A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes obviously are receiving information (even if there's a slight delay before the information is processed), but the information received doesn't have anything to do with traveling through space and time, therefore you can't use this as a comparison to FSL.

You still don't get it. This is why I will not drop this issue.

[Sidhe]

Wait a minute does not pass through time and space? There is nothing outside of time and space, well except God. Which is where such claims reside, in the ethereal realm of religion. It is true to say that any claim of faster than light is going to be a breach of relativistic laws and those laws are universal. The universe being all there is to which nothing exists outside of it.

Transfer of information is also governed by these laws, as in quantum teleportation, an unfortunately named action or information transfer at a distance that also doesn't break relativistic concerns although it may seem to naïvely, even if Einstein himself said so. Nothing travels faster than light*

"Spooky action at a distance."

Einstein.

*with the exception of rumour which has special laws of its own. I thank you Terry Pratchett.

[LadyShea]

Lessans claim about sight is that they eyes are efferent. The brain look out of them as if they are windows, and that since they do not rely on light entering the eyes to be converted into images by the brain, there is no speed of light delay when we see things.

So, he insists we are seeing the sun in "real time" not as it was 8 minutes ago. He also stated that if someone were on Rigel looking at Earth through a super high powered telescope, he would see the happenings in Earth time, rather than the happenings of 800 or so years ago we would expect due to the distance.

When I have used thought experiments such as seeing a distant light on the ocean flashing SOS in Morse code, peacegirl insists we see the light instantly, there would be no X nanosecond delay in receiving that information. Apparently neither cameras nor telescopes require the light from the object to reach them either.

I was trying to point out that this would make instantaneous communication via light possible, that is a necessary consequence of Lessans ideas about instant seeing. She handwaved away all examples.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans claim about sight is that they eyes are efferent. The brain look out of them as if they are windows, and that since they do not rely on light entering the eyes to be converted into images by the brain, there is no speed of light delay when we see things.

So, he insists we are seeing the sun in "real time" not as it was 8 minutes ago. He also stated that if someone were on Rigel looking at Earth through a super high powered telescope, he would see the happenings in Earth time, rather than the happenings of 800 or so years ago we would expect due to the distance

Ok I'm not even going to begin to start on what is up with that, but if it were true it would make everything in physics obsolete and I mean everything from Maxwell's electromagnetism to the Big Bang theory. Which is why I am just going to say that is horse apples and leave it at that. I will say this though could he prove any of that, given that all the evidence tells us there is no simultaneity in the Universe according to relativity, and any experiment you care to mention involving any co relative bodies. It's a pretty hollow assertion at face value, but considering relativity concerns it sounds even more absurd to suggest the mind experiences simultaneity when nothing else in the universe does or can be demonstrably proven to. Put simply it doesn't matter what our brain is detecting light, or something else, nothing and I mean nothing, not with any component of any energy or force (by which I mean something that materially exists) can travel faster than light, thought, brain waves, gravitational waves, an idea or whatever*. And nothing or nowhere in the universe is relatively provably stationary or simultaneous.

Efferent even the term contradicts his posits? So basically I agree no matter how you want to dress this up it is FTL and I am not surprised people thought it was nonsense, it sounds crazy on more levels than its possible to go into here.

Daddy should of studied special relativity before he formulated his theory. It essentially means that the speed limit of anything is c and all the properties of light and matter fall out of that simple fact. What daddy was doing was to basically make a mockery of everything we have done in physics in the last 400 years by talking about something that is physically (and provably) impossible as if it were true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Wait a minute does not pass through time and space? There is nothing outside of time and space, well except God.

All I meant is that nothing is traveling to the eye; we're seeing it instantly, but we're not seeing something before it occurs. That's outside the realm of reality.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Which is where such claims reside, in the ethereal realm of religion. It is true to say that any claim of faster than light is going to be a breach of relativistic laws and those laws are universal. The universe being all there is to which nothing exists outside of it.

Granted, but you can't say that just because we see efferently, that this is a breach of physical laws. That's taking it too far. This book is not in any ethereal realm. It's not a religious book.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Transfer of information is also governed by these laws, as in quantum teleportation, an unfortunately named action or information transfer at a distance that also doesn't break relativistic concerns although it may seem to naïvely, even if Einstein himself said so. Nothing travels faster than light*

"Spooky action at a distance."

Einstein.

There's a big disconnect here, and I can't close the gap. This has nothing to do with instantaneous transport of an object.

[LadyShea]

The object doesn't transport in quantum teleportation, information does via entanglement. That's why it is unfortunately named.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Ok I'm not even going to begin to start on what is up with that, but if it were true it would make everything in physics obsolete and I mean everything from Maxwells electromagnetism to the Big Bang theory. Which is why I am just going to say that is horse apples and leave it at that. I will say this though could he prove any of that, given that all the evidence tells us there is no simultaneity in the Universe according to relativity and any experiment you care to mention involving any co relative bodies. It's a pretty hollow assertion at face value, but considering relativity concerns it sounds even more absurd to suggest the mind experiences simultaneity when nothing else in the universe does.

