A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

I picture is taken; it is not received.

Another one for the list of awesome things that peacegirl says.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Information cannot simply appear in the brain. That would be magic, not seeing.

That's the big fallacy when we're talking about light. Information on a computer does travel, so this does not relate to that; but seeing directly, not a photograph that is seen because it has traveled through space and time, is completely different even though you don't see the difference.

No, they are completely different attributes. One is conveying or receiving information (which involves time). The other is seeing and recording, which does not involve time travel. I don't believe you see the difference.

No, we are talking about information. It doesn't matter what form the information is in. In the case of sight it is information regarding the visual aspects of what is being seen...size, shape, color, movement, distance.

Then how does the brain get the information? You are positing something akin to magic.

I am not the confused one. Information gets to the brain somehow. If it isn't traveling on the light as per efferent vision, then it is up to you to explain how it gets there from an object at a distance.

So far, you are saying it appears there by no means, which is miraculous or magical and negates all known laws of cause and effect and information exchange.

For any action, there is a reaction. I'm not arguing with that. There is nothing magical about the brain, looking through the eyes, and taking a photograph (or recording) of what it sees without the time it takes for light to travel and cause a delay. Obviously, the time it takes for the brain to snap the picture (so-to-speak), and record it, might take a nanosecond, but that's not what he is talking about when he mentioned time. There is no time because there is no light transmitting the image. It's as simple as that. Either the evidence is going to confirm it, or negate it. I don't believe there is anything about efferent vision that would make it innately impossible.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by LadyShe

Efferent vision negates the theory of relativity by making instantaneous communication of information possible regardless of distance. You need to explain how it is compatible with relativity theory, not just say "I don't see how it negates it". It does negate it.

Have you not understood anything I wrote? Lessans explanation of efferent vision has nothing to do with relativity theory whatsoever. Yes, light has everything to do with frequency and the length of the lightwave that light is displaying, but the brain does not recognize those lightwaves because nothing goes into the brain. The brain sees the object or the image, through the eyes. That is the big conundrum, and until this is resolved, Lessans won't be taken seriously. I refuse to continue if that's the case.

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

So, are you saying that time is not relative? Are you still saying the speed of light must be recalculated? Are you prepared to explain how particle accelerators really work instead of how we think they work?

No, because it has nothing to do with anything LadyShea. The speed of light is irrelevant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are not projected until there is a memory in the cell of the brain. Until then, the brain has to record something. Do you not get that doc, or are you so smart that you immediately reject what cannot be denied, if researched thoroughly.

Agreed they are not projected till after the memory is formed, but then how are the images projected?

[LadyShea]

Information is acquired instantly with efferent vision. This is impossible under the theory of relativity. That must be your starting point.

That is the big paradox, and until this is resolved, I won't be taken seriously and nothing Lessans says will be heard.

You need to explain how the two are compatible, not just assert they are. It is impossible to take you seriously until you start explaining how efferent vision actually works, and how it does not negate relativity.

[Vivisectus]

... but information travels faster than light in efferent sight. Thus relativity does indeed become an issue.

Why don't you have a look at the math? Look into the subject? Do you want me to link you the lecture notes for relativity 101?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true Kael. I picture is taken; it is not received. You look ignorant when seen from an unbiased perspective Kael.

No, it is recorded from incoming light. Five minutes research into how photographic cameras work would tell you this, as would conversation with anyone who knows anything about them. The camera does not "take" a picture in the sense you are trying to assign. Light-sensitive chemicals on the film react with incoming light in predictable ways, causing an image to form. That is how film cameras work. That is how they are designed to work, that is how they are built to work. They would not work if that is not what is happening.

As I said, if you truly believe that the eyes and brain are not detecting and recording incoming light, you need to find a different analogy.

Of course, we are just as certain that this is what the eyes and brain in fact do, but you don't want to hear that.

[peacegirl]

[quote=thedoc;951913]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are not projected until there is a memory in the cell of the brain. Until then, the brain has to record something. Do you not get that doc, or are you so smart that you immediately reject what cannot be denied, if researched thoroughly.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Agreed they are not projected till after the memory is formed, but then how are the images projected?

By the ability of the brain to fulfill its function. Once the brain has photographed the information, it can easily project an association that it has made with that photograph. This is a no brainer doc, once you see the validity of Lessans' observations regarding efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

No, it is recorded from incoming light. Five minutes research into how photographic cameras work would tell you this, as would conversation with anyone who knows anything about them. The camera does not "take" a picture in the sense you are trying to assign. Light-sensitive chemicals on the film react with incoming light in predictable ways, causing an image to form. That is how film cameras work. That is how they are designed to work, that is how they are built to work. They would not work if that is not what is happening.

