A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Has the thread been ruined again already? But I did not even have a chance to remind you that a dog not responding to a picture on skype somehow was evidence they could not see faces, so sight was efferent and instant.

I read this post the instant you posted it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The laughter at my expense is making it too difficult for me to discuss this topic any further.

The laughter has nothing to do with your difficulty in discussing this topic.

[thedoc]

What science knows is "only a theory".

Peacegirl has faith in her father.

Evolution Is Only A Theory - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Are We Being Taken to the Cleaners by Spacetime Physicists?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some of the most famous physicists in the world are not telling the truth about one of the most taken for granted concepts in scientific history. They are not telling us how they can come up with their fanciful time travel theories (wormholes, advanced and retarded waves traveling in spacetime, etc...) using a model of the universe that precludes the possibility of motion. Nothing can move in spacetime or in a time dimension-axis by definition. This is because motion in time is self-referential. It is for this reason that Sir Karl Popper compared Einstein's spacetime to Parmenide's unchanging block universe[*], in which nothing ever happens.

The following is a short list of notorious time travel and spacetime crackpots, not necessarily in order of crackpottery. Some, like Hawking, Wheeler and Feynman, are venerated by the physics community and are considered by many to be among the most brilliant scientific minds that ever lived. Too bad they believe in time travel.

Before I continue, lest I be immediately branded as an anti-relativity crank, let me make it perfectly clear that I agree with the mathematical and predictive correctness of both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity.

Stephen Hawking
Kip Thorne
John A. Wheeler
Richard Feynman
Michio Kaku
John Gribbin
Carl Sagan
John Kramer
J. Richard Gott III
Hans Moravec David Deutsch
Igor Novikov
John Baez
Ronald Mallett
Jack Sarfatti
Kurt Gödel
Paul Davies
Albert Einstein


I include Dr. Feynman and Dr. Wheeler in the list because of their Absorber Theory in which they posited the existence of advanced and retarded waves that can travel in spacetime. Here is a quote from Feynman's "The Reason for Antiparticles" in "Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics - The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures": "... So the requirements of positive energies and relativity force us to allow creation and annihilation of pairs of particles, one of which travels backwards in time." This gem of pseudoscience comes from one of the most celebrated physicists of the twentieth century.

Dr. Sarfatti, of course, is the well-known internet crackpot who believes in all sorts of paranormal phenomena, time travel being just the tip of the iceberg.

Dr. Kip "Wormhole" Thorne, long revered by science fiction fanatics, is renown for his time travel theories which he "derived", of course, from the mathematics of general relativity. Dr. Thorne believes it is possible to travel into a wormhole and reappear some time in the past. More than anyone else, Dr. Thorne has legitimized one of the most absurd concepts in science and turned it into a cult. A quick search on Google for 'wormhole' will give one a sense of the extent of the cult and its hold on the public's imagination.

Dr. Michio Kaku is an evangelizer for string theory. String theory postulates that time is one of the 10 dimensions of nature and that dimensions can be "compactified" or curled up into tiny little balls, so tiny, in fact, they can never be detected. The brains of string theorists can be described in a similar fashion.

Dr. Carl Sagan is the noted astronomer and science popularizer who spent a good part of his life trying to contact aliens and had a special fondness for the possibility of time travel. It is a pity Dr. Sagan passed away because I liked him, crackpot or not.

Dr. David Deutsch, an Oxford physicist, is well known for his ideas on the "many-universes interpretation" of quantum mechanics, a sort of fanciful way of looking at time travel that attempts to solve the obvious contradictions. The many-universes interpretation suffers from the same fatal flaw as the single-world spacetime interpretation: they are equally motionless. But this does not seem to trouble Dr. Deutsch in the least. In fact, he has built a career out of what he calls "quantum computers", fictitious magical machines conjured up out of an equally magical hat filled with zillions of changeless parallel universes. Dr. Deutsch is a veritable magician when it comes to making voodoo appear like legitimate science.

