A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Throughout history there have been discoveries that were rejected at first but turned out to be true. I wouldn't be so certain that this is not one of them.

I'm amazed at your ability to hold onto the dream, and I'm saddened that you can do it even after the evidence goes against you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm amazed at your ability to hold onto the dream, and I'm saddened that you can do it even after the evidence goes against you.

Don't you see that I'm sad because you only think it's a dream? I hold onto it because I know that this discovery is genuine. If I had any doubt that he was accurate in his observations and analysis, it would be very easy to let it go, but I have no doubt that one day this knowledge will change our world for the better.

[ceptimus]

Have you ever noticed that things like satellite navigation systems really do work?

The sat-nav system consists of about 30 orbiting satellites that are essentially just clocks, transmitting the current time by means of radio signals (they also periodically transmit their current position). The sat-nav in your car picks up the signal from about four or so of these satellites at any one time.

The signals from the satellites farthest away from your car arrive slightly later than the ones that are closest - your sat-nav receiver measures the time delays between the signals (tiny fractions of a second) and, knowing that the speed of radio waves is the same as the speed of light, it converts these time delays into distances and so works out its current position.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Have you ever noticed that things like satellite navigation systems really do work?

The sat-nav system consists of about 30 orbiting satellites that are essentially just clocks, transmitting the current time by means of radio signals (they also periodically transmit their current position). The sat-nav in your car picks up the signal from about four or so of these satellites at any one time.

The signals from the satellites farthest away from your car arrive slightly later than the ones that are closest - your sat-nav receiver measures the time delays between the signals (tiny fractions of a second) and, knowing that the speed of radio waves is the same as the speed of light, it converts these time delays into distances and so works out its current position.

I am not, and never have, disputed the speed of light.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not, and never have, disputed the speed of light.

...except when you thought that efferent vision might require recalculating the speed of light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

...except when you thought that efferent vision might require recalculating the speed of light.

The Hell with the speed of light, what we have here is a problem with the speed of thought, or lack of.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again trying to diminish the discovery, as if it doesn't stand on its own.

It doesn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

there will only be more of the same whether it's 1,000 pages or 10,000 pages.

Is that a threat?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

...except when you thought that efferent vision might require recalculating the speed of light.

Efferent vision would require recalculating the distance that we see the actual object or image. That's what I meant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again trying to diminish the discovery, as if it doesn't stand on its own.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It doesn't.

You don't think so because you still believe that we can't move toward greater satisfaction when we have two choices of equal value, and that the saying "no one can make us do anything against our will" should include "we can stop others from doing things (i.e., through physical force) against our will", which is not the same thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

there will only be more of the same whether it's 1,000 pages or 10,000 pages.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Is that a threat?

No, but it is a warning that this thread will go nowhere unless people can accept the [axioms] in order to move forward, or else stay stuck on page 53.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not, and never have, disputed the speed of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision would require recalculating the distance that we see the actual object or image. That's what I meant.

He was talking about time being relative based on relative location and distance, which you disputed, as well as distances being determined by the speed of light.

You can't dispute/recalculate the distances without disputing/recalculating the speed of light.

If you understood the physics better you would understand that we cannot see in "real time" because there is no such thing.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but it is a warning that this thread will go nowhere unless people can accept the [axioms] in order to move forward, or else stay stuck on page 53.

What? You want us to accept the discoveries as true so we can disprove them by contradiction?

[Vivisectus]

If we accept the discovery as true, then the rest is all more or less detail, as the rest of the book pretty much states "Since these things work this way, these will be the results of that".

This basis seems to be made up of "observations". These observations unfortunately are not shared. We only get to see the conclusions, but are unable to check them, making the accepting or rejecting of this idea something we do on trust.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was talking about time being relative based on relative location and distance, which you disputed, as well as distances being determined by the speed of light.

You can't dispute/recalculate the distances without disputing/recalculating the speed of light.

If you understood the physics better you would understand that we cannot see in "real time" because there is no such thing.

There you go again being condescending. I can't talk you to you this way because you are bent on proving that Lessans was wrong and your "scientific" reasons for it. You even admitted that you don't know physics that well, so who are you to tell me there is no such thing as real time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If we accept the discovery as true, then the rest is all more or less detail, as the rest of the book pretty much states "Since these things work this way, these will be the results of that".

Yes, this is how it works this way IF HE IS RIGHT. Why not accept that he is right so we can move forward. I'm totally at a loss if we can't meet on some grounds just for the sake of it. My father extended these principles and uncovered something about determinism that was not considered. Why can't you relax your tough standards, which you are using to dismiss him outright, just to see what he has discovered?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This basis seems to be made up of "observations". These observations unfortunately are not shared. We only get to see the conclusions, but are unable to check them, making the accepting or rejecting of this idea something we do on trust.

