A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it isn't a good analogy. Because there is no efferent model. You have not offered any explanation at all for why we see the candle quickly. The ONLY explanation we have for this comes from the afferent model and depends upon travel time.

It takes time for the light from the candle to get to the eye, but you can hardly notice it. The same goes for the Sun because we're not using light in the same way. This is getting ridiculous. I'm not conceding Spacemonkey, so let's end this conversation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you're going to have to trust me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why? You know we don't trust you. What is your excuse for not posting images?

I have to sign up for Imgur.com and learn how to use it. It's too time consuming just for the purpose of making you trust me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't a claim. He was just trying to explain the function of light in this account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't seem to understand what the word 'claim' means. A claim is just something somebody says, and your father said two different things. Hence he made two different claims.

I don't like how you're using the word claim in this thread because it's confusing other analyses with the three significant claims (or discoveries) Lessans made. He did say two different things. In his first book he didn't analyze it correctly, or he wouldn't have changed it. But you think it's wrong because a car can't get to a destination unless it travels to that destination. You are making the same exact comparison with light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he meant the former as this was in his most recent book.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, that's the opposite of what you were saying recently, and puts you right back where you've been for the last ten years, with the impossibility of photons being somewhere before they get there, the impossibility of photons being photons without having traveled anywhere, and the impossibility of photons having come from the Sun without ever having been there.

Photons did come from the Sun Spacemonkey. But the eyes in the efferent model don't have to wait 8 1/2 minutes because distance has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what my answer is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I don't. As you have not answered me at all. But it doesn't really matter, as the colour change problem was designed to show that flipflopping to Lessans' earlier claim (that we don't see the newly ignited Sun until after 8min) still leaves you with impossible-to-resolve-problems. Now that you're back to your original story you're also back to the original problems.

I'll stick to the original story. I wasn't flipflopping. I wanted to believe my father's earlier writing was correct so I could end this conversation peacefully. But I believe it was an incorrect analysis on his part since traveling light would not allow a person to see in real time. It would go right back to the afferent model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not really. You just answered some of what I asked, after I reposted it multiple times and reminded you that I was being nice.

Stop talking about being nice, as if I am now obligated to answer you just because you're not cursing me out.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And your response was the opposite of what it was only a day or so ago. And you still responded to a direct question with "You know what my answer is". That's not an answer, Peacegirl.

Because you should know what my answer is. That IS an answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm so tired of defending his claim about the eyes, I prefer to let it go. It would have been so much easier if he could have explained how we become conditioned without concluding that the eyes are not a sense organ. This opened up a can of worms that I wasn't prepared for.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then stop defending it. When all the evidence is against you and you can't find any plausible way to defend his ideas, you can simply be honest and say "Yeah, it looks like he probably got the whole vision thing wrong, and I really can't make any sense out of it, but I still think there is value in what he said about conditioning". The world won't end if you say this. If anything you might earn a bit of respect by being honest with us. You don't have to defend the indefensible. You don't have to believe things that don't make sense. If something seems like it makes no sense then you're allowed to say so. Your father would not hold it against you.

The world won't end if I say this, but if this model of sight is necessary for how this conditioning takes place, then I cannot just leave it out. If you understood what made him come to this conclusion, and you could show me where it is not dependent on how the eyes work, then I would drop it in a heartbeat.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes time for the light from the candle to get to the eye, but you can hardly notice it.

Because it is such a short distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same goes for the Sun...

The same does not go for the Sun, because it is a very large distance.

Do you understand that you cannot have something going a greater distance in the same amount of time without it going faster?

Can light go any faster than the speed of light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to sign up for Imgur.com and learn how to use it. It's too time consuming just for the purpose of making you trust me.

You don't have to sign up to use Imgur at all. It is fast and free, and take only seconds to use. Time building some trust here would be time well spent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like how you're using the word claim in this thread...

I'm using the word according to its standard dictionary definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you think it's wrong because a car can't get to a destination unless it travels to that destination. You are making the same exact comparison with light.

Yes. Light, just like a car or anything else, can't be somewhere before it gets there. What part of this do you not understand?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons did come from the Sun Spacemonkey. But the eyes in the efferent model don't have to wait 8 1/2 minutes because distance has nothing to do with it.

