A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In my experience it is customary amongst humans to apologize for mistakes with or without assessing risk of harm, or actual harm. For example I might apologize for using cuss words in front of someone I know dislikes them. Is my mother actually harmed or at risk of being harmed by my saying "Oh shit"? No, but I apologize anyway.

It seems like people are always apologizing to me when they haven't done me any actual harm. Man, that really pisses me off.

[LadyShea]

Duplicate

[LadyShea]

The equations do predict that if there were such a thing as imaginary mass it would automatically travel faster than light with a speed proportional to the inverse of the imaginary mass. These are theoretical particles known as tachyons.The equations do predict that if there were such a thing as imaginary mass it would automatically travel faster than light with a speed proportional to the inverse of the imaginary mass. These are theoretical particles known as tachyons.

Interesting, but above my head. If tachyons exist where would they come from? Would their existence allow instantaneous information transfer? Would they be related to the visible spectrum/sight?

I know wiki is not authoritative but it says this

If tachyons are conventional, localizable particles that can be used to send signals faster than light, this would lead to violations of causality in special relativity. However, in the framework of quantum field theory, tachyons are understood as signifying an instability of the system and dismissed through tachyon condensation, rather than being treated as real faster-than-light particles, and such instabilities are described by tachyonic fields. Tachyonic fields have appeared theoretically in a variety of contexts, such as the bosonic string theory. According to the contemporary and widely accepted understanding of the concept of a particle, tachyon particles are too unstable to be treated as existent.[4] According to that theory, faster than light information transmission and causality violation with tachyons are impossible.

So even if they do exist, it is not pertinent to instant sight, nor does it negate the point TLR was making, is that correct?

[thedoc]

Quasars occured aprox. 10 billion years ago but astronomers can observe them now. The light has been traveling that long to reach us.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Although it would appear that peacegirl has a loose grip on physics, your statement is not entirely correct. Due to Lorentz contraction one can't accelerate an object of finite mass to the speed of light since it would require more energy than exists in the observable universe. The equations do predict that if there were such a thing as imaginary mass it would automatically travel faster than light with a speed proportional to the inverse of the imaginary mass. These are theoretical particles known as tachyons. Other theories rule them out as unstable but SR says nothing about that. And of course phase can travel faster than light but it can't carry information.

If you are going to scold peacegirl take care that you know what you're talking about.

I'm well aware of the hypothetical existence of tachyons, TYVM. I'm also aware that there's no known mechanism by which they could be used for FTL communication.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

I trust that there will be a solar strobe at the page 300 party.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Although it would appear that peacegirl has a loose grip on physics, your statement is not entirely correct. Due to Lorentz contraction one can't accelerate an object of finite mass to the speed of light since it would require more energy than exists in the observable universe. The equations do predict that if there were such a thing as imaginary mass it would automatically travel faster than light with a speed proportional to the inverse of the imaginary mass. These are theoretical particles known as tachyons. Other theories rule them out as unstable but SR says nothing about that. And of course phase can travel faster than light but it can't carry information.

If you are going to scold peacegirl take care that you know what you're talking about.

That goes both ways Atheist - the same theory states that while transient tachyons can indeed travel faster, they cannot be detected by a tachyon detector, and thus cannot convey any information.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That goes both ways Atheist - the same theory states that while transient tachyons can indeed travel faster, they cannot be detected by a tachyon detector, and thus cannot convey any information.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe this will help. We're not arguing about light and how we see that light relative to our position. The only point that is being made is that there are no images of the object embedded in that light that is decoded by the brain. I think the confusion is due to the discussion about light and its properties, and the brain and its properties. They are two separate entities.

The part about the pinhole was meant to show that because the lightwaves are here, the second the pinhole camera is in place, there's no delay. We see the moon on the back of the makeshift box instantly. But you have to think in terms of efferent vision in order to understand what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by davidm

And the disproof of this contention is here.

It is also here.

Why did the video imbed in this post but not in the previous one?

The theory of relativity of simultaneity does not in any way conflict with efferent vision. You can see something differently relative to your position, and still be seeing that image in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Which is WRONG, and conclusively demonstratred to be wrong by the theory of relativity. The simple YouTube video of how light and the eye work and interact shows that your claims are utter buncombe.