Dr. Hans Moravec is a noted roboticist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania. In his weird science book, Mind Children, Moravec claims that it will be possible to achieve immortality by uploading the contents of one's brain onto a digital computer but somehow forgets to explain how he proposes to transfer the brain's consciousness into the computer. Needless to say, he has no clue as to the nature of consciousness, any claim to the contrary notwithstanding. Dr. Moravec's belief in time travel is on a par with his equally wacky ideas on artificial intelligence and the mind.

Dr. Igor Dmitrievich Novikov is a renown Russian physicist who specializes in black holes. His book "The River of Time" is a favorite of time travel devotees. "River of Lies" would be a more appropriate title, in my opinion.

Dr. J. Richard Gott III is a professor of astrophysics at Princeton University and is the author of the time travel book, "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities Of Travel Through Time". Dr. Gott believes it might be possible to travel back in time using hypothetical cosmic strings to curve spacetime. Strange, I never knew that Einstein had his own universe.

Dr. Ronald Mallett is a professor of physics at the University of Connecticut who would like to achieve his childhood dream of going back in time to warn his father of the dangers of heavy drinking and smoking. According to a recent article in New Scientist, Mallett believes he has found a way to the past by using, not a wormhole, but twisted light. Twisted science is more like it.

Dr. John Baez, a physics professor at the University of California at Riverside, is also a famous usenet denizen. Dr. Baez is a rather curious individual in that he can hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. He accepts that nothing can move in spacetime but he does not let this little fact bother him. On the contrary, he embraces a temporal dimension and asserts that there are infinitely many "nows", past ones and future ones, all existing together. He conveniently declines to explain how we are able to move from one "now" to the next, given that nothing can move in spacetime.

No need to introduce Sir Stephen "Black Hole" Hawking. The man is a legend in his own time. Check out his "A Brief History of Time", not that he needs the money, of course. Sir Stephen is undoubtedly the Pope of the time travel religion while Kip Thorne is his number one Cardinal. Note: I had previously heard from a source that Sir Stephen had been knighted but apparently the information is incorrect. However, considering that Sir Stephen, in his brilliance, figured out that the impossible is possible, I will continue to use the honorific 'Sir' in deference to his uncommon achievement.

Kurt Gödel (how could I forget him?) is one of the gods of the voodoo science pantheon. Gödel is certainly the most often quoted yet inconsequential mathematician of the world. He is known for his incompleteness theorem, the most non-scientific, chicken-feather-voodoo nonsense ever penned by a member of the human species. In 1949, Gödel announced to the world that Einstein's general theory of relativity allows time travel to the past via "closed time-like curves." The only thing Gödel proved, in my opinion, was the incompleteness of his frontal lobe.

Paul Davies is a prolific science popularizer and a theoretical physicist at the Australian Center for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney. He recently wrote an article for Scientific American in which he writes that time dilation "illustrates a limited type of time travel." I include both Davies and the editors of Scientific American on my list of notorious time travel crackpots. In my opinion, Scientific American is mostly a propaganda rag for the charlatans and crackpots of the scientific community. Their dependence on advertising revenues makes them suspect at best. Their idea of science publishing is to develop a readership among wild-eyed Star-Trek fanatics. Hence their penchant for articles on time travel, black holes, parallel universes, wormholes, warped space and the like.

Having said that, I must make an exception for SciAm author Gary Stix who had the courage and honesty to admit that the "pace of living quickens continuously, yet a full understanding of things temporal still eludes us." SciAm does not deserve Stix.

I placed Albert Einstein at the bottom of the list because he, of all people, should have known better. The man needs no introduction, of course, but why is he on the list? Because he (reluctantly but who cares?) agreed with his good friend, Kurt Gödel, that the spacetime of general relativity allows time travel to the past via closed time-like loops even though other prominent thinkers, including Sir Karl Popper, had pointed out that nothing happens in spacetime. See Popper below.

The others on the list are, for the most part, hangers-on although they are notorious in their own right. I shall expand the list as more names come to my attention.