The photons we are talking about are at the retina on Earth at 12:00, which is exactly the same time that the Sun is ignited and begins emitting photons. So if these photons came from the Sun then when were they at the Sun?

And if they are traveling photons then what traveling have they done?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll stick to the original story. I wasn't flipflopping. I wanted to believe my father's earlier writing was correct so I could end this conversation peacefully. But I believe it was an incorrect analysis on his part since traveling light would not allow a person to see in real time. It would go right back to the afferent model.

So you flipflopped. You went from saying we see the newly ignited Sun instantly, to saying we don't, to saying we do again. That was a flipflop. And now that you're back in the same position you started in, you're back facing the same problems you've been studiously evading for the last decade.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop talking about being nice, as if I am now obligated to answer you just because you're not cursing me out.

When you deliberately weasel and evade people lose respect for you and lose their patience. Do you really not understand how rude and disrespectful it is to prolong a discussion while refusing to address what people are saying?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you should know what my answer is. That IS an answer.

No, it isn't. And you can't expect people to know what your answers are when you refuse to give them. That's not reasonable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The world won't end if I say this, but if this model of sight is necessary for how this conditioning takes place...

It isn't. There is no logical connection between them at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you understood what made him come to this conclusion...

How could we possibly understand that when you don't even understand it yourself? Five minutes ago you had no idea whether or not to back his claim that we would see the newly ignited Sun in real time! You are as clueless on this as we are. No-one knows how your father came to these conclusions. Because he never adequately explained it himself.

[Vivisectus]

I'm so tired of defending his claim about the eyes, I prefer to let it go. It would have been so much easier if he could have explained how we become conditioned without concluding that the eyes are not a sense organ. This opened up a can of worms that I wasn't prepared for.

And it is not even necessary: we already know sight is a very creative process, that what we end up experiencing as sight is something more complex than what we detect.

And even without THAT it is not easy to solve the problems we thought this would solve: beauty standards in humans differ from culture to culture, and the importance we attribute to it is at least partially learned. Hey presto! All the same results, with none of the mess.

Relative Simultaneity is a problem, I gather, for some of the later chapters. These were not in the version I downloaded, so I never read that bit. But there the problem is that we have observed it: experiments have already born that out conclusively. It tells us exactly what the difference between clocks on earth and clocks in orbit is going to be if it is correct... and we see those results.

[Vivisectus]

I'll stick to the original story. I wasn't flipflopping. I wanted to believe my father's earlier writing was correct so I could end this conversation peacefully. But I believe it was an incorrect analysis on his part since traveling light would not allow a person to see in real time. It would go right back to the afferent model.

That is worrying, as we are supposed to accept the ideas in this book based on the assumption he was able to perceive "relations" and "patterns" that other people could not, and that these "astute observations" are correct - even if current evidence suggests otherwise.

Now it seems even THAT is no longer possible: he makes mistakes.

What exactly do we have left now? All I can think of is "wouldn't it be nice if he was right?"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes time for the light from the candle to get to the eye, but you can hardly notice it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because it is such a short distance.

No, that's the deception.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same goes for the Sun...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The same does not go for the Sun, because it is a very large distance.

It is, but your conclusion is inaccurate in my humble opinion. If you don't care about my opinion, that's your right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you understand that you cannot have something going a greater distance in the same amount of time without it going faster?

Can light go any faster than the speed of light?

Completely unrelated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to sign up for Imgur.com and learn how to use it. It's too time consuming just for the purpose of making you trust me.

You don't have to sign up to use Imgur at all. It is fast and free, and take only seconds to use. Time building some trust here would be time well spent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like how you're using the word claim in this thread...

I'm using the word according to its standard dictionary definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you think it's wrong because a car can't get to a destination unless it travels to that destination. You are making the same exact comparison with light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. Light, just like a car or anything else, can't be somewhere before it gets there. What part of this do you not understand?

