A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say that light has to transfer information which travels no faster than the speed of light. But light is not transporting the image to the eyes in the case of efferent vision, so there is a problem with this theory. Seeing an object instantly (if efferent vision is correct) does mean we are getting information faster than we would if that same light were carrying that information from point A (the light source) to point B (the brain). But I don't think that's what is meant when it says there is nothing that can travel faster than the speed of light, which is related to mass.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, something must carry that information. It doesn't matter whether it's light or something else -- something must be carrying the information at FTL (indeed, infinite) speed if your model of vision is true.

And instantaneous information transfer is flat-out forbidden by relativity theory, for reasons that have already been (repeatedly) explained to you, in some detail. And no, it does not just relate to mass. Matter cannot even travel at the speed of light, much less faster.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What a pathetic statement.

I'm beginning to think thedoc is right. You're not a true beliver in a wacky cult of one. You're a con artist, like your father, and you're trying to bilk some rubes out of their money. Nobody could say stuff as stupid as this and actually believe it.

It did sound wacky, but I thought by this time you would know what I meant. I guess my expectations were too high.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This entire thread went into a direction I wasn't prepared for, so what do you expect? A rocket scientist?

That's the point!

You know nothing about the relevent science, yet you're convinced that it's all wrong.

A more breath-takingly arrogant and willfully-ignorant attitude than yours would be difficult to imagine.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't have to be here on Earth for us to see an explosion that is that huge, because the light created from that explosion causes a brightness that would allow it to be seen. Where is the contradiction?

Jesus ... fucking ... Christ!

Yes, the light from the explosion is bright enough to be seen, when it fucking arrives on the earth. In the case of a star 1,000 light years away, that will be 1,000 years! To be "bright enough to be seen," the light must first ARRIVE!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It did sound wacky, but I thought by this time you would know what I meant. I guess my expectations were too high.

It doesn't mean anything!

It's a very bright explosion, and that's what allows it to be seen?? Great! What makes it bright?

Light! That's what makes it bright!

See? That rhymes! It's catchy! Why don't you repeat that over and over until you get it?

But, if a star is 1,000 light years away, the light can't make it bright to people on earth until it REACHES people on earth! For light to be a "condition of sight" it must be PRESENT!

[davidm]

It's coming...

There will be

FOOD

There will be

SONG

There will be

DANCE


There will be


GOILS! GOILS! GOILS!

The blowout party of the century! A celebration of 200 pages of

UTTER DRIVEL

It's the

TWO-HUNDRED-PAGE PARTY

Be there or be square!

And remember:

DON'T STICK YOUR DICK IN THE MASHED POTATOES!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, he did. I even gave the exact quote from Lessans earlier.

OK, I was looking on page 120 of the PDF, where did you see it? or which post on this thread, Thanks.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, I have not been ignoring anyone these last 195 pages,

Another outright lie, when will it stop? Some people will repeat a lie so often that they will start to believe it is the truth, like Lessans.

[thedoc]

And those relegated to the parking lot, don't screw my car, you know who you are.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK, I was looking on page 120 of the PDF, where did you see it? or which post on this thread, Thanks.

Sayeth The Great Man:

it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Sayeth The Great Man:

Hmmm, I had seen that and read it several times but it was not clear to me that it said exactly that, I think Lessans was very clever in writing it to be a little vague and giving himself some wiggle room to say he didn't mean it that way, but thats just my reading of it, because that phrase follows the comment about the Earth turning and coming back ito the Sun's light. I don't want to start an argument, I just want to be clear.

[ShottleBop]

From page 120:

If the sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

If I understand what Lessans is saying correctly, he did not believe that we see things because of reflected light at all. Light needs to be around for us to see, but it is not what we see--we see things themselves. Do I have that wrong?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

If I understand what Lessans is saying correctly, he did not believe that we see things because of reflected light at all. Light needs to be around for us to see, but it is not what we see--we see things themselves. Do I have that wrong?

No, I think you have a firm grasp on the insanity.

[Doctor X]

I also like to waste my time wondering what the guy who lives in the dumpster rants about. . . .

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say that light has to transfer information which travels no faster than the speed of light. But light is not transporting the image to the eyes in the case of efferent vision, so there is a problem with this theory. Seeing an object instantly (if efferent vision is correct) does mean we are getting information faster than we would if that same light were carrying that information from point A (the light source) to point B (the brain). But I don't think that's what is meant when it says there is nothing that can travel faster than the speed of light, which is related to mass.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has been repeatedly explained to you, something must carry that information. It doesn't matter whether it's light or something else -- something must be carrying the information at FTL (indeed, infinite) speed if your model of vision is true.