The Crackpottery...

cont. at: Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

[davidm]

Hey, fuck face, you already posted this copy pasta crap a couple of years ago. You really are losing your edge in your sodden dotage. We miss the days when you came up with addled apes who thought the value of pi is 4.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some of the most famous physicists in the world are not telling the truth about one of the most taken for granted concepts in scientific history.

They are not telling us how they can come up with their fanciful time travel theories (wormholes, advanced and retarded waves traveling in spacetime, etc...)

using a model of the universe that precludes the possibility of motion.

Most of these ideas are presented as possibilities not precluded by the theory of relativity, not as established science. Even physicists are allowed to speculate on what may be possible. That is what advances science, one scientist proposes an idea, and another tests it with an experiment to prove or disprove the idea, unlike Lessans who simply states his unproven ideas as fact.

Most of the scientists do present some kind of explanation for the ideas they are proposing. Not understanding the theory or explanation is no excuse for criticizing the idea out of ignorance.

This simply demonstrates that you do not understand what the theory says.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

We miss the days when you came up with addled apes who thought the value of pi is 4.

Do you mean it isn't ? ? ? ?

Damn! No wonder I always get the wrong answer.

[davidm]

Lots and lots of fun stuff online about peacegirl's Louis Savain, perhaps the only person who ever lived who was stupider than Seymour Lessans. Here's one.



Yes, Savain believes science should be a democracy, just like Lessans does. That way jackoffs like Lessans and Savain would be taken seriously, you see, because who in hell are mean scientists to say that people like Lessans and Savain have nothing to offer?

[davidm]

Peacegirl, do you agree with Louis Savain that there is a secret message encoded in the Book of Revelations that will soon be decoded and cause the entire "materialist fortress" to crumble?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, fuck face, you already posted this copy pasta crap a couple of years ago. You really are losing your edge in your sodden dotage. We miss the days when you came up with addled apes who thought the value of pi is 4.

You think name calling, constantly insulting, and producing ad hominems give you an edge? It only makes you look weak.

https://storify.com/ctnorman7/logical-fallacies

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think name calling, constantly insulting, and producing ad hominems give you an edge? It only makes you look weak.

Logical Fallacies (with images) · ctnorman7 · Storify

We've never said you're wrong because you're stupid/deluded/ignorant, peacegirl. We've said you're stupid/deluded/ignorant because you're wrong, and sometimes just because we're frustrated with your tendency to outright lie - or angry that your ignorance and peddling of lies could have serious consequences for anyone foolish enough to listen.

The difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument has been explained before, but as usual you've failed to listen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

We've never said you're wrong because you're stupid/deluded/ignorant, peacegirl. We've said you're stupid/deluded/ignorant because you're wrong, and sometimes just because we're frustrated with your tendency to outright lie - or angry that your ignorance and peddling of lies could have serious consequences for anyone foolish enough to listen.

Dragar, that's not good enough. It's easy to say you're wrong, especially when you have the whole world backing you up, but as history has recorded, there are times when the discoverer was not wrong, but this came after being flogged, condemned, and ultimately ostracized or put to death.

Originally Posted by Dragar

The difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument has been explained before, but as usual you've failed to listen.

I have not failed to listen. Davidm is the poster child of throwing around ad hominems and telling me they're not ad hominems so he can do it again and again with impunity. It's calling someone a name rather than focusing on the topic.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, that's not good enough. It's easy to say you're wrong, especially when you have the whole world backing you up...

And all the scientific evidence.

...but as history has recorded, there are times when the discoverer was not wrong, but this came after being flogged, condemned, and ultimately ostracized or put to death.

Sure. That's not happening here though, is it? Instead of someone with a pile of evidence being put to death, instead we have a bunch of crackpots with no evidence being mocked. And history is full of crackpots who were wrong. Just like your latest crackpots.

Your comparison is absurd, and I laugh at you for making it!

It's calling someone a name rather than focusing on the topic.

No, you're confusing an argument with an insult. Again, you have failed to read. Quite remarkable, given you just denied this.

