A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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."

I agree that information cannot travel faster than light, but this doesn't even apply because nothing is traveling if we see objects in real time.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

The sky would not be all white because there is still great distances between stars, so every line of sight would not intersect.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

There is no contradiction here. Lidar would still work because light travels at a finite speed.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

I don't think there is a contradiction. Light travels at a finite speed so we would see light when it arrives, including neutrinos emissions. This does not rule out real time seeing.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

I never said they were mistaken TLR. You know that, so why are you lying? This demonstration of how GPS systems work does not negate efferent vision.

When people talk about "a GPS," they usually mean a GPS receiver. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is actually a constellation of 27 Earth-orbiting satellites (24 in operation and three extras in case one fails). The U.S. military developed and implemented this satellite network as a military navigation system, but soon opened it up to everybody else.

Each of these 3,000- to 4,000-pound solar-powered satellites circles the globe at about 12,000 miles (19,300 km), making two complete rotations every day. The orbits are arranged so that at any time, anywhere on Earth, there are at least four satellites "visible" in the sky.

A GPS receiver's job is to locate four or more of these satellites, figure out the distanc*e to each, and use this information to deduce its own location. This operation is based on a simple mathematical principle called trilateration. Trilateration in three-dimensional space can be a little tricky, so we'll start with an explanation of simple two-dimensional trilateration.

cont. at: 2-D Trilateration - How GPS Receivers Work | HowStuffWorks

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

That may seem like a slam dunk because you think you've done the math perfectly, I don't believe that the time/light correction is central to the accuracy of the landing. I'm sure you will think I'm in denial. What can I say?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

Why would efferent vision negate the observation that satellites around other planets speed up or slow down?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

I cannot defend myself against the entire scientific community without being viewed as a troll, but let me just say that space/time is a theory, which you well know. If time turns out not to be a 4th dimension, then the term space/time is a misnomer. If time is nothing more than our perception from one moment to the next in the HERE AND NOW, then how can time bend, dilate, or be warped?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

The interesting thing is that Lessans' claim does not contradict the observed behavior of light. The only difference is that we are not waiting for light to arrive since we are not utilizing light to see an image in the brain but rather we are seeing the real object due to light's presence because we're already within optical range of the object. Remember, this can only occur if Lessans' claim of efferent vision turns out to be true.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

We would not see an event at the same time if the event was too far away to be detected at a certain distance.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

I think this is a repeat.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

Observing an eye cannot always explain its function in regard to the brain.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

I do not see where the observed physiology of neurons in any way discredits the claim that we see in real time. After all, I'm not saying that we don't need light to see. That would be an outrageous claim. This claim is not as outrageous as you're making it out to be.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

The Fizeau-Foucault method for measuring the speed of light is entirely consistent with this claim. There is no contradiction at all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

I have never said "because Lessans says so". I don't believe the experiments that I've seen (levers and all ) actually prove that dogs can do this.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

That's not true either. They are using a correct theory of optics and vision. The only difference is the belief that there is a delay between the event and the time the photo is captured.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

A bionic eye would be replacing the defective parts of the eye (the window, so to speak), but this has nothing to do with the exact mechanism within the brain itself that allows for normal sight.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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."

I already gave you the chapter. As I have said many times, further exploration can be done to confirm or negate his claims. There has been no experiment to date that proves conclusively a dog can identify his master without any other sensory cues. I know you take offense to that TLR because you believe the tests have been done and it's a shut case. I feel otherwise. If Lessans is shown to be right, it may create further interest (although I know it's too late for this group). Until then, I can only hope that his knowledge won't lay dormant forever. I put my trust in God and his timing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by 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.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already gave you the chapter. As I have said many times, further experimentation can be done to confirm or negate his claims. There has been no experiment to date that proves conclusively a dog can identify his master without any other sensory cues. I know you take offense to that TLR because you believe the tests have been done and it's a shut case. I feel otherwise. If Lessans is shown to be right, it may create further interest (although I know it's too late for this group). Until then, I can only hope that his knowledge won't lay dormant forever. I put my trust in God and his timing.

This doesn't need to be proven conclusively, since Lessans claimed that no dog, (all dogs lacked the ability) could identify it's master, or some individual human by visual means alone, there only needs to be one dog to do this to prove Lessans wrong. But in fact there have been many dogs that have shown this ability, even if all dogs can't, Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until then, I can only hope that his knowledge won't lay dormant forever.

We can only hope that Lessans book will be relegated to the dustbin of history and forgotten, if not it could be used as a cautionary tale.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

This "journal" is even worse than vixra.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

lol bullshit

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that information cannot travel faster than light, but this doesn't even apply because nothing is traveling if we see objects in real time.

Yes, the information travels faster than light. Are you drunk?

The sky would not be all white because there is still great distances between stars, so every line of sight would not intersect.

Translate this gibberish please.

I don't think there is a contradiction. Light travels at a finite speed so we would see light when it arrives, including neutrinos emissions. This does not rule out real time seeing.

In your account, we don't see light! We only see objects!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that information cannot travel faster than light, but this doesn't even apply because nothing is traveling if we see objects in real time.

