A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Here is a nice anagram I discovered of the name Louis Savain:

Voila! Is anus.

[thedoc]

In his book Lessans claimed that Mathematical, Scientific, and Undeniable all meant the same thing. Peacegirl has picked up on this deficiency in giving several different words the same meaning, and claims that reading, understanding, and agreeing with, all mean the same thing, especially when it comes to her fathers book.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't badmouth Lessans without a solid refutation. If you start acting like thedoc who just blathers on and on with empty rhetoric, you will be ignored.

"Without a solid refutation"? What about the Fizeau experiment? The one which wouldn't work to calculate the speed of light if we saw in real time? What about the numerous people who have shown you the modal fallacy in Lessans' free will argument? My own dogs refute Lessans' assertions about them every day?

I didn't write what I did without a history of refutations that have proven to me that Lessans' ideas have no merit. Have you forgotten all of this?

[davidm]

Peacegirl, do you agree with you hero, Voila! Is Anus that “space is an illusion” and that once this fact is recognized, we will have “jump technologies” that will enable us to wake up in New York City, have breakfast in Paris or Rome and lunch in Rio de Janeiro?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that these observations haven't been made. It's the interpretation of these observations that are of relevance. I don't care what you all think of Louis Savain. I will quote him because I believe he's spot on.

Time does not dilate (as if time could change!). On the contrary, it is the clocks that slow down (for whatever reason) resulting in longer measured intervals.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics[/I]

If you believe this guy, if the clocks slowed down, wouldn't you slow down too?

This is what I meant by your time != my time. Whatever happened to that clock to make it go slower is also happening to you traveling with that clock.

The way I see it, this guy is deciding that "time" is something different than the measured, observable time we experience. It's up to him to prove how a concept of "time" outside our measurable experience is a valuable tool for understanding the universe.

[davidm]

It has already been explained to her many, many times that clocks slowing down just IS time dilation -- the very thing that her hero, Voila! Is Anus! tries to deny exists, yet then immediately confirms that time dilation exists by admitting that clocks slow down!

Such buffoonery as Voila! exhibits is like a perverse sort of art form in its risable artlessness.

But, as mentioned, all the stuff about clocks (and all physical processes) slowing down in inertial frames (i.e., time dilation), and what that implies, cannot be comprehended by peacegril, because she has no brain.

[davidm]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

because she has no brain.

Are you saying that Peacegirl is a scarecrow? I must disagree, at least a scarecrow does something useful.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

If I Only Had a Brain - The Wizard of Oz (4/8)...

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

Why do you keep quoting this guy? I've already explained, in great detail, the very basic mistakes he makes in some simple calculus. He is a crackpot and nobody here will take his bad maths seriously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't badmouth Lessans without a solid refutation. If you start acting like thedoc who just blathers on and on with empty rhetoric, you will be ignored.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Without a solid refutation"? What about the Fizeau experiment? The one which wouldn't work to calculate the speed of light if we saw in real time?

This experiment does not conflict. We know that we can measure the speed of light by using this experiment along with others, because light is finite.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

What about the numerous people who have shown you the modal fallacy in Lessans' free will argument? My own dogs refute Lessans' assertions about them every day?

There is no modal fallacy because no one is predicting before hand how the world must be necessarily. You must have missed my most recent post on this.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I didn't write what I did without a history of refutations that have proven to me that Lessans' ideas have no merit. Have you forgotten all of this?

What refutations? You mentioned the modal fallacy which doesn't prove him wrong. You mentioned your dog recognizing you but this involved other cues. You're jumping to the conclusion that he's wrong way too fast.

[But]

Originally Posted by But

No, let's not leave it at that. You're not weaseling out of this. This is just about observations by radio waves and optical telescopes. Those two methods give the same results with the same light-time delay. According to you, they shouldn't. You are saying that radio waves travel at the speed of light but vision (also by telescopes) is instantaneous.

Also, I don't know exactly what you mean by the above comment. Do you mean why don't they mention light-time correction in the article? I guess because for everyone but you, it's completely fucking obvious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why do you keep quoting this guy? I've already explained, in great detail, the very basic mistakes he makes in some simple calculus. He is a crackpot and nobody here will take his bad maths seriously.

He may be wrong about some things but that doesn't mean he's wrong about all things. In this case, I think he's right. I'm sure he's not the only one that believes time is not a 4th dimension.

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.

No Arrow of Time

Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the University of Central Arkansas said it best:

What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one "way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming.

From "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?" Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994

Contrast the above with the claim by Dr. Thorne et al that one can travel in spacetime. Note also that, if one accepts the existence of an unchanging spacetime and frozen world-lines (as so many relativists do), there is no arrow of time either. An arrow is only meaningful if there is change or motion.

<snip>

Why Do People Believe in an Arrow of Time?

Here is what one or my readers (19 year-old Preston Sumner) wrote in this regard:

I think the reason so many latch onto an "arrow of time" is because of the human mind. We store memories and information in our brains, and so we have a "past" that exists in our heads. All our lives we have this mental function and never question it, and because of this, it's easy to envision that the past is actually "alive" and a co-existing plane of existence of some sort. The concepts of past and future become so engrained in our worldviews that we can't separate ourselves from it. Sci-fi also aids in this.

I often marvel that young people can have so much more insight into the nature of things than some of society's most celebrated and admired scientists and thinkers. Is it because the young have not yet been completely indoctrinated into the Borg-like hive mentality that is so prevalent in society. A mind is terrible thing to assimilate.

