A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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."

The light in the illustration is an imaginary, infinitely brief source of light. It flashes, and we then imagine we can see the brief burst of photons travel to both sides

Because the speed of light is constant nomatter what kind of inertial frame you are in it will seem to hit the front and back at the same time when you are in the train.

If you are on the ground, then with normal objects, the speed of the train should be added to the speed of the light... but this doesn't happen with light, as we have measured. The speed of light relative to the guy on the ground goes one way and the other at the same speed relative to him, so to him it looks like the light hits the back of the train first.

Does that help?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

It is weaseling. It is refusing to deal with some pretty conclusive proof that efferent vision is impossible by doing anything except admitting it, which now includes hiding behind some fictitious future scientists.

And funny - in 30 years it never occurred to your father that his idea actually contradicts a widely known scientific theory? Does that not make you think about his methods? He even mentions Einstein in his book!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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."

This experiment shows that what we see is relative based on the observer's relative position. But we're not talking about the lightbulb itself (which is the lightsource). I believe the observer in the sport's car and the person on the train would see it the same exact way. I think that's the example davidm gave early in the thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is weaseling. It is refusing to deal with some pretty conclusive proof that efferent vision is impossible by doing anything except admitting it, which now includes hiding behind some fictitious future scientists.

And funny - in 30 years it never occurred to your father that his idea actually contradicts a widely known scientific theory? Does that not make you think about his methods? He even mentions Einstein in his book!

It doesn't contradict the theory of relativity, so there's no reason why he wouldn't mention Einstein in his book.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

We keep on telling you, efferent vision will never be accepted without being able to explain these problems. You can't expect people to replace a comprehensive theory that works with observable reality with an incomplete guess which defies current understanding and doesn't do a better job of explaining how reality works.

For anyone to be even interested in efferent vision, there has to be a compelling reason to want to study it, and there are no compelling scientific reasons to study it. This is a hurdle you will have to overcome. As rude as we can be, the objections we're raising are exactly the objections you would have to address to get any scientist interested in efferent vision.

Good luck with that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't contradict the theory of relativity

It does.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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

That part was already posted awhile back. I'll post it again because I can't explain it any better than he already did.

The brain is a very
complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder
through our ears and the other three senses, and a camera through
our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie
projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are
projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in
relation and photographed by the brain. Consequently, since the eyes
are the binoculars of the brain all words that are placed in front of this
telescope, words containing every conceivable kind of relation, are
projected as slides onto the screen of the outside world and if these
words do not accurately symbolize, as with ‘five senses,’ man will
actually think he sees what has absolutely no existence; and if words
correctly describe then he will be made conscious of actual differences
and relations that exist externally but have no meaning for those who
do not know the words.

<snip>

From the time we were small children our relatives, parents,
friends and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and
dislikes regarding things that definitely exist in the external world.
The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over
and over again with an inflection of pleasure as to someone’s physical
appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of
physiognomy and developed negatives which also contained the degree
of feeling experienced.

Similarly, an entire range of words heard over
and over again with an inflection of displeasure as to someone’s
physical characteristics, took a picture of the similarities between this
type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree
of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went
on a standard was established which separated good looks from bad
looks using a gradient that measured someone’s features against a
scale of perfection that did not symbolize reality.

Not knowing what
the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of
similarities that were seen with our very eyes contained a lesser value
than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had
reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then
projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that existed
only in our head. It would not be long before this child would be
conditioned to desire associating with the one type while avoiding the
other, and as he would get older you would not be able to convince
him that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist as a definite part of
the real world, because he has witnessed these differences with his
eyes.

The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from
the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist
in the world, but they also create external values when there are no
such things. I will give you an example of this by using a movie
projector. Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it.
I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the
switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall.
But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl
is not there.

We have been doing the same thing with our brain
regarding values. The differences in substance were not only divided
up by the use of words like man, woman, child, etc., but became a
screen upon which we were able to project this value. Drop a negative
plate or word slide in your brain projector and flip the switch. Well
just take a look, there is now a beautiful girl, a homely man, an ugly
duckling! Turn off the switch (remove the negative plate or word
slide) and all you see are the differences in substance because the
projected values have been removed.

Since we were taught that the
eyes receive and transmit sense experience on the waves of light it was
impossible to deny that this beautiful girl actually existed and was a
part of the real world; and when we changed the standard hidden in
the word, all we did was change the screen. By saying that this person
may not be beautiful physically but has a beautiful soul, we were
allowed to see ugly souls as if they, too, existed externally. Scientists,
believing that the eyes were a sense organ, unconsciously confirmed
what man saw with them because they were unaware that it was
possible to project a fallacious relation realistically.