No, nothing must carry the object or the image to the eye if efferent vision is true. This does not change physics or the fact that light travels away from the object and shows up as an image after it has traversed a certain distance. But this has nothing to do with efferent vision, and you won't be able to see this until you recognize that efferent vision is a valid [theory].

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And instantaneous information transfer is flat-out forbidden by relativity theory, for reasons that have already been (repeatedly) explained to you, in some detail. And no, it does not just relate to mass. Matter cannot even travel at the speed of light, much less faster.

I really don't get why you don't understand that this [theory] has absolutely nothing to do with matter traveling at any speed, let alone faster than the speed of light. We're only talking about seeing the object directly and for you to say that's impossible is ludicrous. It's true that efferent vision uses light but differently than assumed. If you can't understand this, you'll be stuck on your position without budging.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I do get it. I get it better than you do because I am able to follow Lessans line of reasoning to various necessary conclusions. If he was right, and you can prove it, you will turn the whole world upside down just with that bit of science. Faster than light speed communications using light? OMG!

So your wanting to discuss "more important" parts of the book cannot happen because Lessans chose to posit the biggest challenge to physics since Hawkings Paradox regarding information being destroyed in black holes. Unfortunately for you he didn't bother to do any math or science to support his idea, so you are stuck with what you have.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of this is our fault, peacegirl. We didn't write the book. We didn't seek you out. And, most importantly, you don't get to choose what parts of the book are important or impactful to its readers. You don't get to frame the debate of any ideas presented from any source.

I don't get to do anything, right, but you get to pull sentences out of context and make the book look foolish. If readers listen to the people in here just by their derogatory tone, it is no wonder no one cares to read the book. I don't know why I'm even here other than the fact that once this thread closes, I'm never venturing into another forum of this type again.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We don't close threads. So your choice is to walk away, or stay and keep having this discussion. No way are science minded people going to drop that topic, because it's the most important in the book.

I realize that this is causing a serious problem, but I would like to take a break. It's never going to be resolved in this thread. For people to be that stubborn that they can't, even temporarily, give Lessans the benefit of the doubt so we can move on to his most important discovery, is not doing any of us any good, but especially me --- and I count.

[Doctor X]

. . . sometimes he makes more sense than peacegirl.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course you can. You are actually seeing the light source in that instance. A road flare is the actual light source. A bright flashlight shining at you may be difficult to see the actual light source because of the light shining in your eyes, similar to a laser pen. But if that flashlight were to aim at a wall, for example, you would see the light that has traveled from the light source to the wall, which is delayed because that light has traveled a finite distance to another destination which is reflecting that light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't ask if you can see the flashlight, or the pen. If you can see the light from those sources blinking on/off at a distance are you seeing the light instantly? Let's make it a spotlight going into the air. Can you see those? I didn't ask about a wall or any other thing.

You call this not weaseling? You call this honest discourse? You are playing dumb.

You know that if you say yes, you can see the light at a distance instantly, you are admitting that you believe faster than light communication is possible? If faster than light communication was possible, any scientist would jump at the chance to prove it and achieve worldwide fame and a Nobel prize. Unfortunately it is not possible. It definitively disproves Lessans.

You will keep acting like an idiot and say "I didn't say that" or weasel around some more, but that's because you know I am right.

What did I say in the first part of this post?

But if that flashlight were to aim at a wall, for example, you would see the light that has traveled from the light source to the wall, which is delayed because that light has traveled a finite distance to another destination which is reflecting that light.

I could not get a code sent from a laser pen 50 ft. away, or any emitted light that needed to traverse a certain distance, without it traveling. But we're not talking about this. We're talking about seeing an object in real time, which is possible, according to efferent vision (even though emitted light transfers information of a certain type from point A to point B.) But to conclude that this kind of information necessarily discredits efferent vision because your logic tells you that the same information that is transferred from point A to point B must, out of necessity, be decoded in the brain as an image, is in error, if Lessans is right. If efferent vision is, by definition, seeing the object (not the information coming from the light as it traverses space and time), then light becomes a condition, not a cause, of sight. David asks me what that means. What it means is that the eyes, looking at the object directly, takes a photograph (or recording) of what it sees and stores it in memory, using that information to form new connections, patterns, and ideas. Why is so unbelievable to everyone? It does not break any forbidden laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

pg: This is what makes this whole thread so very unfortunate, and why I won't do it again. [from here]
mick: You mean, not of your own free will?
pg: If I choose not to do this again, it is because when comparing to do this or not to do this, it gives me greater satisfaction not to do this. [from here]
mick: Then surely, if that's true and your father's ideas were right, you would have stopped doing it?
pg: When I weigh the options of not coming back vs. coming back (in order to challenge the lies in here), I choose to come back, in the direction of greater satisfaction. [from here]

First you say you won't do this again because it gives you greater satisfaction not to do this. Then you say that you choose to come back in the direction of greater satisfaction. Can you see how that doesn't make sense?

