A revolution in thought - Page 497

davidm · #**12401** 10-15-2011, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His questions are legitimate (even though I thought I answered them)...

Where have you answered them?

I have shown that: you either argee with Lessans that the light arrives at the camera later than at the eye, in which case the camera takes delayed pictures while the eyes see in real time. However, when we check this against reality, we find it is false. If it were true, pictures would differ from what we see, and they don't.

But, if you stick with your claim that cameras take images in real time the way that the eyes see in real time, you contradict what Lessans said. How can you possibly contradict The Infallible Man? :faint:

Of course, as you now see, the moons of Jupiter example by itself proves that Lessans was wrong.

LadyShea · #**12402** 10-15-2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

If you don't stop these false accusations, I am going to delete you which will be horrible for me because, believe it or not, I like you. I just think you are having a hard time with this information. But I will not be subjected to tactics that are cold hearted. These disgusting tactics that would literally throw me under a bus would make it appear as if you are right and I am wrong, but this is not true if Lessans is right. Is that what you want just so you can be the one to claim that you are the winner? This is not about winning; this is about the truth.

He followed all your arguments to their logical conclusions and posed them to you as questions.

He is not making false accusations, using cold hearted tactics, throwing you under a bus*, nor being disgusting.

You're getting histrionic and persecution complexed again.

*I don't think that idiom means what you think it means, because it's not really appropriate in that context

His questions are legitimate (even though I thought I answered them), but his strategy is cold and calculating. For what other reason does he call me names in just about every post than to make me look stupid so everyone will not take Lessans seriously. Those tactics are underhanded and have no place in this discussion.

Whether davidm calls you names or not has nothing to do with how others in the conversation perceive you or Lessans, nor does it affect anyone taking anything you say seriously or not.

He is straight up calling you names, so there is no underhandedness. He is insulting you, it's straightforward and honest. It's mean, but not a tactical or strategic move.

You are using his being mean to avoid answering the questions. That's a type of ad hominem..."I am not taking davidm's questions seriously because he's a meanie". Just answer him or ignore him, but quit with the justifications and distraction.

davidm · #**12403** 10-15-2011, 06:04 PM

Actually, as both I and the Lone Ranger have argued, the most insulting person on this thread, all along, has been peacegirl. She has behaved dishonestly and duplictously throughout. She has repeatedly insulted the intelligence of all her interlocutors. She has dodged and weaseled and bobbed and weaved and wasted everyone's time. She is wilfully dishonest and her act is tiresome.

Hey peacegirl: moons of Jupiter.

peacegirl · #**12404** 10-15-2011, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

But who will examine the heads of psychiatrists if not other psychiatrists? :sadcheer:

It seems we are in yet another closed loop.

Yessir. It's kinda like how in the Golden Age there will be lawmakers but no laws.

He said that the job "lawmaker" will now entail analyzing what is, and what is not, a first blow. Therefore the role of "lawmaker" will change from creating new laws to this new role since there will be no more man made laws.

LadyShea · #**12405** 10-15-2011, 06:08 PM

I prefer straight up name calling to insulting my intelligence, myself, because it is not underhanded or dishonest.

LadyShea · #**12406** 10-15-2011, 06:12 PM

Here are my posts about the falsified data in the cancer research

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an interesting article which discloses the flagrant disregard for objective scientific research.

The flagrant disregard? This was one guy. You act like this one case indicates all of science is suspect!

Science is not perfect, and scientists are people-some of which will have ulterior motives and strong biases- but does tend to self correct over time due to replication efforts.

The fabricated research was published only 2 years ago, and already has been discovered. There is an entire government department to look at things, the Office of Research Integrity. It's possible there was a whistleblower in the lab since the researcher's own university launched the investigation (Boston University obviously cares for integrity in their halls!). Really, there is no reason to think there is widespread disregard for the scientific process.

Quote:

The ORI’s determination of research misconduct came after an investigation initiated by Boston University, according to a statement issued by Ober. The University would not release details of how suspicions first arose nor when the investigation began.

Also, one researcher's or one labs findings are not the entirety of data or knowledge found in any field of science:

Quote:

But researchers say the impending retractions will not significantly impact the field’s understanding of HIC1’s role in tumor suppression, as the papers’ basic findings have been shown in other studies.