I give up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up.
Photons did come from the Sun Spacemonkey. But the eyes in the efferent model don't have to wait 8 1/2 minutes because distance has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photons we are talking about are at the retina on Earth at 12:00, which is exactly the same time that the Sun is ignited and begins emitting photons. So if these photons came from the Sun then when were they at the Sun?

At the time they were emitted Soacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if they are traveling photons then what traveling have they done?

You're just not understanding this model. I'm not trying to force anything on you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll stick to the original story. I wasn't flipflopping. I wanted to believe my father's earlier writing was correct so I could end this conversation peacefully. But I believe it was an incorrect analysis on his part since traveling light would not allow a person to see in real time. It would go right back to the afferent model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you flipflopped. You went from saying we see the newly ignited Sun instantly, to saying we don't, to saying we do again. That was a flipflop. And now that you're back in the same position you started in, you're back facing the same problems you've been studiously evading for the last decade.

I hope you understand why I made this error. It in no way makes his claim wrong, which you are trying desperately to negate.

I guess I -am, and I'll deal with it.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think Louis Savain has more insight than many esteemed physicists.

What qualifies you to make that assessment? What facts support it?

[But]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes time for the light from the candle to get to the eye, but you can hardly notice it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because it is such a short distance.

No, that's the deception.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The same goes for the Sun...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The same does not go for the Sun, because it is a very large distance.

It is, but your conclusion is inaccurate in my humble opinion. If you don't care about my opinion, that's your prerogative.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you understand that you cannot have something going a greater distance in the same amount of time without it going faster?

Can light go any faster than the speed of light?

Completely unrelated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to sign up for Imgur.com and learn how to use it. It's too time consuming just for the purpose of making you trust me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have to sign up to use Imgur at all. It is fast and free, and take only seconds to use. Time building some trust here would be time well spent.

Actually it would do nothing of the sort. It would help for 5 minutes and then reset. The pay-off is negligible so I get greater satisfaction in denying your request.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like how you're using the word claim in this thread...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm using the word according to its standard dictionary definition.

Definitions have to be used in context. You know that as well as I. It does not apply here and for you to Include this definition to mean "anything that is said" is an effort to confuse the issue by treating his his actual claims with callous disregard.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you think it's wrong because a car can't get to a destination unless it travels to that destination. You are making the same exact comparison with light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. Light, just like a car or anything else, can't be somewhere before it gets there. What part of this do you not understand?

You are failing to understand this concept and are therefore guarding your worldview with impenetrable armor?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons did come from the Sun Spacemonkey. But the eyes in the efferent model don't have to wait 8 1/2 minutes because distance has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photons we are talking about are at the retina on Earth at 12:00, which is exactly the same time that the Sun is ignited and begins emitting photons. So if these photons came from the Sun then when were they at the Sun?

At the time they were emitted.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if they are traveling photons then what traveling have they done?

You're not understanding this model. I'm not trying to force anything on you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll stick to the original story. I wasn't flipflopping. I wanted to believe my father's earlier writing was correct so I could end this conversation peacefully. But I believe it was an incorrect analysis on his part since traveling light would not allow a person to see in real time. It would go right back to the afferent model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you flipflopped. You went from saying we see the newly ignited Sun instantly, to saying we don't, to saying we do again. That was a flipflop. And now that you're back in the same position you started in, you're back facing the same problems you've been studiously evading for the last decade.

I hope you understand why I made this error. It in no way makes his claim wrong, which you are trying desperately to negate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I guess I -am, and I'll deal with it.

I hope you sincerely mean that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's the deception.

Then you need to present an alternative explanation, not based on distance and travel time, to explain how and why we see the candle quickly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is, but your conclusion is inaccurate in my humble opinion. If you don't care about my opinion, that's your prerogative.

I do care about your opinion. This is why I ask you questions. But you do not answer them, so I don't get to hear your opinion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually it would do nothing of the sort. It would help for 5 minutes and then reset. The pay-off is negligible so I get greater satisfaction in ignoring your request.

Then don't complain when we conclude that you are lying and making things up. You've had your chance to show otherwise, and apparently can't be bothered.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

definitions have to be used in context. You know that as well as I. It does not apply here and for you to throw this word around to mean anything that is said is an effort to make light of how he uses the word claim so you can throw all of his genuine claims out in one fell swoop.