Yes, that's true that you don't see the results, but you are closing the door prematurely. You are assuming he is wrong before there is anything to prove him wrong conclusively. You are challenging him to prove yourselves right. Don't you see this? Why are you so blind?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If we accept the discovery as true, then the rest is all more or less detail, as the rest of the book pretty much states "Since these things work this way, these will be the results of that".

This basis seems to be made up of "observations". These observations unfortunately are not shared. We only get to see the conclusions, but are unable to check them, making the accepting or rejecting of this idea something we do on trust.

Vivisectus, a true scientist keeps an open mind. You are not doing that, and neither is anyone in here. Just because you don't see the empirical results (which are often off the mark) you, as well as everyone else, refuse to give him any consideration. I think that a far cry from what a true scientist is supposed to do.

[Vivisectus]

Well normally it works the other way around. You see evidence, and then you believe. If you approach things the other way round, then I have a bridge, only one previous owner, that I would like to sell to you.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, a true scientist keeps an open mind. You are not doing that, and neither is anyone in here. Just because you don't see the empirical results (which are often off the mark) you, as well as everyone else, refuse to give him any consideration. I think that a far cry from what a true scientist is suppose to do.

No, a scientist has a hypothesis, which he tests, and then interprets the results. It is called the scientific method.

And I do hate the "open mind" gambit. It is merely a poorly veiled attempt at distracting attention from the actual issue (there is no evidence) by aggressively claiming someone is not convinced because there is something wrong with that person (too close-minded to understand) and not with the arguments.

It is used by quacks and cultists all over the world.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this is how it works this way IF HE IS RIGHT. Why not accept that he is right so we can move forward. I'm totally at a loss if we can't meet on some grounds just for the sake of it.

Because there's every indication that Lessans isn't right - the text is full of huge red flags. False implies anything, and conclusions are worthless if they are based on false facts.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again being condescending.

No I am not being condescending. I am pointing out a serious problem with Lessans work and your attempt to defend it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't talk you to you this way because you are bent on proving that Lessans was wrong and your "scientific" reasons for it.

They are not my scientific reasons. Do you, or do you not, dispute the Theory of Relativity?

If you do, are you prepared to argue your point using valid reasoning for that dispute?

If you do not dispute it, are you prepared to argue -using valid reasoning- how Lessans "real time" vision is compatible with the Theory of Relativity?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so skewed there is no hope for me.

Sure there is hope, all you need to do is put forth a solid argument for your point of view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You even admitted that you don't know physics that well, so who are you to dispute these refutations?

I have a pretty good layperson's grasp, I think. I at the very least understand quite well that time, location, distance, and speed are all relative concepts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is nuts, and yet you people think that you are disputing something that is wrong. Are you all in la la land?

Why is discussing physical laws nuts or in the realm of la la land?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

What? You want us to accept the discoveries as true so we can disprove them by contradiction?

I said you need to accept the premises as true [while investigating] in order to understand the extension of these principles. If you just want to confront me and point out imaginary contradictions, go right ahead, but don't expect me to defend this book for the next 100 pages without more progress being made.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well normally it works the other way around. You see evidence, and then you believe. If you approach things the other way round, then I have a bridge, only one previous owner, that I would like to sell to you.

But he had evidence, just not empirical evidence. He had countless observations that drew him to these findings. You seem to think his conclusions came out of nowhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, a scientist has a hypothesis, which he tests, and then interprets the results. It is called the scientific method.

And I do hate the "open mind" gambit. It is merely a poorly veiled attempt at distracting attention from the actual issue (there is no evidence) by aggressively claiming someone is not convinced because there is something wrong with that person (too close-minded to understand) and not with the arguments.

It is used by quacks and cultists all over the world.

I did not say "keep an open mind" as an attempt to distract anyone. Some people do not have an open mind because they are too quick to judge what appears impossible. This will get in the way of true understanding. They further reject what they believe fails the rigors of scientific scrutiny. This is also inaccurate as empirical testing will one day confirm.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Have you ever noticed that things like satellite navigation systems really do work?

The sat-nav system consists of about 30 orbiting satellites that are essentially just clocks, transmitting the current time by means of radio signals (they also periodically transmit their current position). The sat-nav in your car picks up the signal from about four or so of these satellites at any one time.

The signals from the satellites farthest away from your car arrive slightly later than the ones that are closest - your sat-nav receiver measures the time delays between the signals (tiny fractions of a second) and, knowing that the speed of radio waves is the same as the speed of light, it converts these time delays into distances and so works out its current position.

I am not, and never have, disputed the speed of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision would require recalculating the distance that we see the actual object or image. That's what I meant.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was talking about time being relative based on relative location and distance, which you disputed, as well as distances being determined by the speed of light.