The Wikipedia explanation is:

"Ad hominem...is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character ... of the person making the argument ... rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Davidm has never once suggested that your arguments are wrong because you are, for instance, are an idiot or a liar. Quite the reverse. That's not an ad hominem argument. That's just insulting you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but as history has recorded, there are times when the discoverer was not wrong, but this came after being flogged, condemned, and ultimately ostracized or put to death.

But in this case, Lessans didn't discover anything and made up a lot of nonsense to prove it. Lessans was wrong. And he wasn't flogged, condemned, or ostracized, or put to death, that sort of thing for fools, is frowned on today in this country. Today any crackpot can say anything they want on the internet or publish some joke of a book, and Lessans is a good example of that. Most people just ignore the silliness, but a few see the need to point out the mistake. That the crackpot doesn't see it is less important than the sane people do see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And all the scientific evidence.

No, there is logic based on false premises. That makes it unsound. It's gotten so out of hand that now the scientists can say anything they want, and the sheeples will listen, even if their theories are absurd. Time travel is one of them.

...but as history has recorded, there are times when the discoverer was not wrong, but this came after being flogged, condemned, and ultimately ostracized or put to death.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sure. That's not happening here though, is it? Instead of someone with a pile of evidence being put to death, instead we have a bunch of crackpots with no evidence being mocked. And history is full of crackpots who were wrong. Just like your latest crackpots. Your comparison is absurd, and I laugh at you for making it!

There is no evidence that time actually slows down or speeds up according to one's frame of reference. There are observations that clocks slow down according to speed, but that does not mean that time actually slows down. This has caused a major blunder in the scientific community that has led scientists down a rabbit hole. And the science fiction buffs have fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

It's calling someone a name rather than focusing on the topic.

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, you're confusing an argument with an insult. Again, you have failed to read. Quite remarkable, given you just denied this.

The Wikipedia explanation is:

"Ad hominem...is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character ... of the person making the argument ... rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Okay, David is full of insults. That's just as bad as using ad hominems.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Davidm has never once suggested that your arguments are wrong because you are, for instance, are an idiot or a liar. Quite the reverse. That's not an ad hominem argument. That's just insulting you.

I didn't say he suggested Lessans' arguments are wrong because he is an idiot. If that's the definition of ad hominem, then that doesn't fit him. He calls Lessans names because he believes he was wrong (after all, this claim has hit a nerve because it contravenes his entire worldview) and therefore feels entitled to insult, use disparaging satire, and take things out of context. These insults are uncalled for in all fairness and have colored this thread to the degree that we have never been able to make any real progress.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, there is logic based on false premises. That is a far cry from scientific proof. It's gotten so out of hand that now the pundits can say anything they want, and the sheeples will listen, even if their theories are absurd. Time travel is one of them.

Please, keep demonstrating your failure to understand modern physics and what it does/does not say!

There is no evidence that time actually slows down or speeds up according to one's frame of reference. There are observations that clocks slow down according to speed, but that does not mean that time actually slows down.

So, er...what exactly do clocks measure if not time, peacegirl?

Besides which, have you heard of muons? Gravitational lensing? GPS satellites? Graviational waves? The CMB?

You're an ignorant fool.

He is attacking the character of my father rather than attacking the argument because he doesn't like the claim. That is using ad hominems.

No. Geez, you're stupid. No, this isn't stupidity - this is you having decided you're right, and you're refusing to even consider the alternative.

Here, again. Read this time, and don't be so arrogant. I quoted from Wikipedia:

"...in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character ..."

He's not rebutting your argument by insulting you. He's just insulting you. That's the difference. Get it now?

Bird: I believe that human cloning is wrong.

Other bird: Of course you would say that, you're an idiot.

That is David in a nutshell. Stop covering for him.

Nope. Davidm would say "Human cloning is not wrong, because X, Y, and Z. And you're stupid."

Come on. You must see the difference now.

...they are uncalled for in a civilized discussion and have colored this thread to the degree that we have never been able to make progress.

