A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we get new information.

IF SIGHT IS EFFERENT (right now I'm calling it a theory so you don't get all bent out of shape

No, it is NOT A THEORY.

After all the trouble people have taken to educate you, you still don't understand the simplest things: like what a theory is in science.

The fact that you have no theory is connected to the fact that you cannot explain HOW this miracle of seeing is supposed to take place. You've already admitted at least four times that you cannot explain how this is supposed to take place; you merely assert that it does.

As assertion is not a theory; it's not even a coherent hypothesis.

Until you offer a detailed mechanism for this miracle of seeing that can be tested, you've got nothing at all. But don't waste your time looking for one. As as been repeatedly explained to you, and predictably ignored by Your Royal Highness, instantaneous seeing is ruled out by the well-confirmed theory of relativity. Too bad Lessans didn't actually read Einstein before invoking him in his book!

[Doctor X]

IF I am currently [CENSORED--Ed.] a chocolate-syrup slather'd Nicole Kidman whilst Mila Kunis massages my back then . . . oh wait, that is not happening.



--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true David. The only thing that would change is the belief that the light creates the image through signals, which also means that we would be seeing the present, not the past.

Relativity of simultaneity

Oops! That's the end of instaneous seeing!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just took you off of ignore; I believe in second chances.

Thankyou, will you answer one question for me? When looking thru a telescope, 'according to Lessans', do we see the image directly, or after the delay? I would think the light would need to reach the telescope to see the magnified image, even though we could see the object directly just with our eye.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we get new information.

IF SIGHT IS EFFERENT (right now I'm calling it a theory so you don't get all bent out of shape), then yes, we would see the sun shining as soon as it comes on and not 8.5 mintues later because nothing is traveling to the eye and being converted into an image. I better run for shelter before I get slammed.

So, in other words, information ["the Sun is now shining"] travels instantly between the Sun and the Earth ...

Forget about the mechanism for the moment. The point is that you've just claimed that there is instantaneous transmission of information over a distance of 8.5 light-minutes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, it is NOT A THEORY.

After all the trouble people have taken to educate you, you still don't understand the simplest things: like what a theory is in science.

The fact that you have no theory is connected to the fact that you cannot explain HOW this miracle of seeing is supposed to take place. You've already admitted at least four times that you cannot explain how this is supposed to take place; you merely assert that it does.

As assertion is not a theory; it's not even a coherent hypothesis.

Until you offer a detailed mechanism for this miracle of seeing that can be tested, you've got nothing at all. But don't waste your time looking for one. As as been repeatedly explained to you, and predictably ignored by Your Royal Highness, instantaneous seeing is ruled out by the well-confirmed theory of relativity. Too bad Lessans didn't actually read Einstein before invoking him in his book!

You're just pissed off David, and I can understand that, but it doesn't change the facts at all. I have no idea about theories that are dependant on theories that are dependent on even more theories. You get the gist? No wonder you're mad if you are basing your entire future on certain theories that may turn out to be wrong. All I can say is that Lessans was just as astute an observer as Einstein, believe it or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Thankyou, will you answer one question for me? When looking thru a telescope, 'according to Lessans', do we see the image directly, or after the delay? I would think the light would need to reach the telescope to see the magnified image, even though we could see the object directly just with our eye.

I agree that the light would have to be drawn in to see the image in a telscope, or else there would be no light in which to see anything at all. You are comparing apples to oranges when you bring telescopes or Rovers into the equation. I don't know if you see the reason why, unfortunately.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that the light would have to be drawn in to see the image in a telscope, or else there would be no light in which to see anything at all. You are comparing apples to oranges when you bring telescopes or Rovers into the equation. I don't know if you see the reason why, unfortunately.

Thankyou, but I'm not considering Rovers at this time, just astronomical telescopes and naked eye observation. BTW I had a shop at one time and sold telescopes for astronomy, hence my interest.

I would like to propose a hypothetical situation just so I am clear on what you are saying. Let us suppose a star 200 light years away, (and I am not trying to argue whether any particular star is actually that far away, just for sake of argument, 200 LY given.). This star is at magnitude 5, which is just visible, and goes nova to a magnitude 1, (the smaller the number the brighter the star) (and all you astronomer types out there just shut up till I finish and get an answer, suspend disbelief, for sake of argument, and to keep it simple.) When the star goes nova we could see it naked eye imediately, but to see the magnified image, we need to wait till the light gets here, 200 years? So the astronomer could observe the star note its position and it would be up to his successors 200 years later to study the magnified image, the spectrum, thru a telescope. Would this be correct, according to lessans?