Consequently
everything in the external world will be distorted if the words through
which man looks at what he calls reality are inaccurate symbols or if
the relation which is photographed becomes, as in the five senses, an
inaccurate negative which is then projected realistically upon
undeniable substance. The word ‘beautiful’ has absolutely no external
reality and yet because it is learned in association with a particular
physiognomy a beautiful girl is created, when no such person exists.
Obviously there is a difference between the shape and features of
individuals but to label one beautiful and another ugly only reveals
that you are conscious of a fallacious difference that is projected
through your eyes upon substance that cannot be denied — which
makes the projection appear real.

By having the words beautiful, ugly,
gorgeous, etc. as slides in a movie projector through which the brain
will look at the external world, a fallacious value is placed upon certain
specific differences only because of the words which is then confirmed
as a part of the real world since man will swear that he sees beautiful
women with his eyes, but in actual reality all he sees are different
shapes and different features. This so-called beautiful girl is not
striking his optic nerve which then allows him to see her beauty but
instead he projects the word onto these differences and then
photographs a fallacious relation.

The brain records all relations,
whether true or false, and since it was considered an indisputable fact
that man had five senses which were connected in some way with the
external world and since four of these were accurately described as
sense organs, that is, they receive and transmit external stimuli, it was
very easy for Aristotle to get confused and put a closure on further
investigation by including the eyes in the definition, which he did only
because he never understood their true function.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't contradict the theory of relativity, so there's no reason why he wouldn't mention Einstein in his book.

That, right there, is weaseling. We have shown quite clearly that it does, I have supplied diagrams, the math behind it, we have shown extensively that efferent sight means instant communication, which contradicts the theory of relativity. You have not dealt with this problem in any way and then simply issue yet another blanket denial, without dealing with any of the problems.

That is a dishonest thing to do. If I am wrong, then show me how and why I am wrong. Right now you are just sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is no problem.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The light in the illustration is an imaginary, infinitely brief source of light. It flashes, and we then imagine we can see the brief burst of photons travel to both sides

Because the speed of light is constant nomatter what kind of inertial frame you are in it will seem to hit the front and back at the same time when you are in the train.

If you are on the ground, then with normal objects, the speed of the train should be added to the speed of the light... but this doesn't happen with light, as we have measured. The speed of light relative to the guy on the ground goes one way and the other at the same speed relative to him, so to him it looks like the light hits the back of the train first.

Does that help?

Thanks, it does help a bit, I went thru the whole thing but page 8 with the equations and diagrams really threw me, I think they assume more familiarity with this than I have right now. Its the axis and unknowns in the equations that came up without seperate definitions, I assume that was in previous course work that I don't remember. Actually I don't remember seeing those diagrams before.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That, right there, is weaseling. We have shown quite clearly that it does, I have supplied diagrams, the math behind it, we have shown extensively that efferent sight means instant communication, which contradicts the theory of relativity. You have not dealt with this problem in any way and then simply issue yet another blanket denial, without dealing with any of the problems.

That is a dishonest thing to do. If I am wrong, then show me how and why I am wrong. Right now you are just sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is no problem.

I told you why it's wrong. Seeing efferently has nothing to do with special relativity. It has nothing to do with transferring information faster than the speed of light. This concept is in reference to something that is traveling. Nothing is traveling with efferent vision. I think that's why you're all having such a difficult time even conceiving that efferent sight is possible.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, a star 1,000 light-years blows up.

Where does the information ("the star has blown up") originate, if not at the star itself?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why it's wrong. Seeing efferently has nothing to do with special relativity. It has nothing to do with transferring information faster than the speed of light. This concept is in reference to something that is traveling. Nothing is traveling with efferent vision. I think that's why you're all having such a difficult time even conceiving that efferent sight is possible.

...and yet the information appears in the brain, because of nothing crossing the vast distance between an event and the observer, instantly.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why it's wrong. Seeing efferently has nothing to do with special relativity. It has nothing to do with transferring information faster than the speed of light.

What exactly is seeing if not a transfer of information?

We have demonstrated that if sight is efferent this means instantaneous communication of information between two points is possible.

You conceded this previously.

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).

Do you concede it now? If not, then refute the statement if sight is efferent this means instantaneous communication of information between two points is possible.

Don't even worry about traveling light for the moment. Only the above statement

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, a star 1,000 light-years blows up.

Where does the information ("the star has blown up") originate, if not at the star itself?