This sat-nav system shows our location based on the delays between signals, which is obviously an accurate calculation because it works. But this does not prove that time is relative or that we can live in the future or the past.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't dispute/recalculate the distances without disputing/recalculating the speed of light.

I am not disputing the speed of light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you understood the physics better you would understand that we cannot see in "real time" because there is no such thing.

I have said countless times that this has more to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes than with the properties of light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There you go again being condescending.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No I am not being condescending. I am pointing out a serious problem with Lessans work and your attempt to defend it.

I have addressed all of your objections, and none of them have discredited Lessans' claims, yet you act as if they do. Maybe it's the way you challenge me that feels condescending.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't talk you to you this way because you are bent on proving that Lessans was wrong and your "scientific" reasons for it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are not my scientific reasons. Do you, or do you not, dispute the Theory of Relativity?

I never disputed anything that Einstein had to say. If it turns out that Lessans' discovery directly contradicts this theory, that's not Lessans' fault, nor does it make him wrong by default.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you do, are you prepared to argue your point using valid reasoning for that dispute?

No, I have no desire to dispute SR. The only definitive way to prove efferent vision is to do more testing with the brain and the eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you do not dispute it, are you prepared to argue -using valid reasoning- how Lessans "real time" vision is compatible with the Theory of Relativity?

David said it's not compatible so I'm leaving it at that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so skewed there is no hope for me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure there is hope, all you need to do is put forth a solid argument for your point of view.

I've been putting forth his solid arguments all along, but you want empirical evidence as your only acceptable proof.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You even admitted that you don't know physics that well, so who are you to dispute these refutations?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have a pretty good layperson's grasp, I think. I at the very least understand quite well that time, location, distance, and speed are all relative concepts.

Time, location, distance, and speed are all relative depending on where we live on earth, but this doesn't mean we have anything other than the present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is nuts, and yet you people think that you are disputing something that is wrong. Are you all in la la land?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why is discussing physical laws nuts or in the realm of la la land?

I am not saying that physical laws don't exist; they absolutely do, but because you treat Lessans' findings as nothing more than conjectures, my frustration level has gone up 10 points.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This sat-nav system shows our location based on the delays between signals, which is obviously an accurate calculation because it works. But this does not prove that time is relative

It does prove that time is relative. Do you understand what "relative" means in the discussion of time?

Location A Time is not the same as at Location B Time because they are separated by distance and possibly traveling at different speeds.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

or that we can live in the future or the past.

Who said anything remotely similar to "we can live in the future or past"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing the speed of light.

But you are disputing that it is directly related to distance or time. Which means you are disputing it at some level.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said countless times that this has more to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes than with the properties of light.

And I have responded countless times that Lessans didn't leave it at the workings of the brain and eyes, and chose to extend his "efferent vision" idea into the realm of light physics with his claim that we see instantly-which therefore necessarily means that information can be transferred instantly- despite distance.

That is at odds with the Theory of Relativity

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have addressed all of your objections, and none of them have discredited Lessans' claims, yet you act as if they do.

You have not addressed them at all adequately.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never disputed anything that Einstein had to say. If it turns out that Lessans' discovery directly contradicts this theory, that's not Lessans' fault, nor does it make him wrong by default.

Who said anything about "fault"? What does that have to do with anything?

Lessans ideas contradict the Theory of Relativity because of his claim that we see instantly-which therefore necessarily means that information can be transferred instantly- despite distance. So with that as your starting point, you are, in fact, disputing the Theory of Relativity because you are convinced that Lessans had it right, correct?

Does that make Lessans wrong, by default? Not at all. It does mean you have a much, much larger hill to climb, seeing as how you now need to refute all the thousands of experiments and such that validate the Theory of Relativity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I have no desire to dispute SR. The only definitive way to prove efferent vision is to do more testing with the brain and the eyes.

Nobody is going to care about the brain and eyes because a dispute of Relativity is on the table and there is no question as to how the brain and eyes work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David said it's not compatible so I'm leaving it at that.

Does "leaving it at that" mean you concede the point? If you concede the point, that means you admit Lessans had it wrong. You are aware of that, correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been putting forth his solid arguments all along, but you want empirical evidence as your only acceptable proof.

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

At this point I would applaud a non-fallacious, well reasoned argument, well supported argument or replicable observation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Time, location, distance, and speed are all relative depending on where we live on earth.

Why are you limiting it to Earth? Time, location, distance, and speed are relative depending on where you are in the UNIVERSE.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but this doesn't mean we have anything other than the present

What do you mean by "we have"? Who said anything about "we" having anything?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not saying that physical laws don't exist; they absolutely do, but because you treat Lessans' findings as nothing more than conjectures, my frustration level has gone up 10 points.