It's what the word 'claim' means, Peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you are failing to understand this concept and are therefore guarding your worldview with impenetrable armor?

No, I'm simply pointing out what any child can understand—things can't be somewhere before getting there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At the time they were emitted Soacemonkey.

Obviously, but when was that? At, before, or after 12:00?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just not understanding this model. I'm not trying to force anything on you.

Answer the question please. If the photons at the retina at 12:00 are traveling photons, then what traveling have they done?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess I -am, and I'll deal with it.

Can you please deal with it by answering my questions instead of rudely evading them?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope you sincerely mean that.

Jesus Christ. Those were YOUR words, not mine. You just typed them yourself less than an hour ago, and now you're replying to them as if they were my words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Jesus Christ. Those were YOUR words, not mine. You just typed them yourself less than an hour ago, and now you're replying to them as if they were my words.

Oops! Sorry about that. It didn't sound like that would be something you would say, looking back in hindsight.

[davidm]

A brief recapitulation of all the reasons why we hold you in contempt is worth doing here. You write:

Time does not slow down. Clocks slow down.

Clocks slowing down IS time slowing down. Idiot!

Now this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what you think David. You're wrong. Yes. I think Louis Savain has more insight than many esteemed physicists. You are in la la land!

Is Relativity Wrong?

Does the impossibility of motion in spacetime invalidate Einstein's relativity? The answer depends on whether one takes spacetime to be physically existent (as relativists do) or as an abstract, non-existent, mathematical construct for the historical mapping of measured events. If one chooses the former, one is obviously a crackpot or a fraud, or both. If one chooses the latter, then general relativity is to be seen as a mere math trick: the physical mechanism of gravity is still out there and it is incumbent upon physicists to find it.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

First, as Maturin points out, and as you yourself well know, you are in NO position to evaluate the theory of relativity, or what Crackpot Savain says about it. Despite being taught the rudiments of the theory by several of us over the years, you have learned NOTHING about it. The proof of this is that you can write -- with a straight face and not realizing how imbecilic you are -- “time does not slow down. Clocks slow down.”

The stuff you quoted from Savain, as we have repeatedly explained to you, is nothing but incoherent word salad. The man is richly earned his place in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. First, as we have explained to you, his claim that "motion is impossible in spacetime” is crap, and came about because he can’t do math! Dragar explained this to you. Second, physicists do NOT claim that spacetime is “physically existent,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Spacetime is a set of spatial and temporal relations among objects. Third, when he writes “the physical mechanism of gravity is still out there and it is incumbent upon physicists to find it,” he outs himself as a total dunce, although of course you yourself are not sufficiently educated to understand why.

The broader point, though, and the reason you are so contemptible, is that you know NOTHING about ANY of this, yet because you THINK that Crackpot Savain says something that MIGHT support your loony ideas, you grab on to his coattails like someone drowning grabs on to driftwood.

The problem, though, as has also been repeatedly explained to you, is that all of this stuff is irrelevant. You don’t need to worry about time dilation or Crackpot Savain or what gravity really is or any of this stuff. It is the relativity of simultaneity that shows why real-time seeing is impossible. We’ve already gone over this with you countless times. The fact that two observers in different inertial frames will disagree over the time order of events arises because we don’t see in real time. If we saw in real time, then all observers, universally, would AGREE on the time order of events.

Finally – and this too has been repeatedly pointed out to you – they theory of relativity is not needed to disprove real-time seeing. Real-time seeing was disproved hundreds of years ago by the moons of Jupiter observation. Relativity theory is merely a consequence of the fact that we don’t see in real time. If we saw in real time, the theory would never have arisen in the first place.

You are a complete idiot.

[Vivisectus]

looking back in hindsight

Surely you mean looking back after the fact in hindsight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And it is not even necessary: we already know sight is a very creative process, that what we end up experiencing as sight is something more complex than what we detect.

And even without THAT it is not easy to solve the problems we thought this would solve: beauty standards in humans differ from culture to culture, and the importance we attribute to it is at least partially learned. Hey presto! All the same results, with none of the mess.

