneous. Light travels at a finite speed, which implies that when we see things we are really seeing how they were at some time in the past.

Italics in the original! Together with this picture:



Unnecessary to say that this 'remarkable hypothesis' has been confirmed many times.

The text goes on:

The intervals between successive eclipses around this time will be very uniform near the opposition point, because the eclipses themselves are uniform and the distance from Jupiter to the Earth is fairly constant during this time. However, after about six and a half months (denoted by July 18 in the figure), Jupiter is in conjunction, which means the Earth is on the opposite side of it's orbit from Jupiter. The light from the "July 18" eclipse will still cross the Earth's orbit (on the near side) at the expected time, but it must then travel an additional distance, equal to the diameter of the Earth's orbit, in order to reach the Earth. Hence we should expect it to be "late" by the amount of time required for light to travel the Earth's orbital diameter. In the late 1600's there were already some rough estimates of the mean Earth-Sun distance, so this enabled Roemer to estimate the speed of light.

Using modern estimates, the Earth's orbital diameter is about 2.98 x 10^11 meters, and the observed time delay in the eclipses and passages of Jupiter's moons when viewed from the Earth with Jupiter in conjunction is about 16.55 minutes = 993 seconds, so we can deduce that the speed of light is about 2.98 x 10^11 / 993 » 3 x 10^8 meters/sec.

Italics by me.

So the theory about the Jupiter moons is complete, confirmed and consistent with all we know about light and vision.

I wonder what other experiments peacegirl wants to design in order to deny the empirical confirmations. She never proposed one single experiment...

PS
This explanation might be more at peacegirl's level.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has been confirmed that we do not see the Moons of Jupiter where they actually are, instantly, in real time.

No it hasn't. Regardless of what you believe LadyShea, if Lessans' claim is right (which I believe will be proved true one day), then afferent vision is wrong. You can't start with the conclusion and claim he is wrong.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't start with the conclusion and claim he is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Found this perl:

Italics in the original! Together with this picture:



Unnecessary to say that this 'remarkable hypothesis' has been confirmed many times.

The text goes on:

Italics by me.

So the theory about the Jupiter moons is complete, confirmed and consistent with all we know about light and vision.

I wonder what other experiments peacegirl wants to design in order to deny the empirical confirmations. She never proposed one single experiment...

PS
This explanation might be more at peacegirl's level.

I understand how he derived at his conclusion, but if there is an observation that is challenging delayed vision, then what? There is a conflict between two opposing claims. To automatically tell me that Lessans was wrong because Romer's conclusions were foolproof, is not how science should work. I do appreciate your taking the time to post this diagram. Thanks!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Lady Shea

This is one aspect of reality your idea must be able to address and explain, otherwise it can be dismissed outright.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Absolutely and positively not. It has not been confirmed thousands of times that we interpret the light without the object being there. This is an an inference made based on the afferent theory. So no, his claim cannot be dismissed outright unless they want to remove any objection, kind of like what they do with vaccines.

Perhaps it is time to simply accept that there is a difference between the current scientific consensus and what Lessans is proposing here, a difference that specialists in the field will possibly clear up for us one day. After all, we do not currently have a complete and coherent theory about the properties of light at all, and the truth may in the end be stranger than any of us have imagined, including Lessans!

Rather than try to enforce some sort of orthodoxy we should perhaps try to remember that some of the findings of quantum mechanics have been (and sometimes remain!) equally irreconcilable with what is still the most widely accepted model of the universe, and that this has not stopped anyone from further pursuing it as an avenue of inquiry.

Once physicists have figured out how time and light actually behave we can come to a final conclusion about all this, but in the meantime we should not try to close down the books on something for which we can clearly see more and more evidence emerging, based purely on our current understanding of light, something we must all admit is currently beyond all our apprehensions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Perhaps it is time to simply accept that there is a difference between the current scientific consensus and what Lessans is proposing here, a difference that specialists in the field will possibly clear up for us one day. After all, we do not currently have a complete and coherent theory about the properties of light at all, and the truth may in the end be stranger than any of us have imagined, including Lessans!

Rather than try to enforce some sort of orthodoxy we should perhaps try to remember that some of the findings of quantum mechanics have been (and sometimes remain!) equally irreconcilable with what is still the most widely accepted model of the universe, and that this has not stopped anyone from further pursuing it as an avenue of inquiry.