Obviously, the information originates from the star itself. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the information originates from the star itself. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

And how long will it take for someone viewing on Earth to receive that information -- that is, to see the explosion?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the information originates from the star itself. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Then how does the brain get that information, and don't just say 'by looking out' Provide a few more details and not quotes, the details are not in the quotes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...and yet the information appears in the brain, because of nothing crossing the vast distance between an event and the observer, instantly.

If the conditions of efferent vision are met, then we can see the object instantly because the brain's ability to record and photograph what it sees. I still don't understand why you think this is impossible, especially when we're talking about the property of the brain and the eyes more than the property of light. Everyone keeps focussing on light. That's why I keep saying there's no contradiction. To repeat: The conditions that have to be met in order to see an object or image are...

1. the object or image has to be large enough to be seen...

2. the object or image has to be bright enough to be seen...

3. the object or image has to be close enough to be seen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the conditions of efferent vision are met, then we can see the object instantly because the brain's ability to record and photograph what it sees. I still don't understand why you think this is impossible, especially when we're talking about the property of the brain and the eyes more than the property of light. Everyone keeps focussing on light. That's why I keep saying there's no contradiction. To repeat: The conditions that have to be met in order to see an object or image are...

1. the object or image has to be large enough to be seen...

2. the object or image has to be bright enough to be seen...

3. the object or image has to be close enough to be seen.

given all that, how does the Brain 'see the object'? What is the exact process?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Then how does the brain get that information, and don't just say 'by looking out' Provide a few more details and not quotes, the details are not in the quotes.

I have answered this more times than I care to count, but here goes again. The image is seen because it's large enough to be seen. How a camera captures that image, and how the eyes see that image are very similar. If the image is large enough to be seen, then a picture of that image will show up on film. You have to think in terms of the process in reverse. If that image is in the camera's field of view, then the light, relative to the camera, is not far at all which is why it is able to reach the film and be developed, and why that same light can reach our retina without it having to travel millions of light years to reach us before a picture can be taken.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

given all that, how does the Brain 'see the object'? What is the exact process?

The brain is looking at the object, through the eyes, which are the window to the world. The exact mechanism, I can't give you yet. If I could have given you an exact model, I would already have done it. One thing is for sure; the brain has to be looking through the parts of the eye, such as the cones and rods, in order to see anything in the external world, using light as a condition. How could we see otherwise? It's just in reverse. I know none of my answers are going to be adequate until more evidence backs me up.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK I'm having a bit of a problem with this, I believe that 'now' is the same thru-out the universe...

It isn't.

Which, of course, right there destroys "real time seeing."

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the information originates from the star itself. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

(My emphasis)


So, the information ("the star has blown up") originates at the star.

And, as you've repeatedly claimed, we'd see the star blow up as it happens.

If we see the star explode as it happens, and not 1,000 years later, this necessarily means that information has traveled 1,000 light-years instantaneously.


And that most-definitely is a violation of Relativity, which specifically rules out any form of FTL transfer of information. That's one of the central principles of Special Relativity -- information cannot pass between two points in less time than it would take for light to travel that distance. If it could, this would create all sorts of logical paradoxes.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think that's why you're all having such a difficult time even conceiving that efferent sight is possible.

Oh, such a hard time we're having; Perfesser Peacegirl is doing her darndest to edumacate us but we're such slow learners.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the conditions of efferent vision are met, then we can see the object instantly because the brain's ability to record and photograph what it sees. I still don't understand why you think this is impossible, especially when we're talking about the property of the brain and the eyes more than the property of light. Everyone keeps focussing on light. That's why I keep saying there's no contradiction. To repeat: The conditions that have to be met in order to see an object or image are...

1. the object or image has to be large enough to be seen...

2. the object or image has to be bright enough to be seen...

3. the object or image has to be close enough to be seen.

Holy crap, you make young earth creationists and flat earthers look like Darwin and Einstein.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The image is seen because it's large enough to be seen. How a camera captures that image, and how the eyes see that image are very similar. If the image is large enough to be seen, then a picture of that image will show up on film. You have to think in terms of the process in reverse. If that image is in the camera's field of view, then the light, relative to the camera, is not far at all which is why it is able to reach the film and be developed, and why that same light can reach our retina without it having to travel millions of light years to reach us before a picture can be taken.

You are saying that light from a star millions of miles away, can reach us without traveling the millions of miles between us and the star? How does this happen? Are you saying the star is Millions of miles away, but not far off? Please explain how it can be far away, and close at the same time?