I can change my mind 1000 times before making a decision, but once a choice is made, it could never have been otherwise. That doesn't mean that I can't change my next choice based on the outcome of my decisions up to that point. While contemplating what my next choice will be (even if the choices available to me are limited because of my particular circumstances), that choice is not in stone. I am vascillating back and forth because I'm not sure what I want to do. I'm weighing options and those options depend on how everyone responds to me. If I continue on, I may choose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to give an ultimatum of discussing his other discovery or forget it, and if no one wants to do this, or give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, at least temporarily, and move on to more important things (more important because his first discovery has the power to prevent war and crime; I think that's pretty important, don't you?), then I will have to make a decision what I want to do when I cross that bridge.

[Vivisectus]

I could not get a code sent from a laser pen 50 ft. away, or any emitted light that needed to traverse a certain distance, without it traveling. But we're not talking about this. We're talking about seeing an object in real time, which is possible, according to efferent vision (even though emitted light transfers information of a certain type from point A to point B.)

Ok - let us take light out of the equation altogether. Apparently it just needs to be around the object, so it need not concern us. If we had a decent telescope, we could see a huge spaceship 10 light minutes away, travelling at speed. This spaceship can change color - one second it can be black, the other it can be white. We agree a morse code - long flashes of white and short ones. Both the spaceship and the earth are bathed in light.

With a similar large device on earth we could do the same down here, and equip the spaceship with a good telescope as well. All these things are quite feasible. You could even put a large object in orbit, if you prefer.

We could then receive a message from the spaceship that is an answer to the question we are going to ask it a few minutes later, depending on the speed of the ship. No light needs to travel at all in this scenario if efferent vision works- there is just a color change in the object, which is something we can observe instantly and directly according to instant, efferent vision.

It is impossible, as it would immediately cause a paradox - what if we then decide not to send the message? If it were me at the signalling-box, that would be almost inevitable - I am just that kind of person who really cannot leave well enough alone.

Another interesting question - what happens if I am in a well-lit room, looking through a sheet of glass at an object that is also well lit? I can see the object. But what if the glass is polarized in such a way that light can only travel from me into the room beyond, and not back? If this is the case, then I cannot see the object. A good example is one-way mirrors on car windows. And yet, all we prevent is light travelling from the object to me! If Efferent vision was correct, we would be able to see through the glass, as all it does is stop light from passing through. If in stead we need light to reflect off an object back onto our retina in order for us to be able to see it, then we would not be able to see through the glass.

Two things that work, that we have tested and observed, and that contradict efferent, instant vision, disproving it.

[Vivisectus]

I will happily move on to the more ethically oriented part of the book if you just concede that efferent vision is not possible.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I will happily move on to the more ethically oriented part of the book. . . .

You mean the "How to Pick Up Goils and Get Them to Keep a Good House" part?

--J.D.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

You mean the "How to Pick Up Goils and Get Them to Keep a Good House" part?

--J.D.

Yeah. It is like Martha Stewart is now running Bimbo Island.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is transmitting the message by the codes that the two participants made up, but that's not the kind of information I'm talking about.

It is information, though. My saying hello to you with nothing but flashes of light is an exchange of information. It is, in fact communication*. If you see my light immediately, using efferent vision, without having to wait for the photons from my light to travel to your eyes, we have communicated faster than the speed of light.

This is a necessary conclusion of efferent vision.

*Communication is the transfer of information.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave the example about a shooting star that burns up in space. If it was in our visual field, we would see these meteoroids burning up in real time because these meteoroids are the light-source and nothing from that light source is sending signals to our brain via its light emissions.

If you can see light without the photons from the emitting source having to reach your eyes, you are receiving information to your brain (the size, shape, brightness, speed, color etc. of whatever you are seeing is information) faster than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As to who is doing the obfuscating, and who is trying to maintain the integrity of science's position in spite of a valid disputation, is an open question.

It is not a valid dispute until you offer a scientifically and/or mathematically sound mechanism by which information can be transferred instantaneously. You would need to mathematically prove that the theory of relativity does not apply when discussing eyes, cameras, telescopes, or microscopes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all goes back to how the brain and eyes work; not how light works.