This has never been a civilized discussion. You have lied, blindly preferred ignorance over facts, and refused to read basic statements properly. You've weaseled, said things and then denied them, desperately looked for excuses ("There must be something else going on!") and accused people of bias at every turn. If you want a civilized discussion, you're the only one preventing that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And all the scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, there is logic based on false premises. That is a far cry from scientific proof. It's gotten so out of hand that now the pundits can say anything they want, and the sheeples will listen, even if their theories are absurd. Time travel is one of them.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Please, keep demonstrating your failure to understand modern physics and what it does/does not say![/qutoe]

Modern physics has made mistakes. There is so much theory masquerading as truth that it will take a long time to know exactly where science went off into a ditch.

So, er...what exactly do clocks measure if not time, peacegirl?

Lip Service

Theoretical physicists pride themselves in that their science is firmly based on empirical evidence but pay only lip service to empiricism when it suits their agenda. In an essay titled "Objective Knowledge", Karl Popper wrote "... this is a field from which the observer was exorcised, slowly but steadily, by Einstein himself." The observation of change is not empirical evidence for a time axis. It is evidence for, well, change.

Time is the Abstract Inverse of Change

Since a time axis does not exist, there is only one way to look at time. It is an abstract parameter derived from change. When we use a clock, we may fool ourselves into thinking that we are measuring something physical that we call time, but what we are doing is detecting change. The accepted convention is that the greater the magnitude of the change, the shorter the time interval. Thus time is the abstract inverse of change. This inverse proportionality is the reason that 't' is the denominator in the formula for velocity. However, some prefer to call time 'change' and that is fine with me. As such, it can be used as an evolution parameter with which to compare the magnitude of the change occurring in one process to the calibrated change of another.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

Originally Posted by Dragar

Besides which, have you heard of muons? Gravitational lensing? GPS satellites? Graviational waves? The CMB?

You're an ignorant fool.

You think calling me names changes the truth? It just cuts off the discussion, which must be what you want.

He is attacking the character of my father rather than attacking the argument because he doesn't like the claim. That is using ad hominems.

Originally Posted by Dragar

No. Geez, you're stupid.

Read what I quoted from Wikipedia:

"...in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character ..."

He's not rebutting your argument by insulting you. He's just insulting you.

Nope. Davidm would say "Human cloning is not wrong, because X, Y, and Z. And you're stupid."

I took that part out. Scroll back.

...they are uncalled for in a civilized discussion and have colored this thread to the degree that we have never been able to make progress.

Originally Posted by Dragar

This has never been a civilized discussion. You have lied, blindly preferred ignorance over facts, and refused to read basic statements properly. You've weaseled, said things and then denied them, desperately looked for excuses ("There must be something else going on!") and accused people of bias at every turn. If you want a civilized discussion, you're the only one preventing that.

I have said all along that my weaseling was only due to the fact that Lessans never came to his conclusions based on the questions posed. That in itself doesn't mean he was wrong. As far as "there must be something else going on", I stand by that. The only way a civilized discussion can take place in here, is if I agree with you, and that would be a total lie on my part.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Please, keep demonstrating your failure to understand modern physics and what it does/does not say!

You'll be laughing out of the other side of your supercollider when Louis "Sweet Lou" Savain builds that Christian AI from instructions hidden in the Book of Revelations.

show spoiler

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Exactly the opposite. The world is quantum mechanical (you and your father knew nothing about QM or relativity and you still know nothing about either, despite your moral and intellectual betters patiently tutoring for years.) Quantum mechanics is [i]indeterminstic.

Here is an excerpt from Trick Slattery's ebook that may help you understand why indeterminism does not grant free will.

For some, when determinism is used in physics, it not only entails an entirely causal universe, but also a predictable one (everything has at least the possibility of "predictability"). Predictability appears to be an essential element for determinism used by some scientists. The same applies to indeterminism used in physics, and more specifically in quantum physics. If something's unpredictable (by any standard), it's said to be indeterministic, regardless if it's causal or not. In this case indeterminism means that it's impossible to 'determine' the outcome based on causality.