As I said, if you truly believe that the eyes and brain are not detecting and recording incoming light, you need to find a different analogy.

Of course, we are just as certain that this is what the eyes and brain in fact do, but you don't want to hear that.

There is nothing different between the brain taking a photograph and a camera taking a picture. If you compare the two, you will see that there is no conflict whatsoever.

[Vivisectus]

There is nothing different between the brain taking a photograph and a camera taking a picture. If you compare the two, you will see that there is no conflict whatsoever.

Efferent Camera's? Did I miss some previous awesome?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing different between the brain taking a photograph and a camera taking a picture. If you compare the two, you will see that there is no conflict whatsoever.

Except for the fact that the brain does not take photographs in any meaningful sense (it is at best a colorful analogy) and stores images in a very different way from a film camera, this is actually very true. There is no significant difference between how a camera works and how the brain does. Both detect incoming light, and can do nothing if light is not actively entering their respective openings. Hence, both require that light from a distant object/event has had time to reach them, and hence both will see the same things.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Efferent Camera's? Did I miss some previous awesome?

She has attempted to resolve the conflict that cameras take pictures of the same things we see even though we see instantly by claiming that a camera does too. She has not been consistent in such claims, but they've been there on and off throughout the thread. The simple fact that every camera ever has been designed and built on the understanding that it is detecting and recording incoming light, and would not work if that were not the case (this being exactly what she claims the brain doesn't do, which makes it a conflict that all our cameras take pictures of exactly the same things at the same time we see it with our eyes) never seems to phase her.

[thedoc]

[quote=Vivisectus;951894]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The man on Rigel is sitting behind his telescope, looking for Columbus as he can indeed expect to see. In stead of our intrepid italian, however, he sees a man on the beech holding up a sign. The sign says "Surprise!"

Information has traveled - somehow - into the observers brain. The information is that there is a man with a sign there, and that the sign says "surprise". The observer now knows that this is the case. It has arrived there roughly 500 years before any signal (light being the fastest carrier of such) has traveled from the earth to Rigel. It did so instantaneously - we do not know how, as every other transfer of information that we know of needs to be carried by something.

The effect would reach us here on earth before the cause would have taken place. I did explain it to you carefully a while back, complete with the mathematical proof. Would you like me to show it to you again? It really isn't difficult. I took it right out of an introduction to relativity course. If a bunch of college freshmen can grasp it, surely the daughter of a legendary genius can.

OK I'm having a bit of a problem with this, I believe that 'now' is the same thru-out the universe, and if I send an instant message to someone on Regal, or more accurately a planet there, they would receive it and send an instant answer, and the answer would follow the question and all replies would follow in successon. I have a basic understanding of relativity and time dialation, (I hope thats the right term, its been awhile) but if 'now' is the same everywhere how can anything get ahead of the predesessor. I know there was an explination via relativity, but I would like to read it again, so which post was it? or is there a link to an explination? Or would someone just explain it again?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Kael

She has attempted to resolve the conflict that cameras take pictures of the same things we see even though we see instantly by claiming that a camera does too. She has not been consistent in such claims, but they've been there on and off throughout the thread. The simple fact that every camera ever has been designed and built on the understanding that it is detecting and recording incoming light, and would not work if that were not the case (this being exactly what she claims the brain doesn't do, which makes it a conflict that all our cameras take pictures of exactly the same things at the same time we see it with our eyes) never seems to phase her.

How marvellous! So somehow, designing a technology to record light alone has actually been a waste of time, as it was a hitherto unforeseen byproduct of camera-design that has been doing all the real work. Something that somehow reaches out of the receptors for digital cameras, and the chemically treated film for old fashioned film cameras, and takes the picture without receiving it?

I was not aware of this development. Ahaha I made a pun! Just when you think there is no more awesome to explore, there is yet more!

[Vivisectus]

OK I'm having a bit of a problem with this, I believe that 'now' is the same thru-out the universe, and if I send an instant message to someone on Regal, or more accurately a planet there, they would receive it and send an instant answer, and the answer would follow the question and all replies would follow in successon. I have a basic understanding of relativity and time dialation, (I hope thats the right term, its been awhile) but if 'now' is the same everywhere how can anything get ahead of the predesessor. I know there was an explination via relativity, but I would like to read it again, so which post was it? or is there a link to an explination? Or would someone just explain it again?

Here is a link to the part that deals with the FTL travel, but the index deals with everything - inertial frames, etc etc. They are pretty good lecture notes - the illustrations are a nice touch. well worth a read.

