A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David implied this.

You have no clue what I "implied" or stated or anything else in that discussion,

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Yes it does, idiot.

You are hanging on for dear life because you have no other defense.

I don't see where.

Lovely. It has only been shown to you again and again and again. But you don't see where. Why should anyone care, if you are this stupid?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I don't see where.

Lovely. It has only been shown to you again and again and again. But you don't see where. Why should anyone care, if you are this stupid?
[/QUOTE]

And that is what is so amazing about this thread, is that anyone is still talking 'to' Peacegirl, rather than just talking 'past' her to whomever might be reading this thread and thinking Peacegirl might have something of value. It has almost lost it's entertainment value and has degenerated into a drone of the same old, same old. I can understand that people do not want to let Peacegirls posts go unchallenged, but I do not understand why anyone would address anything directly to her, given her total lack of comprehension or acceptance of anything that is posted in challenge to what she has stated. Conceptually she is a total washout, simply address your comments to whoever else may be reading the posts and let her go.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I will look forward to these tests. They should really shake things up in the scientific community. One side-effect will be that these tests would prove that time-travel is possible, or at least that we can send messages back in time. Instant vision makes FTL visual messaging possible, after all.

We can already assume that there is a limit to how far back these messages can go. If not, we would probably be seeing those messages today, telling us that we are totally wrong about sight, light, and physics and that Lessans was a really happening dude.

Also it would be interesting to find out how we can see stars in one spot, and see the light come in from that same spot, even though those stars are light-years away and should be in a different position than the beam of light they emit! The only solution that I can think of is that direct sight does not work in a straight line!!!. There is a slight curve to the line of sight, which becomes more pronounced over long distances, which is why we have not noticed it so far. How this curvature matches the track of the beam of light, and always bends in the right direction even though multiple stars should be at different angles, is still beyond me though.

[LadyShea]

So you do, in fact, dispute the Theory of Relativity. Why didn't you just say so?

Are you prepared to mount a challenge against one of the most validated and verified scientific principles? One which has been proven with technology again and again? You already said one of these technologies is "accurate because it works"

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

Determining location based on time delays from varying locations is proof that time is relative based on location.

So what did you mean when you said that sat-nav systems, which you admit work, and which work on the principle of relative time "does not prove that time is relative"?

And...that means time is relative based on location.

Which ultimately means that Rigel Time is 800 years different than Earth Time, which means someone on Rigel could not see me typing this for another 800 years. We don't share the same time.

No he didn't. I remember him talking about the Arrow of Time.

So you are disputing the Theory of Relativity. Again, why didn't you just say so to begin with? You'll have to take that one up with physicists.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He specifically said seeing efferently is not related to time.

He made claims about sight being instantaneous regardless of distance...which is a direct claim regarding efferent vision as it relates to time.

What are you talking about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you do, in fact, dispute the Theory of Relativity. Why didn't you just say so?

I refuse to be sucked into a dispute regarding SR. I am only stating what I know regarding efferent vision, and if it contradicts SR in any way, I'm very sorry.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you prepared to mount a challenge against one of the most validated and verified scientific principles? One which has been proven with technology again and again? You already said one of these technologies is "accurate because it works"

Correct. How can I argue with a technology that's been proven to work?

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

It means that the time we receive a signal differs depending on the location of the satellite. It does not mean time is relative as far as experiencing anything other than the present moment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Determining location based on time delays from varying locations is proof that time is relative based on location.

Obviously if there is a delay between signals, we use that information to calculate a particular location.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what did you mean when you said that sat-nav systems, which you admit work, and which work on the principle of relative time "does not prove that time is relative"?

The time it takes for something to be seen is relative to its location because a signal is being sent through space which is time related. This has nothing to do with efferent vision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

Okay, and?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And...that means time is relative based on location.

I agree with you, but this has nothing to do with efferent vision.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which ultimately means that Rigel Time is 800 years different than Earth Time, which means someone on Rigel could not see me typing this for another 800 years. We don't share the same time.

Now you're making a leap from signals that are traveling through space and time, to sight, which you cannot do in all fairness. Radio signals are real; the GPS system is a proven technology that involves signals from a satellite which are time related. Let me repeat: This has nothing to do with efferent vision since time would not be a factor in real time seeing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

It was David who said we could live in the future or past just as our location can be at different points. You are still assuming that we are receiving photons that are being converted to images in the brain. This has yet to be proven conclusively.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No he didn't. I remember him talking about the Arrow of Time.

He did mention past and future as viable dimensions of time and space that we could be living in.

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

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

No I'm not. I'm saying that time has nothing to do with efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am disputing that it is directly related to time, and therefore distance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you are disputing the Theory of Relativity. Again, why didn't you just say so to begin with? You'll have to take that one up with physicists.

Why are you working so hard to make me look foolish?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He specifically said seeing efferently is not related to time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He made claims about sight being instantaneous regardless of distance...which is a direct claim regarding efferent vision as it relates to time. What are you talking about?

We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward
the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see
the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

[LadyShea]

Seeing in real time does not mean there is a transfer of information

Define seeing or sight, in a non circular way*, without including transferring/acquiring/gaining/knowing/detecting information.