“This will not impact our paper, although it is, of course, very concerning,” Susan Cohn, professor of Pediatrics at the University of Chicago who cited the Oncogene paper, said in an email.

“Even if their conclusion [that HIC1 requires interaction with Brg1 to control cell-growth-related genes] was not correct, other studies have demonstrated that Brg1 can interact with other tumor suppressors, such as Prohibitin and TopBP,” added Danuta Radzioch, professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal who also cited the Oncogene paper, in an email. Cancer Researcher Fabricated Data | The Scientist

Really, you're grasping at straws, trying to compare current, cutting edge genetic cancer research to hundreds of years and thousands of experiments in dozens of fields done on light and sight. That was an attempt at deflection so you can continue to keep your head in the sand and avoid answering questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG peacegirl. I was trying to figure out why your article about the cancer research fraud was so much more :freakout:

and

than the ones I was looking at...then I looked at the name....Mercola?

Jesus you love your quacks. Do you ever, ever vet your sources?

Please stop right there LadyShea. This is not them against us. You are trying to create a false war. I won't let you do that, ok? Just because this knowledge is coming from someone you have labeled a "fraud" doesn't make it so. You are more closed minded than I realized.

Oh the studies contained fraudulent data, I linked to another article about it, but Mercola interpreted it as devastating to 10 years worth of others' research and as "foundation shaking"

How can that be since the studies were only published 2 years ago and no other scientists have stated that their own work was reliant on the falsified findings? They were not remotely "foundational" nor were they old enough to have ramifications retroactive to 10 years back.

Seriously the guy's a quack and a scaremonger, using unwarranted fear and false claims of efficacy to sell his own products. You just eat that crap up like it's Manna from Heaven and you handwave away 400 years of real science.

Unbelievable.

davidm · #**12407** 10-15-2011, 06:18 PM

Funny how, when painted into a corner from which she could not escape -- the demonstration of the impossibility of real-time seeing -- peacegirl decided to abruptly shift the topic to cancer research. How insulting is that? But your duplicitous tactics are so transparent, peacegirl, that no one is fooled by them.

peacegirl · #**12408** 10-15-2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not misleading anybody. How many times do I have to say that nothing is being received. The lens is focused on the object, so the light will show an exact "mirror image" (for lack of a better word) on the lens of a camera or the lens of an eye.

Hey, peacegirl? Focus: optics.

Now, peacegirl, if you will bother to read the article (which you probably won’t) you will discover the uncomfortable fact that “focusing” is a physical process involving light passing through lenses. But you contend that what a camera focuses is the object. So a lens focuses the object! What does that mean, peacegirl? Are you saying that when a camera on a telescope focuses on the planet Saturn the planet itself passes through the telescope camera?

Because that is the plain and only sense of what “focus the object” can mean. And, of course, it’s absurd.

Would you care to address this point, peacegirl? :popcorn:

You obviously haven't been paying attention. I have only spent pages and pages explaining this. Light must be present because it is light that strikes the lens, but the lens must be focused on the object which means that the object must be present. Even if an image is seen in a mirror, the lens would be focused on that image. The only difference between photographing an object and photographing an image of the object is how the lightwaves are deflected, but in either case there is no time delay.

peacegirl · #**12409** 10-15-2011, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Funny how, when painted into a corner from which she could not escape -- the demonstration of the impossibility of real-time seeing -- peacegirl decided to abruptly shift the topic to cancer research. How insulting is that? But your duplicitous tactics are so transparent, peacegirl, that no one is fooled by them.

Wrong again. I just think that what is going on in the medical field shows loud and clear how bias can very easily skew the results. When it comes to new drugs being sold on the market, it is imperative that the findings show they are safe and effective so that large amounts of money can be made. I'm not saying this happens in all cases, but it is something that must be monitored very carefully.

peacegirl · #**12410** 10-15-2011, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah David, you just don't get that the camera detects the light striking it that is already here to detect something that is lightyears away because of focussing lenses and objects in fields of view and the colors that appear from interacting with the atmosphere and light-emitting photons that are like miniature carbon-copies of the objects that emitted them.

Through some unknown means photons emitted a hundred years ago were emitted in such a way that by the time they reach the camera, they are detected in such a way as to form an image of what is there at the time of their reaching the camera.

