A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here. There are 500K lines of code, including the math, how are we supposed to show it to you?

Thanks for the video. I actually saw this on t.v. Loved it! As far as the calculations, can you explain this in your own words? Maybe I will begin to understand this light/time differential that is so crucial for a precise landing. And what exactly does the following mean?

The "CN" correction typically does not
substantially improve accuracy because
the errors made by ignoring
relativistic effects may be larger than
the improvement afforded by obtaining
convergence of the light time solution.

[LadyShea]

Your continued discussion here at is at odds with your stated goals and intentions.

Now that you have a website, how do you plan to drive traffic to it? "If you build it, they will come" only works in movies. How are you going to find interested people to join your grassroots effort? you have been unable to find them in over a decade of searching for them online.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everything in the Universe that has momentum is moving, which takes time, but that does not mean that light strikes our eyes and sends images of material substance that existed in the past to our brains.

Backpedaling already. Hubble images.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl's Web site, with her demand that everyone read the book and listen to the audio, and agree with it all on pain of censorship, will be exactly like Sophia's Rape Island Sovereignty site: Zero participants, except for her own sock puppets, assuming she can figure out what a sock is and how to make one.

Oh, well!

I guess when this new world comes about, everybody will be my sock puppets, except you and NA.

[LadyShea]

Those are all different types of light time corrections that can be used in an input string for missions. I can't explain the math, either, I only know they are listed for use by the jet propulsion laboratory which indicates that light time correction is used in space missions.

This is listed as required reading for those scientists http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/to.../req/time.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Backpedaling already. Hubble images.

What does Hubble images have to do with anything? Obviously, if Hubble is sending photographs through space/time, it's going to take 14 minutes. Where in the world does this conflict with Lessans claim? Anyway, I"m not going to be sucked into this again. I already said that this isn't even the most important of his three discoveries, although this knowledge will play an important role in the new world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Those are all different types of light time corrections that can be used in an input string for missions. I can't explain the math, either, I only know they are listed for use by the jet propulsion laboratory which indicates that light time correction is used in space missions.

This is listed as required reading for those scientists Time Routines in CSPICE

I understand that they use light/time differentials in space missions, but I don't understand how much impact these corrections have on precision. The point still remains: What are we seeing when we look through a telescope? Are we seeing an image of a planet from light that is traveling toward our eyes, or are we seeing the planet in real time because it's within our field of view? I don't think delayed vision has been definitively proven, like everyone here believes.

[LadyShea]

Obviously, if Hubble is sending photographs through space/time, it's going to take 14 minutes. Where in the world does this conflict with Lessans claim?

Where in the world did you get 14 minutes?

I am talking about YOUR claim , not Lessans. This claim "we have to wait longer to see something that is farther away because it takes time for the object (not the light) to enter our visual field.". If this were true, everything the Hubble was able to get images of would have to be moving toward the Hubble to "enter the visual field". Everything we look at through a telescope would have to be moving toward us to "enter our visual field".

Simple test: You can't see a particular star with your naked eyes, but you can see it through a telescope. How did the star "enter our visual field"?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where in the world did you get 14 minutes?

I am talking about YOUR claim , not Lessans. This claim "we have to wait longer to see something that is farther away because it takes time for the object (not the light) to enter our visual field.". If this were true, everything the Hubble was able to get images of would have to be moving toward the Hubble to "enter the visual field". Everything we look at through a telescope would have to be moving toward us to "enter our visual field".

Pictures being sent through space/time are moving, therefore it does take a certain amount of time (14 minutes coming from Mars) for those pictures to get to us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Simple test: You can't see a particular star with your naked eyes, but you can see it through a telescope. How did the star "enter our visual field"?

The star was able to be magnified by the lens of the telescope where it was now large enough to be within our visual field. What are you getting at? Nevermind.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Pictures being sent through space/time are moving, therefore it does take a certain amount of time (14 minutes coming from Mars) for those pictures to get to us.

The Hubble is not on Mars

The star was able to be magnified by the lens of the telescope where it was now large enough to be within our visual field. What are you getting at? Nevermind.