Special Relativity : Section 10

[LadyShea]

Here you say you are questioning/disputing relativity And more of the beloved little quaints "Cows come home"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are repeating the premise as if it were absolute fact. This is what is being disputed, so I don't get it if you think you have proven Lessans wrong. Are you kidding me???

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is your opinion, but it's not fact until the cows come home.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The cows haven't come home. Sorry.

You also backpedal and say efferent vision does not have anything to do with relativity You seem to be back to this now. Your not understanding the physics is leading you to not understand the implication of efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Also, you recently stated efferent vision doesn't mess with the proven physics. Efferent vision does not mean physics does not work~peacegirl

Here you again assert that efferent vision has nothing to do with the speed of light, and refused to respond to my explanations as to why it does. The red is the most important

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has everything to do with the speed of light! If not only human eyes, but cameras and other instruments, can detect light at its source instantly, without having to await the photons to travel to its location, that necessarily means faster than light speed communication is possible.

Here you try to move the goalpost away from the instantaneous information exchange to vague and meaningless "gaze", then claim fatigue to allow yourself to bow out of the discussion

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, how can one's gaze at an object (in real time) be faster than the speed of light? Come on, be honest. I am trying to finish the questions that are on pages 92, 93, and 94. Everyone, please refrain from asking anymore questions on light and sight at this time, or I will be forced to ignore them. Maybe at a later date, I will resume the conversation, but right now, I hope you respect my wishes, as I need a break from this topic.

Here, you try to redefine the theory of relativity to only apply to mass, so you can shoehorn efferent vision in there without a contradiction

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.

Here you redefine the word information to suit you

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

I explain again that the burden is on you to find a way to make efferent vision compatible with the theory of relativity. Again the red denotes the most important aspect

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

You once again try to reframe the debate to eliminate relativity as a factor

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

For some reason you think a request to abandon this line of discussion is reasonable and should be honored

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Finally, you concede that instantaneous seeing does convey information faster than the speed of light

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).

I offered some examples of how efferent vision would effect communication You ignored them, perhaps now you can address these?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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 (acquire the information)

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.

And we're back to efferent vision doesn't negate or change the laws of physics, which you try to demonstrate through more redefining and redirection

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].

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

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.)

You once again try to redefine terms to make the claim that no physical laws are broken

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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 LadyShea

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 LadyShea

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

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the science does not discredit what Lessans is saying.

More attempts at weaseling away from what Lessans actually said in an attempt to make efferent vision compatible with science

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I have said that this kind of communication is not what Lessans is talking about. Nothing he has claimed defies the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans stated flat out that we could visually communicate (by seeing what people are doing right now) in real time with a person on (or near) Rigel which is ~800 light years away. So yes, it was the type of communication he was talking about.

So, that's where we are, still

peacegirl, do you, or do you not understand how efferent vision would necessarily allow instantaneous communication of information regardless of distance? Do you, or do you not understand how instantaneous communication of information regardless of distance is impossible due to relativity theory? Do you or do you not understand how causality fits in to the discussion?

Originally Posted by Viv's link

For an event A to be the cause of another event B, then A must occur before B.

If event A is a light flashing and event B is your seeing the light flashing, they cannot occur at the same time. It is impossible

[Vivisectus]

Wow. You don't realize the amount of wriggling, backpedalling, special pleading and question-dodging that goes on until you see it all neatly lined up like that. It is like a mighty edifice made up entirely of weasel. And that is just going back a handful of posts!

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;951917]

Originally Posted by thedoc

By the ability of the brain to fulfill its function. Once the brain has photographed the information, it can easily project an association that it has made with that photograph. This is a no brainer doc, once you see the validity of Lessans' observations regarding efferent vision.

Could you explain this in more detail?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Efferent Camera's? Did I miss some previous awesome?

I was trying to reconcile cameras with eyes. A camera would be very similar to the eye if it is taking a picture without light having to travel millions of miles to reach the film. That is why a picture of a supernova turns out to be the same as what the eye sees.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wow. You don't realize the amount of wriggling, backpedalling, special pleading and question-dodging that goes on until you see it all neatly lined up like that. It is like a mighty edifice made up entirely of weasel. And that is just going back a handful of posts!

That's because you aren't giving me credit for trying to reconcile the questions that have been posed with efferent vision. This is not weaseling at all. This is trying to put together pieces of a puzzle that make sense if one is coming from a different perspective.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to reconcile cameras with eyes. A camera would be very similar to the eye if it is taking a picture without light having to travel millions of miles to reach the film. That is why a picture of a supernova turns out to be the same as what the eye sees.

But even you would have to admit that that does not make a lot of sense. Cameras work because they receive light. Old-fashioned ones worked with nothing but light-sensitive film in them, and lenses to make sure the light hits them in the right way so the picture is in focus.