Efferent even the term contradicts his posits?

He said that this could be empirically tested. He stated that we see what's in the real world because the brain is looking, through the eyes as a window (so to speak); there are no photons being transduced into electro-chemical signals that subsequently get interpreted by the brain as an image. We see the image or object directly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The object doesn't transport in quantum teleportation, information does via entanglement. That's why it is unfortunately named.

But this still has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Information being transported through some unknown mechanism, as if to say one minute it's here, and without any medium to get it there, it has arrived. That's what I'm getting from it and maybe that's why everyone is so confused as to what efferent vision really is.

[LadyShea]

Lessans chose to make claims about instantaneous seeing of distant objects, and this is the consequence of that claim. Nobody that understands relativity even the tiniest bit (which is the level of my understanding) will be able to get past those claims.

Sidhe was saying that even in the Quantum world, where things happen that seem impossible, information transfer is still limited to light speed.

That you think science wouldn't have stumbled across efferent vision and instantaneous sight, even while experimenting with quantum entanglement, is also baffling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans chose to make claims about instantaneous seeing of distant objects, and this is the consequence of that claim. Nobody that understands relativity even the tiniest bit (which is the level of my understanding) will be able to get past those claims.

Sidhe was saying that even in the Quantum world, where things happen that seem impossible, information transfer is still limited to light speed.

I'm really sorry you can't get past what you've been taught is true. You are starting with a premise that is, in your mind, rock solid, so of course you're going to be turned off by these claims. In your mind everything is relative because everything is being carried by light itself. But if we see efferently, then all bets are off. Science is a theoretical construct, so it's subject to change with new information. Of course there needs to be more empirical testing, but to cut him off just like that is foolhardy if you ask me.

[LadyShea]

I'm really sorry you can't get past what you've been taught is true. You are starting with a premise that is, in your mind, rock solid, so of course you're going to be turned off by these claims. In your mind everything is relative because everything is being carried by light itself. But if we see efferently, then all bets are off. Science is a theoretical construct, so it's subject to change with new information. Of course there needs to be more empirical testing, but to cut him off just like that is foolhardy if you ask me.

It has nothing to do with what we've been taught, it's about what empirical testing demonstrates repeatedly. There are many mysteries in the Universe and many ideas that are still too theoretical to physically test, but information transfer isn't one of those, neither is sight.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to get back into that chapter because it goes in circles; they say he didn't prove anything because he didn't use empirical evidence. He was sharing his astute observations after years and years of study, but all they keep calling them are unsupported assertions. That's so wrong I could scream.

Where, specifically, in Lessans book did he explain who, what, where, when or how he made these observations? Without showing the facts to the reader, the conclusions he makes are unsupported.

This has been explained to you before, but you refuse to see this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has nothing to do with what we've been taught, it's about what empirical testing demonstrates repeatedly. There are many mysteries in the Universe and many ideas that are still too theoretical to physically test, but information transfer isn't one of those, neither is sight.

Please stop telling me this is information transfer in the sense you are positing. It makes for wrong communication. You keep saying that empirical evidence demonsrates this repeatedly. What tests? You mean the present model of sight? I don't see where any empirical tests have conclusively knocked efferent vision out of the running.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Where, specifically, in Lessans book did he explain who, what, where, when or how he made these observations? Without showing the facts to the reader, the conclusions he makes are unsupported.

This has been explained to you before, but you refuse to see this.

I can't tell you how he came to these conclusions, but I do know he read voraciously and was able to see relations that no one else could. He said that these observations could be empirically tested, so he was not against this. He said the proof of the pudding is in the eating; do these principles work in the real world, or not.

[LadyShea]

Please stop telling me this is information transfer in the sense you are positing. It makes for wrong communication.

And as I've explained, in this discussion between you and I, information transfer is nothing more than you at point A gaining information from point B, via your eyes...which is what seeing is.

I don't see where any empirical tests have conclusively knocked efferent vision out of the running.

Where have you looked? What have you studied? Biology-including anatomy and neuroscience- as well as optics and physics all have mountains of data and results you would need to analyze before positing an alternative.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't tell you how he came to these conclusions, but I do know he read voraciously and was able to see relations that no one else could. He said that these observations could be empirically tested, so he was not against this. He said the proof of the pudding is in the eating; do these principles work in the real world, or not.

It's not that they can't be tested, it's that every conceivable branch of physics and every experiment would tend to contradict these claims. If they were true then everything we observe from special relativity to the cosmic microwave background radiation (and hence the big bang theory) would be obsolete. It would therefore be wise to say that all observable evidence is in fact in agreement with non simultaneity and that Einstein was right than say that instantaneous transfer of information is possible. Which is despite what you are saying exactly what your dad was claiming is possible. no matter what you say if I can perceive the sun as it is at this very moment or Alpha Centauri, then you are saying information transfer faster than light is possible.