It shows nothing of the sort.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It seems like people are always apologizing to me when they haven't done me any actual harm. Man, that really pisses me off.

I am truly sorry for that Angakuk. In a very real and sincere way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Yes, that's true. So what you're saying is that even though we can see a supernova with the naked eye, a camera wouldn't be able to pick up that picture? That's the opposite of what Lone Ranger said.

There is a third possibility. It could mean that the light has arrived, therefore the camera is able to take a picture using that light, and it also means that the eyes can see of the explosion incidentally to what the camera is doing, not because of the light. Remember, we can only compare the eyes to a camera up to the film or the retina.

This was never much of a discussion to begin with, and there is only one participant who is capable of resolving it. The testing has been done, peacegirl, for centuries now, and continues to this day. None of it has ever hinted at the merest shadow of a possibility that Lessans even could be right, let alone that he is. But you don't want to hear that.

Only time will tell. At least a seed has been planted that puts this discussion on the radar screen.

All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.
Schopenhauer

[Vivisectus]

All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed; then it is
violently opposed; finally it is accepted as self-evident.
Schopenhauer

All nonsense goes through 2 stages: first it is ridiculed, then it is ignored. You have merely re-started the cycle, and dug up something that was rightfully ignored so it could be ridiculed again.

[Vivisectus]

There is a third possibility. It could mean that the light has arrived, therefore the camera is able to take a picture using that light, and it also means that the eyes can see of the explosion incidentally to what the camera is doing, not because of the light. Remember, we can only compare the eyes to a camera up to the film or the retina.

... but then the eyes and the camera see it as the same time, which is when the light from the event arrives. One year for every light year after the event.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This reminded me of a discussion I saw about the Egyptian pyramids. It seems that if you do some simple calculation (height of the pyramid divided by circumference or something like that) the result is pi.

Some people thought that this indicated the Egyptians were way more advanced than previously thought, because they must have discovered pi. Others thought this indicated alien involvement because the ancient Egyptians couldn't have discovered pi.

Of course the most logical answer is that the ancient Egyptians didn't know shit about pi, but for consistency and efficiency used a marked wheel for measurement during construction. Where there be circles, there be pi

Please don't play this game with me. This is no sleight of hand confusion here. If you think it is, rethink it LadyShea, because you don't know it all, even though you think you have a monopoly on accurate thought. I will not defend him when you use a comparison that has nothing to do with him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans chose to include brainless tools, like a powerful telescope, in his model of efferent sight and he chose to assert that instant communication of information from ~800 light years away is a product of his model of efferent sight.

The problems are inherent in the work. Sorry you're the one holding the bag of crazy and trying to reconcile it with reality, but you got what you got.

There are no inherent problems LadyShea. If images are traveling, why do we need a microscope? These little tiny creatures would eventually reach our eyeballs, and we would see them. But that doesn't happen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does conflict, because the theory of relativity states that instantaneous communication of information between two points is impossible.

100% incorrect LadyShea. I never said this, and neither did Lessans. If we see the light from a laser pen 50 yds. away, that is information that has traveled from point A to point B. This is why I believe there is a misunderstanding as to what Lessans means. Hope this doesn't throw you for a loop: We are seeing delayed information in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

... but then the eyes and the camera see it as the same time, which is when the light from the event arrives. One year for every light year after the event.

That's not the issue Vivisectus. The issue is whether the light is here and is congruent with efferent vision, as well as a camera using the light to create a picture. If afferent vision is wrong, then you will be telling me I'm wrong when it's your conclusion that is wrong based on your faulty premise.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not the issue Vivisectus. The issue is whether the light is here and is congruent with efferent vision, as well as a camera using the light to create a picture.

Nonsense. The camera needs the light from the event to be able to record that event, so it would have to wait for this light to arrive. So since we can photograph events from far away and see it at the same time, efferent vision is disproven, unless we assume that whatever is going on with the eyes also happens to light-sensitive chemicals and light-receptors, both of which are specifically designed by us to record light, and light alone.

Then finally we also have to assume that we have somehow miscalculated the speed of other particles such as nutrinos, which we can measure in a lab along with the speed of light, as they arrive at a predictable time after we can see the event.