How does magnification work in your model? Also, the Hubble doesn't have a transparent lens or anything looking out, it has internal mirrors only, so how does it get the images it gets? How does it work in your model?


http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/..._bolts/optics/

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Pictures being sent through space/time are moving, therefore it does take a certain amount of time (14 minutes coming from Mars) for those pictures to get to us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Hubble is not on Mars

Sorry, I meant Rover.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Simple test: You can't see a particular star with your naked eyes, but you can see it through a telescope. How did the star "enter our visual field"?

The star was able to be magnified by the lens of the telescope where it was now large enough to be within our visual field. What are you getting at? Nevermind.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does magnification work in your model? Also, the Hubble doesn't have a transparent lens or anything looking out, it has internal mirrors only, so how does it get the images it gets? How does it work in your model?


HubbleSite - The Telescope - Nuts & Bolts - Optics

The newer technology using mirrors is not at at issue here. What is at issue is whether Hubble is getting a mirror image of whatever it is viewing, or a delayed image, which is time dependent. Anyway, as I said, I don't want to continue the conversation because it's going to go nowhere.

If people are interested in the book, they will be able to purchase the full audio and text at a nominal price. The book that I compiled is more expensive ($39.00), which I have no control over. You have to remember that it is 600 pages long. I think I get $2.00 if it's bought on Trafford.com, and if it is bought on Amazon, I will make around $.49. Something like that. So if anyone thinks this is a meal ticket, I'll starve before I get my first meal.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for the video. I actually saw this on t.v. Loved it! As far as the calculations, can you explain this in your own words? Maybe I will begin to understand this light/time differential that is so crucial for a precise landing. And what exactly does the following mean?

Do your own work. You make the claim that the scientific model for vision is incorrect, but you refuse to understand it well enough to criticize it.

The burden of proof is on you, not science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Do your own work. You make the claim that the scientific model for vision is incorrect, but you refuse to understand it well enough to criticize it.

The burden of proof is on you, not science.

I will repeat that this is NOT the way Lessans came to his conclusions. Once the Great Transition is underway (this is not a pipe dream), it will be time enough for scientists to take his claim regarding the eyes seriously. I can't do anymore Specious. I've done as much as I can to make sure that this knowledge is preserved. That was my main goal and I've achieved it. Of course I would love to see this discovery confirmed by science in my lifetime. Whether this will happen is anyone's guess. There are a lot of factors involved that will influence the length of time it will take. I've done my part. Now it's up to others to do theirs.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I will begin to understand this light/time differential that is so crucial for a precise landing.

Not likely, but hope springs eternal.

And what exactly does the following mean?

The "CN" correction typically does not
substantially improve accuracy because
the errors made by ignoring
relativistic effects may be larger than
the improvement afforded by obtaining
convergence of the light time solution.

Simply put, what is being pointed out is that when you're aiming a probe at a distant planet, you must take the light-speed delay into account. When you look at the planet, due to the transit time of the light, where the planet looks to be is not where it actually is -- so you must take the finite speed of light into account and calculate where the planet will actually be when the probe arrives, not where it looks to be.

However, the probe does not travel fast enough relative to Earth or Mars (or the Sun) that it's necessary to factor relativistic effects on the passage of time into the equations. (As you approach the speed of light, time passes more slowly; space probes don't travel fast-enough that this really matters.) Newtonian math (which does not take relativistic effects into account) is much simpler than is relativistic math, and for relatively slow-moving objects like space probes, factoring relativistic time distortion into your calculations only makes the math harder without significantly improving the precision of your calculations.

In short, what it says is that if you want to hit a target on Mars with a probe, you do have to account for the fact that, due to the finite seed of light, where Mars appears to be in the sky is not where it actually is -- if you aim for where the planet appears to be, you'll miss. On the other hand, none of the three objects in question (Earth, Mars, and the probe) are moving fast-enough relative to each other that relativistic time distortion must be factored into the calculations.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will repeat that this is NOT the way Lessans came to his conclusions. Once the Great Transition is underway (this is not a pipe dream), it will be time enough for scientists to take his claim regarding the eyes seriously. I can't do anymore Specious. I've done as much as I can to make sure that this knowledge is preserved. That was my main goal and I've achieved it. Of course I would love to see this discovery confirmed by science in my lifetime. Whether this will happen is anyone's guess. There are a lot of factors involved that will influence the length of time it will take. I've done my part. Now it's up to others to do theirs.