*meaning you can't define seeing as "looking at" or "seeing" or otherwise define it with itself.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And that is what is so amazing about this thread, is that anyone is still talking 'to' Peacegirl, rather than just talking 'past' her to whomever might be reading this thread and thinking Peacegirl might have something of value. It has almost lost it's entertainment value and has degenerated into a drone of the same old, same old. I can understand that people do not want to let Peacegirls posts go unchallenged, but I do not understand why anyone would address anything directly to her, given her total lack of comprehension or acceptance of anything that is posted in challenge to what she has stated. Conceptually she is a total washout, simply address your comments to whoever else may be reading the posts and let her go.

I think this is correct; she should be ignored; not addressed personally. But it can still be useful to challenge her lies and her willfully ignorant claims, insofar as it is ever useful to post anything on a message board.

As a matter of record, I was the first person, so far as I am aware, to bring up the objection of the theory of relativity to her father's imbecilic claims of real-time seeing. Shortly after I did that, she claimed that the theory of relativity was an incorrect theory. Now, I suspect she had never even heard of the theory of relativity before coming here; she is a very ignorant person, after all, an ignorance that she has repeatedly paraded. I suspect that she then did some Google scholarship, discovered to her chargrin what an entrenched theory relativity is, and then did some quick backing and filling to claim that her father's "theory" and SR are in fact compatible after all. This is another example of her willful disregard for truth and for basic honesty in discourse.

Now the little is repeatedly misrepresenting my discussion of the philosophical notions of presentism vs. eternalism as construed through a relativistic notion of time; later I'll clear up her willful lies, or just link back to the relevant post I made earlier.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define seeing or sight, in a non circular way*, without including transferring/acquiring/gaining/knowing/detecting information.

*meaning you can't define seeing as "looking at" or "seeing" or otherwise define it with itself.

LadyShea, I'm done with the discussion on sight. I am not going to start arguing over your belief that efferent vision is impossible because it would be acquiring information faster than the speed of light. This is not going to bring us any closer to the truth.

[LadyShea]

It is the very essence of "truth" about our Universe. You are weaseling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is the very essence of "truth" about our Universe. You are weaseling.

That's a very profound statement. To end the conversation with "I'm right and you're wrong" because "it's the very essence of truth about our universe" is a cop out that says absolutely nothing. I'm actually glad this discussion is over.

[Vivisectus]

We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward
the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see
the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

How is this proof? If anything it is proof that the laws of perspective, for which efferent vision gives no explanation, work. Direct sight gives no reason for distant objects to seem smaller, as nothing is being projected unto the retina.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a very profound statement, let me tell you. To end the conversation with I'm right and you're wrong because "it's the very essence of truth about our universe" is a cop out that says absolutely nothing. I'm actually glad this discussion is over.

Yeah, I'm the one copping out with my insistence that the very laws of the universe hold the truth about the universe, while you think they do not bring us any closer to the "truth".

I wonder how you are defining truth to make this statement.

I am not going to start arguing over your belief that efferent vision is impossible because it would be acquiring information faster than the speed of light. This is not going to bring us any closer to the truth.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Isn't that precious! And where did the derper Lessans think the light of the moon came from? HOW is the light present? Why, it is present only because it comes from the sun, and is reflected off the moon, and travels at a finite rate of speed to the eye, which interprets the image, necessarily an image of the object as it was in the past.

Of course, this is the same idiot who thought that if the sun was turned on at noon, people on earth would see it (the source light) instantaneously, AND see the reflected light of the moon instantaneously, but not see the reflected light off one's neighbor for eight and a half minutes.

Oh, well, he probably also thought the moon was a giant cue ball!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How is this proof? If anything it is proof that the laws of perspective, for which efferent vision gives no explanation, work. Direct sight gives no reason for distant objects to seem smaller, as nothing is being projected unto the retina.

Of course it does. The reason distant objects seem smaller is because they are farther away, or they are smaller in size than other objects at the same distance.

That excerpt was not meant to be proof of efferent vision. It was in answer to LadyShea's objection that efferent sight is unrelated to time. This is what she wrote:

He made claims about sight being instantaneous regardless of distance...which is a direct claim regarding efferent vision as it relates to time. What are you talking about?

And I answered directly from the book:

This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward
the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see
the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

Please don't tell me this is a strawman because that's not what anyone is saying. The point being made here is very clear. There is no time involved in efferent sight because the light is not sending signals to the optic nerve to be decoded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a very profound statement, let me tell you. To end the conversation with I'm right and you're wrong because "it's the very essence of truth about our universe" is a cop out that says absolutely nothing. I'm actually glad this discussion is over.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah, I'm the one copping out with my insistence that the very laws of the universe hold the truth about the universe, while you think they do not bring us any closer to the "truth".

You are copping out because when the truths about the universe come into question, you go into defense mode and insist that the very laws of the universe that hold the truth about the universe are already proven, and are not to be challenged.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does. The reason distant objects seem smaller is because they are farther away, or they are smaller in size than other objects at the same distance.