And why do we have to consider this in the first place? What observation is it that made your father decide that sight had to be efferent? I cannot find anything in the book that explains why this is a reasonable assumption.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All nonsense goes through 2 stages: first it is ridiculed, then it is ignored. You have merely re-started the cycle, and dug up something that was rightfully ignored so it could be ridiculed again.

Not true Vivisectus; the fact that you believed Lessans was wrong because firemen are not a condition of fires, reveals your ignorance. I don't mean to be nasty (my god, I have been so mistreated in here and would never wish this on my worst enemy), but your comeback holds absolutely no weight.

[peacegirl]

There is a third possibility. It could mean that the light has arrived, therefore the camera is able to take a picture using that light, and it also means that the eyes can see of the explosion incidentally to what the camera is doing, not because of the light. Remember, we can only compare the eyes to a camera up to the film or the retina.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

... but then the eyes and the camera see it as the same time, which is when the light from the event arrives. One year for every light year after the event.

Show me then where we see the event efferently, and the camera can't take a picture of that event. That would at least show us that there is some kind of discrepency. It we can't do this, then all it means is that the light is here for the camera to use that light to take a picture. That does not automatically negate the fact that we are seeing the image of the supernova instantly, as it occurs.

That's not the issue Vivisectus. The issue is whether the light is here and is congruent with efferent vision, as well as a camera using the light to create a picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nonsense. The camera needs the light from the event to be able to record that event, so it would have to wait for this light to arrive. So since we can photograph events from far away and see it at the same time, efferent vision is disproven, unless we assume that whatever is going on with the eyes also happens to light-sensitive chemicals and light-receptors, both of which are specifically designed by us to record light, and light alone.

Wrong again. You are making an assumption, which is why it seemed so logical that the brain was receiving the light and decoding it. It looks airtight, but it is not when carefully analyzed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then finally we also have to assume that we have somehow miscalculated the speed of other particles such as nutrinos, which we can measure in a lab along with the speed of light, as they arrive at a predictable time after we can see the event.

I am not saying that. There is a connection obviously, but to say that when these nutrinos arrive, we see the actual image is very questionable. It's the same thing as seeing a solar flair only when the light arrives. It's all theoretical, but you are so quick to discount anything Lessans is claiming, that the defense mechanism in you will never allow a fair analysis.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And why do we have to consider this in the first place? What observation is it that made your father decide that sight had to be efferent? I cannot find anything in the book that explains why this is a reasonable assumption.

He gave his reasons. If vision was afferent, we could never be conditioned with words the way that we are. Because this is not dealing with astronomy, you may think this is not enough proof. But it is proof. Just because you don't see the proof, doesn't mean it's not there. He stated this in the foreword, which I'm sure you didn't read because it doesn't seem as if anyone is carefully reading this book.

Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And why do we have to consider this in the first place? What observation is it that made your father decide that sight had to be efferent? I cannot find anything in the book that explains why this is a reasonable assumption.

Even if by some miracle, vision was discovered to be efferent, seeing in real time still doesn't make sense.
As far as I can tell, seeing in real time or not isn't even important to the conclusions that Lessans wants to draw from how we see. It's just a stupid conclusion drawn from his already illogical premise.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true Vivisectus; the fact that you believed Lessans was wrong because firemen are not a condition of fires, reveals your ignorance. I don't mean to be nasty (my god, I have been so mistreated in here and would never wish this on my worst enemy), but your comeback holds absolutely no weight.

I had many others, but since you could not deal with them you chose to ignore them. The firemen spiel is something patently ridiculous that nevertheless has the same level of support as what your father was stating. I am saying that we have just as much reason to believe it is true as we have for your fathers assertions - none at all. I have explained this before, but you seem to just ignore anything that is inconvenient.

One of the things you ignore is that we still have absolutely no reason to believe that blame is a condition for justification, or that justification is an absolute requirement for knowingly doing a bad deed. Another is that we also have no explanation why a device that records only light records the same image as our eyes do, if efferent sight is true, or how we can deal with the paradoxical result of being able to receive information from sight without the delay of lightspeed.