It doesn't matter how Lessans came to his conclusions. No one believes you or Lessans because science has been proven to work, and Lessans' ideas have not. Simple as that.

The burden of proof was on Lessans, and now it's on you, and if you're not capable - as you have so clearly shown - then your only hope to gain the support of someone who is. Good luck with that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Not likely, but hope springs eternal.

Simply put, what is being pointed out is that when you're aiming a probe at a distant planet, you must take the light-speed delay into account. When you look at the planet, due to the transit time of the light, where the planet looks to be is not where it actually is -- so you must take the finite speed of light into account and calculate where the planet will actually be when the probe arrives, not where it looks to be.

However, the probe does not travel fast enough relative to Earth or Mars (or the Sun) that it's necessary to factor relativistic effects on the passage of time into the equations. (As you approach the speed of light, time passes more slowly; space probes don't travel fast-enough that this really matters.) Newtonian math (which does not take relativistic effects into account) is much simpler than is relativistic math, and for relatively slow-moving objects like space probes, factoring relativistic time distortion into your calculations only makes the math harder without significantly improving the precision of your calculations.

In short, what it says is that if you want to hit a target on Mars with a probe, you do have to account for the fact that, due to the finite seed of light, where Mars appears to be in the sky is not where it actually is -- if you aim for where the planet appears to be, you'll miss. On the other hand, none of the three objects in question (Earth, Mars, and the probe) are moving fast-enough relative to each other that relativistic time distortion must be factored into the calculations.

Thank you for the explanation. I can tell you are a teacher, and a good one at that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for the explanation. I can tell you are a teacher, and a good one at that.

So, she accepts the explanation? I wonder if she realizes that by accepting the explanation, she agrees that Lessans is wrong? For that is what the explanation explains.

And she still doesn't understand anything about relativity theory, or why Newtonian mechanics are good enough for plotting trajectories to Mars. If she really understood relativity theory, she would see why that theory, also, proves that Lessans is wrong. If Lessans were right, relativity theory would never have been invented in the first place. In fact, if Lessans had been right, no one would have been around to invent relativity theory anyway, since in a world of real-time seeing we'd all be dead, for reasons explained earlier.

But hey, let the freak show continue!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It doesn't matter how Lessans came to his conclusions. No one believes you or Lessans because science has been proven to work, and Lessans' ideas have not. Simple as that.

The burden of proof was on Lessans, and now it's on you, and if you're not capable - as you have so clearly shown - then your only hope to gain the support of someone who is. Good luck with that.

Lessans gave his proof, and I believe he was right. If you believe that he wasn't right, and the eyes are afferent, it's really okay. You can still get a lot out of the book. I don't want this to limit you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, she accepts the explanation? I wonder if she realizes that by accepting the explanation, she agrees that Lessans is wrong? For that is what the explanation explains.

Why are you still here? You're either a liar when you said you're leaving, or you just can't live without me. I appreciated his explanation, because it was clear and precise. I never said I agreed with it.

Originally Posted by davidm

And she still doesn't understand anything about relativity theory, or why Newtonian mechanics are good enough for plotting trajectories to Mars. If she really understood relativity theory, she would see why that theory, also, proves that Lessans is wrong. If Lessans were right, relativity theory would never have been invented in the first place. In fact, if Lessans had been right, no one would have been around to invent relativity theory anyway, since in a world of real-time seeing we'd all be dead, for reasons explained earlier.

But hey, let the freak show continue!

That's your false interpretation. The world will not come to an end, as you believe, if we see in real time. You can't even contemplate the possibility that the sky would not be all white, and that the earth would not burn up, because you've invested your entire life around your worldview. After all, this is your way out of a miserable world. Just create a parallel imaginary world where you can go on some kind of future timeline. Where is that irony meter?