I should add that magnitude refers to 'apparent magnitude' - that is how bright the star appears from the Earth and would be inversely proportional to the distance compaired to absolute brightness.

[LadyShea]

I think what peacegirl is saying is that "the" light (meaning the actual photons from the supernova) doesn't need to travel to Earth for the star to be seen, as long as there is light present around the person/telescope etc. to use. So, if we have sunlight, or moonlight, or artificial light for the eyes and telescope to use in whatever way they do that makes light a condition, we can see whatever is there to be seen. The supernova is there.

Efferent vision is completely counter to everything we know about matter and physics, which is why she is having a hard time explaining it to those of us who understand such things. In fact to me, it's like a small child labeling different species along general lines like calling a mule a horse or a coyote a dog or some other simple, but not quite accurate or precise, early understanding of the world. It's there, it is illuminated, we can see it. No complex trandsduciationalizing of the fotos or whatever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, in other words, information ["the Sun is now shining"] travels instantly between the Sun and the Earth ...

Forget about the mechanism for the moment. The point is that you've just claimed that there is instantaneous transmission of information over a distance of 8.5 light-minutes.

I did not say that Lone. I said one thing and one thing only: the reason we see something instantaneously is (if Lessans is correct regarding efferent vision) because no information is being transmitted in the light itself. So this is not about information coming in faster than the speed of light. This is such a joke, I don't know how to respond.

[The Lone Ranger]

The reason that davidm was upset is because it has been repeatedly explained to you what the word "theory" means in the sciences, but you apparently haven't grasped it yet.

A scientific theory, by definition is an explanation for observed phenomena that relies upon established scientific principles -- and most importantly, that has been thoroughly tested. Lessans might have been the most brilliant and observant person who ever lived; that doesn't make his notion of efferent vision a scientific theory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think what peacegirl is saying is that "the" light (meaning the actual photons from the supernova) doesn't need to travel to Earth for the star to be seen, as long as there is light present around the person/telescope etc. to use. So, if we have sunlight, or moonlight, or artificial light for the eyes and telescope to use in whatever way they do that makes light a condition, we can see whatever is there to be seen. The supernova is there.

Efferent vision is completely counter to everything we know about matter and physics, which is why she is having a hard time explaining it to those of us who understand such things. In fact to me, it's like a small child labeling different species along general lines like calling a mule a horse or a coyote a dog or some other simple, but not quite accurate or precise, early understanding of the world. It's there, it is illuminated, we can see it. No complex trandsduciationalizing of the fotos or whatever.

Thank you LadyShea. You are at least trying to understand what I'm saying, regardless of whether it is true or not, in the eyes of scientists.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think what peacegirl is saying is that "the" light (meaning the actual photons from the supernova) doesn't need to travel to Earth for the star to be seen, as long as there is light present around the person/telescope etc. to use. So, if we have sunlight, or moonlight, or artificial light for the eyes and telescope to use in whatever way they do that makes light a condition, we can see whatever is there to be seen. The supernova is there.

Efferent vision is completely counter to everything we know about matter and physics, which is why she is having a hard time explaining it to those of us who understand such things. In fact to me, it's like a small child labeling different species along general lines like calling a mule a horse or a coyote a dog or some other simple, but not quite accurate or precise, early understanding of the world. It's there, it is illuminated, we can see it. No complex trandsduciationalizing of the fotos or whatever.

Thankyou, but I really need to see what Peacegirl has to say.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that Lone. I said one thing and one thing only: the reason we see something instantaneously is (if Lessans is correct regarding efferent vision) because no information is being transmitted in the light itself. So this is not about information coming in faster than the speed of light. This is such a joke, I don't know how to respond.

You just said that we gain information when we see the Sun come on.

Furthermore, you just said that we gain that information ["the Sun is now shining"] as soon as the Sun comes on, not 8.5 light-minutes later.

Forget about how the information gets to us.


Do you, or do you not agree that information somehow gets from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The reason that davidm was upset is because it has been repeatedly explained to you what the word "theory" means in the sciences, but you apparently haven't grasped it yet.

A scientific theory, by definition is an explanation for observed phenomena that relies upon established scientific principles -- and most importantly, that has been thoroughly tested. Lessans might have been the most brilliant and observant person who ever lived; that doesn't make his notion of efferent vision a scientific theory.