Once physicists have figured out how time and light actually behave we can come to a final conclusion about all this, but in the meantime we should not try to close down the books on something for which we can clearly see more and more evidence emerging, based purely on our current understanding of light, something we must all admit is currently beyond all our apprehensions.

I know this post was meant for LadyShea, but I want to add that I don't understand why we can't move on. Why are people here so adamant that my father was a dreamer? Yes, he was a visionary and he saw things others couldn't see. He was also a realist. Why can't people tentatively accept his premises, even if they're not convinced? After all, our world is in dire shape. If this is a genuine discovery and can change our world for the better, then let's not waste time squabbling. The worst that can happen is the discovery will be rejected. But how can it be rejected or found to be true if very few people know about it since it's not being passed on? How am I ever to get it into the right hands without any support?

[LadyShea]

The worst that can happen is the discovery will be rejected. But how can it be rejected if very few people are studying it since it's not being passed on? How am I ever to get it into the right hands without any support?

You seem to be seeking support in the wrong places. You really should start with those in your immediate circles, who are predisposed to listen to you and not immediately see crackpot red flags...like your family and close friends.

Your other option is to give it to the world, free, and see if anyone runs with it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to be seeking support in the wrong places. You really should start with those in your immediate circles, who are predisposed to listen to you and not immediately see crackpot red flags...like your family and close friends.

Are you kidding me? No one will take this book seriously if it's just family members and friends. How far could this take me? To the neighbor's house? Giving it away for free would only lessen its value. No one at this point cares to read it, free or not. If they wanted to read it, paying $4.95 for a 600 page book would not deter them. You have always been too cocksure of yourself to look at this work properly. You say this because you think it's woo and I should stick with woo types, not my scientific betters. Isn't that true LadyShea? But there are people who will take the time. Vivisectus is realizing that maybe Lessans was right after all. Small societies are popping up that are using these principles in a limited way (but enough to give credence to this knowledge) which will be the supporting evidence that may catapult this discovery into the public arena where it could spread like wildfire. And guess what? This will all be done without your help.

[But]

So to summarize, there are many observations that rule out real-time vision, it contradicts established science, there is no experiment that confirms it, it explains nothing, and it's all based on some stuff about words and dogs that's not only wrong, but doesn't have anything to do with light, sight or vision.

Sorry, but you're obviously deluded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

So to summarize, there are many observations that rule out real-time vision, it contradicts established science, there is no experiment that confirms it, it explains nothing, and it's all based on some stuff about words and dogs that's not only wrong, but doesn't have anything to do with light, sight or vision.

Sorry, but you're obviously deluded.

If you're so sure dogs and vision have nothing to do with efferent vision, then the least you can do is show me that you understood what the claim was about. If you can't do that, all bets are off.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it hasn't. Regardless of what you believe LadyShea, if Lessans' claim is right (which I believe will be proved true one day), then afferent vision is wrong. You can't start with the conclusion and claim he is wrong.

Yes it has.

I know this may come as a surprise to peacegirl, whose willful ignorance knows no bounds, but we have sent probes to Jupiter.

Those probes have provided independent, on-the-site confirmation that the moons of Jupiter do not speed up and slow down in their orbits or otherwise do anything funky that would create an illusion of delayed vision where there is none.

In short, the Jupiter probes have indeed tested the idea that when we look at the moons of Jupiter, their actual positions are different from where they appear to be to an Earth-bound observer. And that the difference from where they really are as opposed to where they appear to be is due to the delay in seeing them imposed by the speed of light.

This isn't speculation; it's confirmed fact, from on-site probes.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you're so sure dogs and vision have nothing to do with efferent vision, then the least you can do is show me that you understood what the claim was about. If you can't do that, all bets are off.

Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master.

Wrong.

If the eyes were a sense, if an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic nerve, then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from sound and smell.

And why? If anything, shouldn't it be the other way round?

In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his
sense of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way
of identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like
a Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot
recognize his master from a picture or statue because nothing from
the external world is striking the optic nerve.

Utterly wrong. Dogs can recognize people by sight, and can get irritated if the owner shaves.

The eye is a sense organ (duh!) and to claim that it is not is harebrained idiocy. What a bumbling fool.

The question as to how man is able to accomplish this continues to confound our
scientists.

Bullshit.