Are you saying there has been some miraculous and hitherto completely unnoticed side-effect of camera design going on that was really what was capturing the images? Can we not even say for sure how a machine we design and build ourselves works?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you aren't giving me credit for trying to reconcile the questions that have been posed with efferent vision. This is not weaseling at all. This is trying to put together pieces of a puzzle that make sense if one is coming from a different perspective.

Indeed. Only you use glue and a pair of scissors on the puzzle-pieces, because the picture you think it should form does not conform with the picture you get when you put the puzzle together like it is supposed to go.

It IS weaseling - it is continually moving the goalposts, changing definitions, dodging questions just so you don't have to admit it doesn't make sense. And that is just for the most easily disproven part of the whole damn book!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Except for the fact that the brain does not take photographs in any meaningful sense (it is at best a colorful analogy) and stores images in a very different way from a film camera, this is actually very true. There is no significant difference between how a camera works and how the brain does. Both detect incoming light, and can do nothing if light is not actively entering their respective openings. Hence, both require that light from a distant object/event has had time to reach them, and hence both will see the same things.

They both require light, but the light ends at the film of a camera and at the retina of the eye. Anything beyond the retina cannot be compared to a camera because cameras do not have brains. The example of the sun being turned on was hypothetical, (to show that there is nothing in the light itself causing sight). If the sun was already visible to the naked eye, the photons have already arrived. Even if a small star would explode into a supernova, the star was already visible because the stream of light coming from that star was already here, but in the case of the eye we would be seeing the light source, whereas the camera would be taking a picture due to the lightwaves that are being reflected from that same light source. Both the eyes and a camera, therefore, are seeing the object or image in real time. The only thing that is necessary is for the object or image to be within the field of view, of a camera's lens, and the field of vision of an eye's lens, to get the same exact picture.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, they are completely different attributes. One is conveying or receiving information (which involves time). The other is seeing and recording, which does not involve time travel. I don't believe you see the difference.

What do you think "seeing" is exactly? What do you think "information" is exactly? Seeing is an act of acquiring information in the brain using the eyes.

Without information being acquired, there would be nothing for the brain to record. Really, what part of this are you not understanding?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For any action, there is a reaction.

That's Newton's Law of Motion. I was talking about causality

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not arguing with that.

Good because that would be a strawman since it wasn't the physical law I was discussing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing magical about the brain, looking through the eyes, and taking a photograph (or recording) of what it sees without the time it takes for light to travel and cause a delay.

But there is, since it is impossible for that to happen without breaking the laws of physics, you are left with magic or miracle.

There is no time because there is no light transmitting the image. It's as simple as that.

There is information being somehow transferred between point A (the Object) and point B (the Brain). It is as simple as that, and you still can't understand it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Here is a link to the part that deals with the FTL travel, but the index deals with everything - inertial frames, etc etc. They are pretty good lecture notes - the illustrations are a nice touch. well worth a read.

Special Relativity : Section 10

OK I'm going to need to work on this awhile, it's been over 30 years since I read about this. And I'm still not sure I can agree with this,

"What I am saying is that 2 events that seem to have happened at the same time for the observer on train do not happen at the same time for the observer on the ground. In fact, from the point of view of another observer moving faster than the train, like the observer in the sports car above, the light reaches the back of the train after it reaches the front of the train since in that observer's frame, it is the back of the train that is moving away from the light and the front of the train that is moving toward it."

The illustration shows the light stationary and the train moving back but the light is fixed to the train and both are moving forward just not as fast as the car, I think there is a bit of problems with semantics. In fact both illustrations with an outside observer show the light bulb stationary relative to the train, I think that is a problem, at least for me so far.

What all 3 illustrations showed is that the light bulb is stationary relative to the observer, and it was stated that the light was on the train, the assumption is that it is fixed to the train. Someone isn't very accurate at making drawings.

"Consider a moving train with a light bulb in the middle. If you turn the light bulb on, light will travel both toward the front of the train and also toward the back of the train with speed c=3×108m/sec."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed. Only you use glue and a pair of scissors on the puzzle-pieces, because the picture you think it should form does not conform with the picture you get when you put the puzzle together like it is supposed to go.

It IS weaseling - it is continually moving the goalposts, changing definitions, dodging questions just so you don't have to admit it doesn't make sense. And that is just for the most easily disproven part of the whole damn book!

Not true! The only reason it seems that way is because I never had to think through all of these questions that have been posed. So you're not going to be satisfied because it feels like I'm weaseling. The only thing that needs to be valid is efferent vision. If it turns out to be true, then all of these questions will be answered much more thoroughly by scientists in the field.