Isn't it Amazing?

Isn't it amazing that Dr. Kip "Wormhole" Thorne and his time travel colleagues at Caltech and elsewhere can claim that the mathematics of general relativity does not forbid time travel even though it does exactly that?

Is it not also amazing that physicist Julian Barbour felt it necessary to write an entire book to demonstrate "The End of Time" when it can be shown in a single sentence? Why should it take an entire book to convince the old school that there is no time dimension? It is not as if one is trying to deprogram a cult. Or is it?

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It would be interesting to see the radio waves and an image showing up at the same instant. Obviously, if light travels at the same speed as a radio wave we would see an image at exactly the same time but this does not give us proof unless we observe the exact timing that we see the image. We are assuming (aren't we?) that because the two are always seen together that this is the conclusive evidence we need. But is it?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be interesting to see the radio waves and an image showing up at the same instant. Obviously, if light travels at the same speed as a radio wave we would see an image at exactly the same time

Yes, obviously. But not according to you. Have you forgotten about this real-time seeing business?

but this does not give us proof unless we observe the exact timing that we see the image. We are assuming (aren't we?) that because the two are always seen together that this is the conclusive evidence we need. But is it?

Don't try to make things fuzzy again. Your claim is that telescopes record the positions of planets where they are right now. Every single part of space programs rests on the assumption that that's not where the planets are right now, we see them where they were when the light left them. You are saying that this is not true, but somehow no one has noticed it. If that was the case, every single remotely controlled spacecraft would fly off to who knows where. The orbits are planned ahead of time with insane precision. None of this would work.

[Ari]

Wait does PeaceGirl think light and radio waves are two different things?

[davidm]

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, if light travels at the same speed as a radio wave...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be interesting to see the radio waves and an image showing up at the same instant. Obviously, if light travels at the same speed as a radio wave we would see an image at exactly the same time but this does not give us proof unless we observe the exact timing that we see the image. We are assuming (aren't we?) that because the two are always seen together that this is the conclusive evidence we need. But is it?

For anyone who understands anything about light and vision, it is conclusive proof, but since it contradicts Lessans nonsense you will claim that "something else is going on".

FYI, Light and Radio waves are both part of the electro magnetic spectrum and are both forms of light that have different frequencies and wavelengths and travel at the same speed.

Light and radio waves do show up at the same instant, if they did not scientists and astronomers would have noticed and found out why.

[davidm]

Hey, dumb ass, did you read your own quoted source?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the University of Central Arkansas said it best:

What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy).

So now you're an indeterminist?

[davidm]

Peacegirl, who doesn't even know that radio waves ARE light waves; peacegirl, who doesn't even know that a memory of the past IS an arrow of time ...

Thanks for the lulz!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This experiment does not conflict. We know that we can measure the speed of light by using this experiment along with others, because light is finite.

There is no modal fallacy because no one is predicting before hand how the world must be necessarily. You must have missed my most recent post on this.

What refutations? You mentioned the modal fallacy which doesn't prove him wrong. You mentioned your dog recognizing you but this involved other cues. You're jumping to the conclusion that he's wrong way too fast.

No, no, no, and no.

Fizeaus' experiment had a lamp that was 1) bright enough to be seen, and 2) large enough to be seen, yet even though he had a clear visual path to the lamp, he couldn't see it. This is the condition in which Fizeau used to calculate the speed of light, an this is in clear contradiction to Lessans' statements. Therefore, Lessans notion of instant vision is wrong.

As a child, I lived in a rural area under a flight path to O'Hare but far enough away that the planes were still at a high altitude. I can't even count the number of times I've seen a jet before hearing it. You've even been shown videos of the Blue Angels doing a supersonic flyby, or have you forgotten? Look it up (again). Part of Lessans' "proof" of instant vision is incorrect.

Just because you refuse to see the modal fallacy doesn't mean it's not there. If you choose item #9 on the restaurant menu, do the other items on the menu disappear?

You are only assuming the dogs had other cues. This is your shitty "there must be something else" excuse. If dogs don't recognize things visually, why do they chase light from laser pointers?

No, you've been posting for years now, and it's not jumping to conclusions too fast, Lessans has been proven wrong to my satisfaction again and again and again.

[davidm]

Peacegirl, who doesn't even know that the slowing of a clock IS time dilation ....

Peacegirl, who has never even recognized that her father's claim we hear a plane before we see it, in addition to being factually incorrect, CONTRADICTS Lessans' own claims. Lessans said we see INSTANTLY but that we have to wait for sound waves to arrive at our ears. So under Lessans' own claim, how could we hear something before we see it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Don't try to make things fuzzy again. Your claim is that telescopes record the positions of planets where they are right now. Every single part of space programs rests on the assumption that that's not where the planets are right now, we see them where they were when the light left them. You are saying that this is not true, but somehow no one has noticed it. If that was the case, every single remotely controlled spacecraft would fly off to who knows where. The orbits are planned ahead of time with insane precision. None of this would work.

First of all, Peacegirl has no understanding of science including astro mechanics and orbital mechanics or astronomy. Second she doesn't understand what her father wrote in his book, she just accepts it at face value without comprehension. Finally Peacegirl isn't trying to make things fuzzy, Peacegirls thinking is fuzzy to start with, so anything she posts will be fuzzy. Trying to explain any of this to her, is like trying to explain any technical topic to someone who is asleep with ear plugs in.