That Lessans left you with nothing but his assertions isn't our fault. You are frustrated because you don't have good material to work with, in my opinion.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;980544]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still dispute it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Okay, and?

David implied this. You can take that up with him.

I am disputing that it is directly related to time, and therefore distance. He specifically said seeing efferently is not related to time.

I have said countless times that this has more to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes than with the properties of light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And I have responded countless times that Lessans didn't leave it at the workings of the brain and eyes, and chose to extend his "efferent vision" idea into the realm of light physics with his claim that we see instantly-which therefore necessarily means that information can be transferred instantly- despite distance.

That is the strangest concept I've heard. Seeing in real time does not mean there is a transfer of information that requires travel time, so you cannot use efferent vision in this comparison. You are hanging on for dear life because you have no other defense.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is at odds with the Theory of Relativity

I don't see where.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have addressed all of your objections, and none of them have discredited Lessans' claims, yet you act as if they do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have not addressed them at all adequately.

I think I have addressed what I believe is necessary to keep Lessans in the running.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't talk you to you this way because you are bent on proving that Lessans was wrong and your "scientific" reasons for it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are not my scientific reasons. Do you, or do you not, dispute the Theory of Relativity?

I plead the 5th amendment because you will use whatever I say against me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I never disputed anything that Einstein had to say. If it turns out that Lessans' discovery directly contradicts this theory, that's not Lessans' fault, nor does it make him wrong by default.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything about "fault"? What does that have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with it. To make Einstein wrong would be an affront to science. It would be his fault. But it's not his fault. He was just describing what he observed just as Einstein did. If somehow Einstein's theory was contradicted by Lessans' observations, it wasn't done on purpose. That's what I meant by saying it was not his fault.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans ideas contradict the Theory of Relativity because of his claim that we see instantly-which therefore necessarily means that information can be transferred instantly- despite distance. So with that as your starting point, you are, in fact, disputing the Theory of Relativity because you are convinced that Lessans had it right, correct?

If that's how you put it, yes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does that make Lessans wrong, by default? Not at all. It does mean you have a much, much larger hill to climb, seeing as how you now need to refute all the thousands of experiments and such that validate the Theory of Relativity.

That's why I said the only way to prove, one way or another, how we see is through more testing of the brain and eyes, not the property of light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you do, are you prepared to argue your point using valid reasoning for that dispute?

No, I have no desire to dispute SR. The only definitive way to prove efferent vision is to do more testing with the brain and the eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody is going to care about the brain and eyes because a dispute of Relativity is on the table and there is no question as to how the brain and eyes work.

It matters zilch to me what is on the table; what matters is what can be proven, and the easiest way is to focus on the brain and how it functions in regard to the eyes, not on light. How can you say that there is no question as to how the brain and eyes work when so much is unknown about the brain?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you do not dispute it, are you prepared to argue -using valid reasoning- how Lessans "real time" vision is compatible with the Theory of Relativity?

David said it's not compatible so I'm leaving it at that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Does "leaving it at that" mean you concede the point? If you concede the point, that means you admit Lessans had it wrong. You are aware of that, correct?

Who is conceding? I never said this. You said this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so skewed there is no hope for me.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure there is hope, all you need to do is put forth a solid argument for your point of view.

I've been putting forth his solid arguments all along, but you want empirical evidence as your only acceptable proof.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol.

So you admit there is room for error.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At this point I would applaud a non-fallacious, well reasoned argument, well supported argument or replicable observation.

The argument is there, but you have to accept the premises at least temporarily. I cannot validate the premises the way you want. They have to be made a priori. If the premises are wrong, everything that follows is also wrong; but if they are right then to assume they are wrong and not continue to investigate is tragic.

You even admitted that you don't know physics that well, so who are you to dispute these refutations?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have a pretty good layperson's grasp, I think. I at the very least understand quite well that time, location, distance, and speed are all relative concepts.

Time, location, distance, and speed are all relative depending on where we live on earth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you limiting it to Earth? Time, location, distance, and speed are relative depending on where you are in the UNIVERSE.

This doesn't change the fact that we see in real time, therefore we also live in the present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but this doesn't mean we have anything other than the present

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean by "we have"? Who said anything about "we" having anything?

You're right; we live in the present, therefore there is nothing to have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is nuts, and yet you people think that you are disputing something that is wrong. Are you all in la la land?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why is discussing physical laws nuts or in the realm of la la land?

I am not saying that physical laws don't exist; they absolutely do, but because you treat Lessans' findings as nothing more than conjectures, my frustration level has gone up 10 points.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That Lessans left you with nothing but his assertions isn't our fault. You are frustrated because you don't have good material to work with, in my opinion.

Everybody has an opinion, which means nothing in the scheme of things. It's facts we are looking for.