That is the one saving grace in science; that it has to be tested for validity. All science is one big theory and is always subject to change depending on whether a theory can withstand the test of time. There are no sacred cows no matter how famous a person is, or science is a total sham.

[The Lone Ranger]

So ... do you, or do you not agree that information somehow gets from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, it is NOT A THEORY.

After all the trouble people have taken to educate you, you still don't understand the simplest things: like what a theory is in science.

The fact that you have no theory is connected to the fact that you cannot explain HOW this miracle of seeing is supposed to take place. You've already admitted at least four times that you cannot explain how this is supposed to take place; you merely assert that it does.

As assertion is not a theory; it's not even a coherent hypothesis.

Until you offer a detailed mechanism for this miracle of seeing that can be tested, you've got nothing at all. But don't waste your time looking for one. As as been repeatedly explained to you, and predictably ignored by Your Royal Highness, instantaneous seeing is ruled out by the well-confirmed theory of relativity. Too bad Lessans didn't actually read Einstein before invoking him in his book!

I don't believe Lessans contradicted himself when he mentioned Einstein in his book:

Unbeknownst to the highest ranking scholars, the
universities have been handing along from generation to generation
conceptions, not verified knowledge, that will be exploded once certain
undeniable relations are perceived and pointed out to man’s common
sense. Down through history, there has always been this skepticism
before certain events were proven true. Who believed the first
astronomer when he predicted an eclipse or Einstein when he revealed
the potential of atomic energy? It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle.

Now assuming for a moment that such a scientific discovery
is available and that it could bring about a permanent end to every evil
existing in human relations, it is quite obvious that this knowledge
should be carefully analyzed because it benefits all mankind. You may
reason that many people have been positive that they were right but
it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and
wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning.
Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I
am positive.

The first astronomer who observed the mathematical
laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to predict an
eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist who
foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison when he
first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right. Einstein when
he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right —
and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they were
right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing.
If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am
I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over
something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So ... do you, or do you not agree that information somehow gets from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously?

Noooooooooooooooooo. The information does not somehow get from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously. That would make information travel faster than the speed of light, and would make me look like a dam fool. We see the sun instantaneously because the image of the sun is there to be seen when there is enough light being emitted. There's a huge difference Lone. I know you are trying to checkmate me, but you can't.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooooooooooooooooo. The information does not somehow get from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously. That would make information travel faster than the speed of light, and would make me look like a dam fool. We see the sun instantaneously because the image of the sun is there to be seen when there is enough light being emitted. There's a huge difference Lone. I know you are trying to checkmate me, but you can't.

You've already stated that we gain new information when we see the Sun start shining. ["The Sun is now shining."]

You've also stated that we see the Sun immediately when it comes on.


So how on Earth is this not instantaneous transmission of information?

As you keep saying, we learn that the Sun has begun to shine immediately, not 8.5 minutes after it happens. That is to say, we gain the information that the Sun has begun to shine immediately, not 8.5 minutes after it happens.


Let me put it differently: Do we, or do we not learn (gain the information) that the Sun is shining the moment that it happens, instead of having to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to reach us?

[LadyShea]

Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right —
and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am I wrong.~ Lessans

Do you not see where Lessans completely missed the point here? Einstein demonstrated it with the math, and with published peer reviewed papers...other scientists demonstrate their hypotheses with experiments, or math solutions, or offering papers for review. Lessans used poor writing and imaginary dialog as his demonstration. Do you really not see the difference?

Take this for example

The Schwarzschild solution is named in honor of Karl Schwarzschild, who found the exact solution in 1915, only about a month after the publication of Einstein's theory of general relativity.[1] It was the first exact solution of the Einstein field equations other than the trivial flat space solution. Schwarzschild had little time to think about his solution. He died shortly after his paper was published

Schwarzschild metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No, I don't know what it means because I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, however Lessans wasn't remotely "demonstrating" his ideas in the same way Einstein and other scientists have done.

Additionally, if Lessans posits his book "demonstrates" his principles in a "scientific" manner, to the point he would have submitted it for peer review, well guess what? A number of working scientists...Lessans "peers"...have reviewed it and stated it is wrong with regards to sight, both here and FRDB for sure, possibly other places.

If it is a philosophical work, several "peers" in that have also stated he did not demonstrate his principles due to the circular reasoning used in Chapter 1! So Lessans book does not stand up to peer review in at least two disciplines.