No Vivisectus. Not presto! You don't even understand the first thing regarding why these beauty standards are able to condition someone. When it comes to taste, we can't condition someone to like a certain food, if they don't like it. When it comes to sound, we can't condition someone to like a certain type of music, if they don't like it. When it comes to the sense of smell, we can't condition someone to like a certain odor, if they don't like it. When it comes to sight, we can condition someone to liking a certain physiognomy due to words only, not reality. The fact that beauty standards differ from culture to culture and that some features are viewed as 'beautiful' and in another culture these features would be considered 'ugly' verify this observation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Relative Simultaneity is a problem, I gather, for some of the later chapters. These were not in the version I downloaded, so I never read that bit. But there the problem is that we have observed it: experiments have already born that out conclusively. It tells us exactly what the difference between clocks on earth and clocks in orbit is going to be if it is correct... and we see those results.

I am not opposing the findings. What I am opposing is their interpretation of the findings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you need to present an alternative explanation, not based on distance and travel time, to explain how and why we see the candle quickly.

I do care about your opinion. This is why I ask you questions. But you do not answer them, so I don't get to hear your opinion.

Then don't complain when we conclude that you are lying and making things up. You've had your chance to show otherwise, and apparently can't be bothered.

It's what the word 'claim' means, Peacegirl.

No, I'm simply pointing out what any child can understand—things can't be somewhere before getting there.

Obviously, but when was that? At, before, or after 12:00?

Answer the question please. If the photons at the retina at 12:00 are traveling photons, then what traveling have they done?

Can you please deal with it by answering my questions instead of rudely evading them?

I told you that Lessans said light travels at a high rate of speed. He agreed with the physics of light, but if the eyes are efferent, as he claimed, we would be able to see an object in real time as long as the object was large enough (within our field of view) and bright enough (had enough luminosity) to be seen. Light would not be the bringer of information through space/time; it would be the bridge to the external world. If you can't see how this is possible because light hasn't reach Earth, I cannot help you. Maybe it's time for a new set of eyes to look at this claim otherwise I'm afraid we'll be stuck here forever.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that Lessans said light travels at a high rate of speed. He agreed with the physics of light, but if the eyes are efferent, as he claimed, we would be able to see an object in real time as long as the object was large enough (within our field of view) and bright enough (had enough luminosity) to be seen. Light would not be the bringer of information through space/time; it would be the bridge to the external world. If you can't see how this is possible because light hasn't reach Earth, I cannot help you. Maybe it's time for a new set of eyes to look at this claim otherwise I'm afraid we'll be stuck here forever.

Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

A brief recapitulation of all the reasons why we hold you in contempt is worth doing here. You write:

Clocks slowing down IS time slowing down. Idiot!

Now this:

First, as Maturin points out, and as you yourself well know, you are in NO position to evaluate the theory of relativity, or what Crackpot Savain says about it. Despite being taught the rudiments of the theory by several of us over the years, you have learned NOTHING about it. The proof of this is that you can write -- with a straight face and not realizing how imbecilic you are -- “time does not slow down. Clocks slow down.”

But that's true! Clocks slow down but time does not. Time is not a dimension David. I believe Savain was right. There is only the ever changing present.

Should We Stop Using Time?

Of course not. As long as time is seen for what it is, an abstract evolution (change) parameter, there is no problem. The whole thing is analogous to the unemployment rate. No one is arguing for its physical existence but it is nevertheless useful. The same goes for time. Just as the unemployment rate is derived abstractly from the number of employed and unemployed people, time is also derived abstractly from the magnitude or rate of motion or change. The greater the magnitude of the motion or the change, the shorter the time. It is only when one decides to make time an independent variable or a dimensional axis (degree of freedom), that one moves into crackpot territory.

Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

Originally Posted by davidm

The stuff you quoted from Savain, as we have repeatedly explained to you, is nothing but incoherent word salad.

NO IT IS NOT!

Originally Posted by davidm

The man is richly earned his place in the Encyclopedia of American Loons.

So should you. You believe in wormholes, and time machines. This puts you in loon territory, along with other well known physicists.