[Vivisectus]

I understand that this whole thing sounds airtight, just like the moons of Jupiter does. I am still suggesting that when we look through a telescope, we are seeing Mars itself, not an image from light. Distance and speed would be enough to calculate correctly where Mars would be. Do you have the actual figures that were used to determine the trajectory?

I know - you simply reject large amounts of evidence based on a criterion of "airtightness" that is required for all evidence that contradicts Lessans.

However, an afternoon spent with skype and the family dog, THAT you rate as first-rate evidence, and apparently that passes the PG "airtightness" test.

Problem is - reality disagrees. This is why you feel the need to create a little isolated bubble: a message-board where the golden rule is that it's members are not allowed to criticise or disagree with Lessans. Population 1, of course, but hey! The revolution is only a few decades late so far.

[Vivisectus]

Lessans gave his proof,

Actually, no he did not. He merely stated that things work a certain way, but he never proved it. He never proved that when we know we will never be blamed, we would act perfectly conscientious. He merely claimed that this was so. We have been over this.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you still here? You're either a liar when you said you're leaving, or you just can't live without me.

Excuse me, stupid, I said I wouldn't chase YOU around anymore with facts, evidence and logic; I didn't say I wouldn't post in this thread, as the mood suited me. You'll notice I did not address you, but spoke of you in the third person. Nor do I read your posts any longer, but only the respnoses of others to you. How many times did say you were leaving FF? And yet here you are. I guess that makes you a liar, doesn't it? But then, you and truth are like oil and water. What do you hope to accomplish? Do you seriously believe that anyone here is so dumb as to engage you at your Web site, where your moral and intellectual betters know in advance that you will censor them?

And no, I did not listen to the audio babble of Silly Seymour.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know - you simply reject large amounts of evidence based on a criterion of "airtightness" that is required for all evidence that contradicts Lessans.

However, an afternoon spent with skype and the family dog, THAT you rate as first-rate evidence, and apparently that passes the PG "airtightness" test.

Problem is - reality disagrees. This is why you feel the need to create a little isolated bubble: a message-board where the golden rule is that it's members are not allowed to criticise or disagree with Lessans. Population 1, of course, but hey! The revolution is only a few decades late so far.

No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm creating a little bubble so that I can actually make progress. Allowing people to criticize what they don't want, or don't understand, is like putting my finger in an electric socket. As I said, no one is forcing you to buy the book or to join my grassroots movement. You can criticize his findings all you want; it won't change the fact that the Golden Age, an age of peace and prosperity, is going to be a reality in a relatively short time, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.

He used dogs as an example (and it's okay if my son used Skype to see if his dog would recognize him. This was pretty strong evidence considering that this dog is a very smart breed and loves my son because he rescued her from the pound. If anyone would recognize him, it would be this dog. Yes, it was one example but she was a good test sample). My father never used Skype, so you don't even know who you are referring to. If the eyes are a sense organ, a dog should be able to recognize a picture or his master's face even if all his other senses were disconnected. This does not happen. Did it ever occur to you that there might be a reason for this? To say that dog's brains are different from humans still doesn't answer the question as to why all the other parts of the brain that receive sense experience are in full working order, but not the eyes. Of course you will give me some cockamaimie answer to try to discredit Lessans, because that is your goal. You're not sincere in your desire to learn, and because of that you will never understand this book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, no he did not. He merely stated that things work a certain way, but he never proved it. He never proved that when we know we will never be blamed, we would act perfectly conscientious. He merely claimed that this was so. We have been over this.

You, NA, thedoc, and David just want to crush him in the worst way, but you can't because he's not wrong. You don't understand the first thing about this book. How many times did he state that we can't stop blaming just because we have learned that man's will is not free. But of course you don't remember this because you never read it. Give up Vivisectus. And, by the way, you have no understanding of his chapter on dating and marriage. You are the exact type of individual that should not read the book or listen to the audio. I DO NOT recommend it in your case, not because I want to be in a bubble, but because you will never accept this knowledge, or even try to understand it, until science confirms it. You are already too far gone in your public denouncement of this book to ever renig on your position. You would have no way of saving face.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Allowing people to criticize what they don't want, or don't understand, is like putting my finger in an electric socket.