That excerpt was not meant to be proof of efferent vision. It was in answer to LadyShea's objection that efferent sight is unrelated to time. This is what she wrote:

He made claims about sight being instantaneous regardless of distance...which is a direct claim regarding efferent vision as it relates to time. What are you talking about?

And I answered directly from the book:

This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward
the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see
the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

Please don't tell me this is a strawman because that's not what anyone is saying. The point being made here is very clear. There is no time involved in efferent sight because the light is not sending signals to the optic nerve to be decoded.

It's not a strawman, because at least a strawman has some relavence to the subject, this is nonsense, because it illustrates perspective which has to do with distance and geometry, and nothing to do with time. It doesn't matter how long it takes for the light to get to us, or how long we look at an object, as long as we and the object are not moving in relation with each other. Perspective is about the angles of viewing and the geometric relationship of different objects, time is not a factor, nor does it prove anything about time, but it does illustrate that afferent vision is correct.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward
the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see
the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

Hey, derper, , HOW does this prove, what Lessans claims it proves?

[LadyShea]

I have never expressed my belief that anything has been "proven". In fact I have stated that your continued use of the word is inappropriate as it is not used on science.


You stated that discussing faster than light information transfer (which according to all currently known science is impossible) is not getting us closer to the truth. Which is a cop out and a weasel, because the physical laws that govern the universe ARE the essence of truth about our universe, and so discussing/exploring them is in fact "getting us closer to the truth".


I think the Theory of Relativity is very well supported by empirical evidence and working technologies. If someone were to mount a challenge, AWESOME. That's what science is all about! Let's see the well reasoned and well supported challenges!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have never expressed my belief that anything has been "proven". In fact I have stated that your continued use of the word is inappropriate as it is not used on science.

But the word "proof" is implied. Even LR said that you might as well consider some theories as factual, especially theories that have an accumulation of "evidence" supporting them.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You stated that discussing faster than light information transfer (which according to all currently known science is impossible) is not getting us closer to the truth. Which is a cop out and a weasel, because the physical laws that govern the universe ARE the essence of truth about our universe, and so discussing/exploring them is in fact "getting us closer to the truth".

Any effort to get us closer to the truth is a good thing. But starting off with a faulty definition of efferent vision = information transfer faster than the speed of light, is not going to get us anywhere.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think the Theory of Relativity is very well supported by empirical evidence and working technologies. If someone were to mount a challenge, AWESOME. That's what science is all about! Let's see the well reasoned and well supported challenges!

This book is well reasoned and well supported if the definition of epistemology (the study, nature, and scope of knowledge) includes astute observation and sound reasoning in their criteria of what constitutes good science. You say that the Theory of Relativity is supported by working technologies. What technologies are you talking about? I absolutely don't want to talk about SR because I haven't studied it. If it contradicts efferent vision, and efferent vision turns out to be true, then it has to be modified, but that's not my concern. My only concern is doing reliable tests that are directed toward proving or negating this claim.

[davidm]

It’s really incredible. You have to wonder, did Lessans ever stop between shots on the billiard table, think about the stuff he was writing, and ask himself: “Seymour, just what the fuck are you talking about?”

For instance, when he wrote: “We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope,” did he ever ask himself, “Seymour, WHY can we see bacteria through a motherfucking microscope?”

Here is why.

A microscope uses the same trick as a refracting telescope — light waves being bent as they travel through glass. In a telescope, the idea is to bend parallel light from very faraway objects into a small focus at the eye. In a microscope, the idea is to bend diverging (spreading-out) light into a parallel path, then bend that parallel-path light into a small focus at the eye.

IOW, the very process that Lessans denies is possible for seeing, is precisely why microscopes and telescopes work in the first place!

[LadyShea]

But starting off with a faulty definition of efferent vision = information transfer faster than the speed of light, is not going to get us anywhere.

We can't get anywhere because you won't offer a non circular definition of sight or seeing that doesn't include transferring/acquiring/gaining/knowing/detecting information.

I do not think I am using a faulty definition, I think you are.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say that the Theory of Relativity is supported by working technologies. What technologies are you talking about?

Notice the repetition of this same dishonest strategy. She has been given dozens of examples of what she now asks for AGAIN.

I absolutely don't want to talk about SR because I haven't studied it.

Of course she doesn't want to talk about it! She even admits that she is ignorant of it, despite the efforts of myself and several others to educate her. Just as she remains ignorant of the science of seeing, despite the fact that the Lone Ranger wrote a 35-page essay that she refuses to read. She has appalling gall even to continue to post here. She claims to sweep aside whole fields of well supported human thought, even while confessing her ignorance as to the content of this thought.

[LadyShea]

What technologies are you talking about?

Are you paying attention? The satellite navigation systems were already mentioned and you already agreed that they work

[thedoc]

I think I have it figured out, Peacegirls brain is made of 'Teflon' so nothing sticks to it, but Lessans book is printed on it, so that is all she knows, or can know. Well I'm glad I sorted that out, can we talk about something interesting now, and not this silly fantasy.