Originally Posted by david

First, as we have explained to you, his claim that "motion is impossible in spacetime” is crap, and came about because he can’t do math! Dragar explained this to you. Second, physicists do NOT claim that spacetime is “physically existent,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Spacetime is a set of spatial and temporal relations among objects. Third, when he writes “the physical mechanism of gravity is still out there and it is incumbent upon physicists to find it,” he outs himself as a total dunce, although of course you yourself are not sufficiently educated to understand why.

I don't think you do either. I believe he is spot on when he writes:

Passage of Time?

People often talk about the passage of time. They say that time flows or changes. However, logically speaking, it is a fallacy that time changes. Clocks change, physical processes change but time is invariant. Why? Because, again, 'changing time' is self-referential. The truth is that nobody has ever observed time changing. We only use the changes in our clocks to derive unchanging time intervals. The nasty and shocking little truth is that time does not change, a million wormhole and time travel fanatics wearing their little Klingon and Ferengi outfits notwithstanding.

The above may come as a shocking revelation to many but it is a logical fact, one that makes a lot of celebrated time travel and wormhole physicists look rather silly.

Should We Stop Using Time?

Of course not. As long as time is seen for what it is, an abstract evolution (change) parameter, there is no problem. The whole thing is analogous to the unemployment rate. No one is arguing for its physical existence but it is nevertheless useful. The same goes for time. Just as the unemployment rate is derived abstractly from the number of employed and unemployed people, time is also derived abstractly from the magnitude or rate of motion or change. The greater the magnitude of the motion or the change, the shorter the time. It is only when one decides to make time an independent variable or a dimensional axis (degree of freedom), that one moves into crackpot territory.

Originally Posted by davidm

The broader point, though, and the reason you are so contemptible, is that you know NOTHING about ANY of this, yet because you THINK that Crackpot Savain says something that MIGHT support your loony ideas, you grab on to his coattails like someone drowning grabs on to driftwood.

And what about YOU, Mr. Wormhole? You aren't out of crackpot territory at all. In fact, you're just as much a crackpot as the best of them.

Originally Posted by davidm

The problem, though, as has also been repeatedly explained to you, is that all of this stuff is irrelevant. You don’t need to worry about time dilation or Crackpot Savain or what gravity really is or any of this stuff. It is the relativity of simultaneity that shows why real-time seeing is impossible. We’ve already gone over this with you countless times. The fact that two observers in different inertial frames will disagree over the time order of events arises because we don’t see in real time. If we saw in real time, then all observers, universally, would AGREE on the time order of events.

Of course they will disagree over the time order of events because the inertial frames are different and dictate a different order of events. It does not mean all observers would universally agree on the time order of events. This does not cancel out real time vision.

Originally Posted by davidm

Finally – and this too has been repeatedly pointed out to you – they theory of relativity is not needed to disprove real-time seeing. Real-time seeing was disproved hundreds of years ago by the moons of Jupiter observation. Relativity theory is merely a consequence of the fact that we don’t see in real time. If we saw in real time, the theory would never have arisen in the first place.

Not necessarily. The theory came up because it seemed to fit given the idea that the eyes are a sense organ and that light is delayed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course they will disagree over the time order of events because the inertial frames are different and dictate a different order of events.

WHY do they dictate "a different order of events," dumb ass?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe Savain was right.

Do you have any basis in fact for that belief, or is your assent based exclusively on Savain saying what you want to hear?

Never mind. We all know the answer.

[Vivisectus]

Of course they will disagree over the time order of events because the inertial frames are different and dictate a different order of events. It does not mean all observers would universally agree on the time order of events. This does not cancel out real time vision.

So we can see events instantly, yet still see the same event happen at different times because we are in different inertial frames?

[Vivisectus]

a million wormhole and time travel fanatics wearing their little Klingon and Ferengi outfits notwithstanding.

Not crackpotty at all!

[davidm]

Here, peacegirl. A very simple chart that demonstrates both the special theory of relativity, and also why the theory exists only because we don’t see in real time!



Any questions?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So we can see events instantly, yet still see the same event happen at different times because we are in different inertial frames?

I don't see the problem. We could see a different order of events depending on our inertial frame of reference and still see in real time.