Two unbreakable conclusions of relativity that if we accept it is true cannot be contradicted and they are by your fathers idea. We would expect therefore to see these contradicted in experiment, they are not. Also either your father is right or everything we know about science is wrong. This might explain why there was such a negative response to it. When some nut claims that he has invented an anti gravity machine he doesn't simultaneously render all science obsolete, and I do mean all knowledge and all science as we know it would be rendered obsolete if what your father believed were true. It's such a monumentally huge claim that it would require a monumentally huge amount of evidence to prove it.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And as I've explained, in this discussion between you and I, information transfer is nothing more than you at point A gaining information from point B, via your eyes...which is what seeing is.

Where have you looked? What have you studied? Biology-including anatomy and neuroscience- as well as optics and physics all have mountains of data and results you would need to analyze before positing an alternative.

Interestingly its exactly because information transfer has not happened until someone has observed it in quantum experiments that there is no faster than light transportation. The time it takes for the observer to make an observation and render it sensible to interpretation places the time of transfer under the limit of c. Or to put it concisely the classical observation element of the experiment renders all transfer within the remit of relativistic laws.

Thus when one entangled particle is in the up state observably the other is observed to be in the down state, but nothing about the sum of the interaction of observer and the experiment means information transfer exceeds the limit of c.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And as I've explained, in this discussion between you and I, information transfer is nothing more than you at point A gaining information from point B, via your eyes...which is what seeing is.

But that's true in certain instances such as the laser pen. Where is there a conflict LadyShea?

I don't see where any empirical tests have conclusively knocked efferent vision out of the running.

Where have you looked? What have you studied? Biology-including anatomy and neuroscience- as well as optics and physics all have mountains of data and results you would need to analyze before positing an alternative.[/QUOTE]

Show me the proof LadyShea, that's all I need. There is no proof, yet you're so ready to dismiss Lessans' findings. All this is is conjecture based on conjecture based on conjecture. But you really believe you have proof. This is a difficult situation, to say the least.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Interestingly its exactly because information transfer has not happened until someone has observed it in quantum experiments that there is no faster than light transportation. The time it takes for the observer to make an observation and render it sensible to interpretation places the time of transfer under the limit of c. Or to put it concisely the classical observation element of the experiment renders all transfer within the remit of relativistic laws.

Thus when one entangled particle is in the up state observably the other is observed to be in the down state, but nothing about the sum of the interaction of observer and the experiment means information transfer exceeds the limit of c.

You're making this so difficult Sidhe. There is no time involved, so your entire synopsis is null and void. Don't mean to get angry, but I can't help it.

[LadyShea]

It's true in all instances of seeing. When you see, you have gained information about an object that is apart from you. We've been over and over this. You do not seem to think that color, size, shape, texture, distance, movement, speed, direction...all the things we detect when we see something...are bits of information. You also don't seem to accept that your gaining knowledge of those bits of information is a transfer of information.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no time involved, so your entire synopsis is null and void.

Time is involved in everything in the Universe.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't tell you how he came to these conclusions, but I do know he read voraciously and was able to see relations that no one else could.

When one person is "seeing relations" that no one else ever sees, it is less likely that they have some special insight or intellect than that they are seeing something that simply isn't there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said that these observations could be empirically tested, so he was not against this. He said the proof of the pudding is in the eating; do these principles work in the real world, or not.

They do not, as has been pointed out very, very often. Empirical testing continually disproves many of his notions, and in some cases has for hundreds of years. You refuse to accept this, claiming that all experimental data prior to now is somehow flawed and unusable. This too you supply no evidence for, save your surety that if it contradicts Lessans it must be flawed. And 'round and 'round we go.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're making this so difficult Sidhe. There is no time involved, so your entire synopsis is null and void. Don't mean to get angry, but I can't help it.

See what your saying is just nonsense that's the problem. There's always time involved, that's why its called space-time, anywhere there is space there is time anywhere there is something anywhere we exist. You're not making any sense is the problem. You can get angry all you want but I think the problem is you don't understand the subject and so you don't really understand anything anyone is driving at.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Two unbreakable conclusions of relativity that if we accept it is true cannot be contradicted and they are by your fathers idea.

Excuse me, you are new to this fiasco.

We have been over and over and over and over relativity theory with this woman for more than 300 pages. I was the first person to raise the relativity objection with her, oh, somewhere around page 20 I think.

This woman is non compos mentis. Trust me on that.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by davidm

Excuse me, you are new to this fiasco.

We have been over and over and over and over relativity theory with this woman for more than 300 pages. I was the first person to raise the relativity objection with her, oh, somewhere around page 20 I think.

This woman is non compos mentis. Trust me on that.

Yeah. It's called cognitive dissonance, what happens when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force. There are two possibilities we have to accept that we are wrong or they are wrong, I think peacegirl is too heavily invested to consider the possibility of being wrong. Which is a thing that renders science pointless.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by sidhe

There's always time involved, that's why its called space-time, anywhere there is space there is time

Oh, BTW, peacegirl also believes that time doesn't exist except as a human mental construct.