So the only reason my comebacks hold no weight with you is because you reject them not on the basis of logic or observation, but on the sole basis that it contradicts what your father espoused, which you know deep inside it true no matter HOW much evidence to the contrary is piled up.

You are being made fun of because what you are presenting as revolutionary new knowledge that it going to save the world simply does not add up, and in stead of admitting that there are problems with it, you come up with all sorts of hilarious mental contortionisms. You regularly contradict yourself without noticing, and come up with more and more surreal solutions to the impossible problem that you are presented with, which is to try to make your fathers ideas correspond with reality. The reason it is so hard is because they do not match, and simply altering reality is just not an option, no matter how much you want it to be.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;952259]

There is a third possibility. It could mean that the light has arrived, therefore the camera is able to take a picture using that light, and it also means that the eyes can see of the explosion incidentally to what the camera is doing, not because of the light. Remember, we can only compare the eyes to a camera up to the film or the retina.

Show me then where we see the event efferently, and the camera can't take a picture of that event. That would at least show us that there is some kind of discrepency. It we can't do this, then all it means is that the light is here for the camera to use that light to take a picture. That does not automatically negate the fact that we are seeing the image of the supernova instantly, as it occurs.

We did. It is where a supernova is not visible one day, and then appears the next. We see it - and at the same time the camera can record the light of the event. The nutrinos follow soon after.

If efferent vision were true, we would see it, then much later the light would arrive and we could photograph it, followed closely by the nutrinos.

Wrong again. You are making an assumption, which is why it seemed so logical that the brain was receiving the light and decoding it. It looks airtight, but it is not when carefully analyzed.

Then explain why we can see a supernova appear - before we could not even see the star that went nova - and can be recorded at the same time. According to instant sight, this event is happening now, 800 years before the light arrives.

I am not saying that. There is a connection obviously, but to say that when these nutrinos arrive, we see the actual image is very questionable. It's the same thing as seeing a solar flair only when the light arrives. It's all theoretical, but you are so quick to discount anything Lessans is claiming, that the defense mechanism in you will never allow a fair analysis.

You have failed to read what is there. We have measured the speed on nutrinos, just like we have measured the speed of light, in lab conditions. That is not theoretical - that is empirical.

He gave his reasons. If vision was afferent, we could never be conditioned with words the way that we are. Because this is not dealing with astronomy, you may think this is not enough proof. But it is proof. Just because you don't see the proof, doesn't mean it's not there. He stated this in the foreword, which I'm sure you didn't read because it doesn't seem as if anyone is carefully reading this book.

Does it not occur to you that the premise a) Seeing is much more active than we think, and preconceptions play a large part in it does not logically lead to the conclusion B) sight must be efferent?

Because to the rest of the world, that is a rather outlandish leap. It does not follow at all.

Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark; the hour is getting late.

I am well acquainted with the prosy nonsense your father spouts, thanks.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Although it would appear that peacegirl has a loose grip on physics, your statement is not entirely correct. Due to Lorentz contraction one can't accelerate an object of finite mass to the speed of light since it would require more energy than exists in the observable universe. The equations do predict that if there were such a thing as imaginary mass it would automatically travel faster than light with a speed proportional to the inverse of the imaginary mass. These are theoretical particles known as tachyons. Other theories rule them out as unstable but SR says nothing about that. And of course phase can travel faster than light but it can't carry information.

If you are going to scold peacegirl take care that you know what you're talking about.

I believe The Lone Ranger knows quite well what he is talking about without assistance from you, thanks very much. He (and I) have already explained that an object with rest mass cannot be accelerated to light speed because to do so would require an infinite amount of energy. Phase can travel faster than light but can't carry information, which is the key point that I, the Lone Ranger and others have been making. Peacegirl's "real-time seeing" is a direct violation of this central tenet. Tachyons are theoretical particles that ALWAYS travel faster than light but have never been detected. If they WERE detected, they would be transmitting messages backward in time, as has also been explained to peacegirl. While we're at it, why not throw in the kitchen sink: quantum non-locality. Unfortunately quantum non-locality cannot be exploited to send a message and peacegirl's "real time seeing" remains a fantasy, like Santa Claus.