It becomes more a stance on knowledge rather than a stance on reality or what "exists." At the quantum level, it has been shown per the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that this type of indeterminism holds true. This is because at the smaller scale both position and momentum cannot be known with precision. The more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other property can be measured. This appears to be a limitation of our knowledge at the quantum scale.

Causal determinism used in the free will debate, however, does not necessarily imply predictability. It only implies that every event has a cause, and due to this, future events are unchangeable as they are based on the causes that precede them. Causes derived from long chains of past events. Think of dominoes for visualization. It doesn't matter that some of those dominoes are hidden from our view.

Breaking the Free Will Illusion for the Betterment of Humankind by Trick Slattery.

Originally Posted by davidm

Presentism is ruled out by the special and general theories of relativity. Is NASA full of kooks, peacegirl? I notice you didn't answer the question.

Here is a video and the rebuttal by Trick Slattery. The rebuttal was very well thought out.

Brian Greene on The B-Theory of Time

Brian Greene on The B-Theory of Time - YouTube

-------------------------------------------------------------

Refutation: Episode One: Eternalism by Trick Slattery

Podcast Archive - 'Trick Slattery

[Stephen Maturin]

Hi, I’m ‘Trick Slattery (‘Trick is short for Patrick, the nickname I go by most of the time). Welcome to my author and artist hub, where I talk about the books I’m writing, the philosophy I propose, and some of my more creative endeavors. I’m an autodidact who has put in countless hours in the study and pursuit of philosophy, starting at a young age up to the old man I am today.

lel

Dude's a veritable Seymour Lessans, and maybe even better since it's unlikely that Lessans ever designed a snow cone dragon T-shirt.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So, er...what exactly do clocks measure if not time, peacegirl?

You're an ignorant fool.

The kind of clocks that Peacegirl is familiar with measure the osculations of a balance wheel or the swing of a pendulum, She does not acknowledge the existence of clocks that measure the vibrations of an atom, for instance, or other timepieces that actually measure the passage of time. Peacegirl is a classic example of NIH, if she doesn't know about it, or if she didn't think of it, it doesn't exist and isn't possible. Her reality is based solely on what Lessans wrote in the book, and that is all fantasy. So her reality is based on fantasy.

[Spacemonkey]

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film/retina 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 film/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/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no evidence that time actually slows down or speeds up according to one's frame of reference. There are observations that clocks slow down according to speed, but that does not mean that time actually slows down. This has caused a major blunder in the scientific community that has led scientists down a rabbit hole. And the science fiction buffs have fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the muon storage ring at CERN the lifetime of muons circulating with γ = 29.327 was found to be dilated to 64.378 μs, confirming time dilation to an accuracy of 0.9 ± 0.4 parts per thousand.[28] In this experiment the "clock" is the time taken by processes leading to muon decay, and these processes take place in the moving muon at its own "clock rate", which is much slower than the laboratory clock.

But you'll believe what you want, which is idiotic crap that has nothing to do with reality.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, let's summarize:

Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, this would completely invalidate virtually all of modern physics, since one of the core principles of modern physics is that information cannot travel faster than light. Here's the math and tons of repeatedly-confirmed observations to show that this is the case."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, the sky would look white at night, since every line of sight would necessarily intersect a star. Here's the mathematical proof."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, then technology such as Lidar would not work, since it depends on the delay between when a beam of light is emitted and when it's detected in order to function."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, then there would be a gap of hundreds or even thousands of years between when we see a supernova explosion and when we detect the neutrino emissions. Here's the math demonstrating the necessity of it, and here are hundreds of observational records demonstrating that this is not what happens."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, then technology such as GPS would not work, since the fact that information cannot travel faster than light is factored into the functioning of the system. If Lessans was correct, then GPS would deliver wildly inaccurate data. Here's the math to demonstrate it, and here's a working GPS device, demonstrating that this is not what happens."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, then planetary probes would miss their targets entirely, since they would be aiming at the wrong place. Here's the math to prove it, and here's several decades worth of probe data showing that they do, indeed arrive at their targets instead of missing by thousands of miles."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, then we would not observe the apparent speeding-up and slowing-down of satellites around other planets, corresponding to their changing distance from Earth."
peacegirl: "You're wrong. Something else must be going on."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "On-site probes demonstrate that nothing else is going on."
peacegirl: "I don't care. You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Lessans' claims completely contradict Special Relativity, one of the most thoroughly-tested and repeatedly confirmed of all scientific theories. Here's the math showing why this must be so, and here are tons of observations demonstrating that real-time seeing is both false and completely incompatible with Special Relativity."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Lessans' claims completely contradict the entire field of Optics and the observed behavior of light. Here's the math showing why this must be so, and here are tons of observations demonstrating that real-time seeing is both false and completely incompatible with Optics and the observed behavior of light."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, then interplanetary probes in different parts of the Solar System would record an event happening at the same time. Here's the math to prove it. And here are actual photographs taken by different probes, demonstrating that they do not see the same event simultaneously, as Lessans claims they would."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Here are the pictures; would you care to examine them?"
peacegirl: "No."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Lessans' claims completely contradict the entire field of Optics and the observed behavior of light. Here's the math showing why this must be so, and here are tons of observations demonstrating that real-time seeing is both false and completely incompatible with Optics and the observed behavior of light."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Lessans' claims are completely incompatible with the observed anatomy of the human eye and the visual pathway. Here are a few thousand articles explaining in detail why this is the case."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "This isn't obscure knowledge, you know. You could easily sign up for an Anatomy class, dissect an eye or two, and confirm it for yourself."
peacegirl: "No."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Lessans' claims are completely incompatible with the observed physiology of neurons. Again, this isn't obscure knowledge, you know. Here are a few thousand peer-reviewed studies explaining and confirming this."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Again, you could easily sign up for an Anatomy class, dissect some neurons and study their physiology, and confirm it for yourself."
peacegirl: "No."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, then the Fizeau-Foucault method for measuring the speed of light would not work, since it directly depends on an observer seeing a delay between when an object is illuminated and when the observer sees it."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Would you like to do the experiment yourself? It's easy to do."
peacegirl: "No."


peacegirl: "According to Lessans, dogs and other non-human animals can't recognize humans from visual cues alone. Because ... Lessans says so."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "That does not make any sense. Besides, there have been many studies which have concluded that dogs can recognize people by visual cues alone. So can many non-human primate. So can many bird species. Even some insects seem to be capable of recognizing individuals from visual cues alone."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. Levers, or something."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "If Lessans was correct, then cameras (especially digital cameras) would not work, since they're designed and built using an incorrect theory of optics and vision."
peacegirl: "You're wrong."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "How so? Can you explain where we're mistaken?"
peacegirl: "I don't have the faintest idea. I just know you're wrong."


Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Is there any evidence that could -- even in principle -- convince you that Lessans was mistaken about how we see?"
peacegirl: "Of course. If somebody invented a working bionic eye, that would prove that Lessans was wrong about how we see."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Bionic eyes already exist. Here are several examples. So, you're ready to admit that Lessans was wrong?"
peacegirl: "I never claimed that bionic eyes would disprove Lessans' claims."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Yes you did. Here, let me quote your own words back to you."
peacegirl: "I never claimed that bionic eyes would disprove Lessans' claims."




Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Ooookay, let's change tactics. Do you have any actual evidence to support Lessans' claims?"
peacegirl: "Oh yeah, lots of it."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Great! So, where is this evidence?"
peacegirl: "Lessans made observations."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "What were those observations? How and when were they conducted, and under what conditions?"
peacegirl: "They were astute observations."
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Yes, but what were those observations?"
peacegirl: "They are astute observations, I tell you!"
Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: "Fine, but what were those observations?"
peacegirl: "Didn't you hear me? They were astute observations!"




Essentially The Entire Scientific Community: " ... "
peacegirl: "You know the problem with you science types? You're too close-minded."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you'll believe what you want, which is idiotic crap that has nothing to do with reality.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/ricker16.pdf