So, he didn't use the tools of science to demonstrate his idea, he didn't use mathematics, and his logic failed from the beginning. Just what discipline exactly do you think can accurately assess this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Relativity of simultaneity

Oops! That's the end of instaneous seeing!

Nope, it's an end to instantaneous seeing only if the theory of the relativity of simultaneity is an absolute fact, but is it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right —
and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then only am I wrong.~ Lessans

Do you not see where Lessans completely missed the point here? Einstein demonstrated it with the math, and with published peer reviewed papers...other scientists demonstrate their hypotheses with experiments, or math solutions, or offering papers for review. Lessans used poor writing and imaginary dialog as his demonstration. Do you really not see the difference?

Maybe his demonstration wasn't in the format people wanted, but that in itself does not make him wrong LadyShea. Lessans did everything he could to reach his peers, and he would have taken their suggestions to heart, but he was never given that opportunity.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Take this for example


The Schwarzschild solution is named in honor of Karl Schwarzschild, who found the exact solution in 1915, only about a month after the publication of Einstein's theory of general relativity.[1] It was the first exact solution of the Einstein field equations other than the trivial flat space solution. Schwarzschild had little time to think about his solution. He died shortly after his paper was published

Schwarzschild metric - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I don't know what it means because I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, however Lessans wasn't remotely "demonstrating" his ideas in the same way Einstein and other scientists have done.

All he could do was describe his observations regarding the brain, and I think he did that very well. The fact that he didn't come up with some numeric formula, does not in any way, shape, or form mean his observations were any less significant.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Additionally, if Lessans posits his book "demonstrates" his principles in a "scientific" manner, to the point he would have submitted it for peer review, well guess what? A number of working scientists...Lessans "peers"...have reviewed it and stated it is wrong with regards to sight, both here and FRDB for sure, possibly other places.

I already told you that he did not have the internet or any means of distributing his book, let alone getting it reviewed by his peers when he was not a member of a leading university. The only people that even heard of this book (since he has been gone) are the people in these forums. This is actually the farthest I've gotten discussing efferent vision because in the FRDB forum, the moderator took it upon herself to declare there was nothing more to discuss and closed the thread.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it is a philosophical work, several "peers" in that have also stated he did not demonstrate his principles due to the circular reasoning used in Chapter 1! So Lessans book does not stand up to peer review in at least two disciplines.

So, he didn't use the tools of science to demonstrate his idea, he didn't use mathematics, and his logic failed from the beginning. Just what discipline exactly do you think can accurately assess this?

Pure reasoning and observation can assess this knowledge accurately. This form of epistemology is a very strict discipline, but you're just overlooking it, as if empirical testing is the only way to truth. Furthermore, do you think David's reasoning trumps Lessans just because he came to the conclusion that Lessans' definition of determinism was circular? I beg to differ.

Why is a circular argument necessarily valid? This surprising fact is a consequence of the definition of "valid": a valid argument is one in which the truth of the premisses necessitates the truth of the conclusion. If the conclusion of an argument is one of its premisses, then clearly the truth of its premisses necessitates the truth of that conclusion.

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question

[The Lone Ranger]

Do we, or do we not learn (gain the information) that the Sun is shining the moment that it happens, instead of having to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to reach us?

That information ["The Sun is now shining"] originates at the Sun, after all. If it's received here on Earth ["Oh look, the Sun is shining!"] at the same instant that it originates, then information has been transferred from the Sun to the Earth instantaneously.

Do you not agree?

[LadyShea]

I already told you that he did not have the internet or any means of distributing his book, let alone getting it reviewed by his peers when he was not a member of a leading university. The only people that even heard of this book (since he has been gone) are the people in these forums. This is actually the farthest I've gotten discussing efferent vision because in the FRDB forum, the moderator took it upon herself to declare there was nothing more to discuss and closed the thread.

Yes, and there are multiple actual working scientists at these forums, including The Lone Ranger. That's a peer, correct?

You had 3000 posts at FRDB, and the sight thing was discussed, why are you lying? I would have to go wade through 4 or 5 threads to verify but I remember seeing at least 2 scientists who were challenging the sight thing there.

As for the fallacious reasoning, david's assessment was absolutely correct. You don't seem to understand it, though. BTW we also have a resident professor of Philosophy, but I am sure you would handwave him away as you've done TLR. Pity, you could learn so much if you used this opportunity for a free education.

[LadyShea]

Sorry he didn't say circular reasoning, he said a modal fallacy