Unfortunately for you, the eyes and brain are subject to the laws of physics currently. The laws of physics eliminate the possibility of faster than light communication.

Also, Lessans had to go say that someone on Rigel and another on Earth would not be separated by ~800 years, defying the laws of physics. His examples disputed how light works. So you're stuck with that.

And I asked people to please not keep posting on this subject. Does anyone EVER listen?

As I said, you don't get to decide what is important to readers. This is the topic of the book most important to us....mostly because Lessans chose to stray from the less easily disproved realm of psychology and philosophy and into the world of physics. Too bad for you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing an object instantly (if efferent vision is correct) does mean we are getting information faster than we would if that same light were carrying that information from point A (the light source) to point B (the brain).

Great. You now concede that efferent vision allows faster than light communication. Now we can get somewhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I don't think that's what is meant when it says there is nothing that can travel faster than the speed of light, which is related to mass.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

However, as it stands, I am limiting my discussion to faster than light speed communication. If efferent vision is true (and is extended to cameras and telescopes), we can communicate with light faster than the speed of light.

All we need is to shoot high powered lasers at the space station, or the Mars rovers or the Voyager's cameras...the cameras would be able to see the light at it's source, and instantly get the message.

The Luxor Vegas light is eye visible from orbit, so we could build a similar light to communicate with satellites and any future astronauts without having to account for the time delay of using radio waves. All they need is a camera on a computer that interprets Morse code.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This entire thread went into a direction I wasn't prepared for, so what do you expect?

Since this aspect has been repeatedly of high interest to the science minded people you have talked to, you should have been prepared.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said all along, I'm trying to see how efferent vision can fit into a scientific model without disrupting all of physics.

It can't. And for you to see if it could you would need to learn something about physics. And anyone can do so. I don't even have a college degree but have been able to educate myself to some extent, so you certainly can as well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, nothing must carry the object or the image to the eye if efferent vision is true. This does not change physics or the fact that light travels away from the object and shows up as an image after it has traversed a certain distance. But this has nothing to do with efferent vision, and you won't be able to see this until you recognize that efferent vision is a valid [theory].

Strawman. Nobody said anything about carrying an object or image.

When you see something, you receive information about it...color, size, distance, speed, brightness, shape. Information about the object has been transferred from the object, to your brain, through your eyes, in both efferent and afferent vision. Correct?

Afferent vision says the information about the object is carried with the light to the eyes and interpreted in the brain, efferent vision says the brain receives the information instantaneously looking through the eyes.

Information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light according to the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't get why you don't understand that this [theory] has absolutely nothing to do with matter traveling at any speed, let alone faster than the speed of light.

He wasnt talking about matter. He was talking about information. As I have stated in this post, we are talking about information regarding the object being seen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're only talking about seeing the object directly and for you to say that's impossible is ludicrous.

It is impossible according to the laws of physics

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that efferent vision uses light but differently than assumed. If you can't understand this, you'll be stuck on your position without budging.

Efferent vision still requires that the brain receives information about the object it is seeing through the eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could not get a code sent from a laser pen 50 ft. away, or any emitted light that needed to traverse a certain distance, without it traveling. But we're not talking about this. We're talking about seeing an object in real time, which is possible, according to efferent vision (even though emitted light transfers information of a certain type from point A to point B.) But to conclude that this kind of information necessarily discredits efferent vision because your logic tells you that the same information that is transferred from point A to point B must, out of necessity, be decoded in the brain as an image, is in error, if Lessans is right.

If your brain can see my light blinking, instantly, without the photons needing to travel to your eye, and your brain can understand the message I am sending, information has been transferred from me to you using light only, and in real time, faster than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If efferent vision is, by definition, seeing the object (not the information coming from the light as it traverses space and time), then light becomes a condition, not a cause, of sight.

Information about the object (size, color, shape, brightness, speed etc.) gets into your brain when you see it, even with efferent vision. That information is what we are discussing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What it means is that the eyes, looking at the object directly, takes a photograph (or recording) of what it sees and stores it in memory, using that information to form new connections, patterns, and ideas. Why is so unbelievable to everyone? It does not break any forbidden laws of physics.

It is unbelievable to the everyone that information, about the object being seen, entered your brain faster than the speed of light.

[LadyShea]

Oooh the one way glass is a good example, Vivisectus. How do you explain that peacegirl? The glass is perfectly transparent, but the lightwaves are being reflected from one side only (in afferent vision, the eyes are only receiving the reflected light, so the brain can only interpret the reflection), so the person on that side cannot see through the glass.

Efferent vision should allow the person to see through the glass.