The image of the Sun being turned at noon is information. How does that image get to the Earth from the Sun? A distance of 93 million miles, and efferent vision can't make the distance go away. If the image doesn't travel, how does the brain, looking through the eyes, see the Sun? How does the brain bridge the distance? Outrageous claims require outrageous explanations.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think there is a contradiction. Light travels at a finite speed so we would see light when it arrives, including neutrinos emissions. This does not rule out real time seeing.

Are you saying that what astronomers see with their eyes would be different than what they would see through a telescope or with instruments that detect light? Instruments that detect light, do so after the light has traveled here from a distant object, but you are claiming that with our eyes we see objects in real time, as they appear now. Will the image that we see with our eyes be different from the image that the instruments detect from the light that has traveled here?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said they were mistaken TLR. You know that, so why are you lying? This demonstration of how GPS systems work does not negate efferent vision.

TLR simply repeated the science of GPS systems, as stated by the scientific community, and you said he was wrong. Then you turned around and claimed that you never said they (the scientific community) was mistaken. You have contradicted yourself, and been caught in a lie.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That may seem like a slam dunk because you think you've done the math perfectly, I don't believe that the time/light correction is central to the accuracy of the landing. I'm sure you will think I'm in denial. What can I say?

In the real world the time/light correction is central to the accuracy of the landings, and everyone involved in the process knows and accepts this fact. Just because you don't understand the math, doesn't make it inaccurate.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would efferent vision negate the observation that satellites around other planets speed up or slow down?

Because afferent vision precisely accounts for the speeding up and slowing down that is observed in the orbits of satellites around other planets, Efferent vision would result in discrepancies that are not observed.

[Vivisectus]

Oh good the thread has been un-ruined again

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

Ah yes, challenged on your idiocy you retreat into quoting this nutter. Why have you never responded to my points about his failure to do basic calculus, peacegirl? Why are you listening to a crackpot who can't do basic maths?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, the information travels faster than light. Are you drunk?

You are misusing the definition. It is assumed that light brings the information through space/time therefore... In the efferent account nothing is being brought to us through traveling light, so it doesn't apply.

The sky would not be all white because there is still great distances between stars, so every line of sight would not intersect.

Originally Posted by But

Translate this gibberish please.

I don't understand why there would be any difference than what we see now if the spacing between stars is enormous.

I don't think there is a contradiction. Light travels at a finite speed so we would see light when it arrives, including neutrinos emissions. This does not rule out real time seeing.

Originally Posted by But

In your account, we don't see light! We only see objects!

No, we see light also. I see light every single day when morning arrives. The only difference is that this light does not bring images through space/time to my brain for interpretation, therefore there is no delay in the time it takes for me to see external events.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Ah yes, challenged on your idiocy you retreat into quoting this nutter. Why have you never responded to my points about his failure to do basic calculus, peacegirl? Why are you listening to a crackpot who can't do basic maths?

You don't get to outright reject people because you don't agree with their thought system. It's too easy to do, and that's all you people do because you have no other way of defending your position or debating theirs in a fair give and take.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we see light also. I see light every single day when morning arrives. The only difference is that this light does not bring images through space/time to my brain for interpretation, therefore there is no delay in the time it takes for me to see external events.

It does not follow. The premise (light does not bring images through space/time to my brain for interpretation,) does not lead to the conclusion, ( there is no delay in the time it takes for me to see external events). The 2 ideas are not related in the way you suggest. The premise does not prove the conclusion.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't get to outright reject people because you don't agree with their thought system.

No, I reject your latest crackpot because he can't do maths. I've already explained his mistakes, at least twice. You had no response other than to ignore it, and drag his idiotic gibberish out again six months later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, I reject your latest crackpot because he can't do maths. I've already explained his mistakes, at least twice. You had no response other than to ignore it, and drag his idiotic gibberish out again six months later.

Reject all you want. You are being extremely vague, as usual. He is not spouting off gibberish anymore than you are.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't get to outright reject people because you don't agree with their thought system.

That may be the single most hypocritical thing you've ever written. And that's saying something.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's too easy to do, and that's all you people do because you have no other way of defending your position or debating theirs in a fair give and take.

And that may be the single most dishonest thing you've ever written. Which, again, is saying a lot.


We can, and have explained -- in great detail -- the numerous problems with Lessans' claims. How they are contradicted by countless observations, experiments, and fundamental physical laws.


All you have ever been able to offer in response is:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That may be the single most hypocritical thing you've ever written. And that's saying something.

I don't reject people outright, just because they disagree with me. I give reasons, even if those reasons are not acceptable to you. Calling something someone says gibberish is not good enough.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And that may be the single most dishonest thing you've ever written. Which, again, is saying a lot.


We can, and have explained -- in great detail -- the numerous problems with Lessans' claims. How they are contradicted by countless observations, experiments, and fundamental physical laws.


All you have ever been able to offer in response is:

I spent an hour and a half answering your last post, and you answer by saying all I do is ???

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I spent an hour and a half answering your last post, and you answer by saying all I do is ???

Yes, because that was the entire substance of your "reply."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yes, because that was the entire substance of your "reply."

Then you should continue to ask questions, not tell me it didn't have any substance.