All the while we ignore the elegant and well-tested other idea that, amazingly, people seem to prefer because it works and does not require magic: the idea that Lessans was completely wrong about sight.

And all this because he was not able to wrap his head around (or was wholly ignorant of) the notion of such things as cultural conditioning, or the age-old problem of the relation between perception and reality.

How we perceive reality is a completely different subject (a very interesting subject, I must say) than seeing reality.

peacegirl · #**12411** 10-15-2011, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I've been trying to understand "mirror image at the lens" and "already there" light and light as a conduit, peacegirl.

It seems to me that you understand that travels (at least in space), but that somehow you think once the first light reaches Earth, travel time ceases to be an issue. What I can't figure out is how you're visualizing this permanent connection. Can you come up with any analogy?

Is it like a tunnel that you simply need to look in and you see the source at the other end?

It doesn't matter that photons are constantly being replaced. The continuum of photons does not cease, therefore when a snapshot is taken of an object, it will be an instantaneous reflection of that object due to light that is being seen on the lens.

peacegirl · #**12412** 10-15-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a thought experiment about that I read at several physics forums; some people posited real time information transfer by saying if you connect a rigid pole between two very distant points, and push one end forward, the other end should instantaneously move forward too. Of course that's not the case...the force/energy still must travel from atom to atom the length of the rigid pole, which takes time.

Now that I can agree with LadyShea. It's nice to side with you for a change.

peacegirl · #**12413** 10-15-2011, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, when the eyes see the moon, and focus the object itself, are you saying that the moon passes through the lenses of our eyes? If not, what are you saying?

Did Lessans develop this idea one day when heard the following song lyric?

"When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's amore!"*

*Thanks to Nullifidian for the song lyric!

peacegirl · #**12414** 10-15-2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Absolutely. There is no such thing as a completely rigid object. Even if the 'string' were made of a solid rod of diamond, the effect of tugging on one end would travel along the rod at much less than the speed of light.

Another thing you hear people say is that liquids, such as water, are 'incompressible'.

Tell them that, yes, liquids are hard to compress. But they're not completely incompressible or sound waves either couldn't travel through them or would have to travel at infinite speed.

You're string analogy didn't fit exactly. You were getting warm, but you can't win a prize, therefore all of this discussion is getting off track.

Dragar · #**12415** 10-15-2011, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Funny how, when painted into a corner from which she could not escape -- the demonstration of the impossibility of real-time seeing -- peacegirl decided to abruptly shift the topic to cancer research. How insulting is that? But your duplicitous tactics are so transparent, peacegirl, that no one is fooled by them.

Wrong again. I just think that what is going on in the medical field shows loud and clear how bias can very easily skew the results. When it comes to new drugs being sold on the market, it is imperative that the findings show they are safe and effective so that large amounts of money can be made. I'm not saying this happens in all cases, but it is something that must be monitored very carefully.

You really think that 400 years worth of observations of Io are wrong because of a bias of the researchers? Really? You've moved onto conspiracy theories now peacegirl.

davidm · #**12416** 10-15-2011, 07:08 PM

peacegirl · #**12417** 10-15-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Yes, that's right.

Scientists originally thought that waves couldn't travel through a vacuum, so they came up with the idea of the Luminiferous aether which was supposed to be a 'fluid' that filled the whole universe, through which the waves of light could travel. Light would then be compression or shear waves travelling at 'the speed of sound' in the aether.

This aether would have had very strange properties - it had to be incredibly stiff and rigid to account for the high speed that light waves propagated through it, but at the same time it had to allow planets, moons, comets and other matter to pass through with no appreciable resistance or friction.

And, of course, the aether would be an absolute reference frame - the aether itself could be considered as stationary (but for the vibrations due to light) and so it would be possible to measure the 'absolute motion' of the Earth with respect to this stationary aether.

The scientists of the day attempted to measure this absolute motion - they measured the speed of light in two directions, at right angles to each other, expecting to find a difference. They would then be able to do the math and work out the direction and speed at which the Earth was travelling, relative to the aether.

They always got the inexplicable result that the Earth was stationary with respect to the aether! Even if the Sun, by some coincidence, were stationary with respect to the aether, the Earth is known to travel at around 85,000 mph on its orbit around the Sun, and the experiments were sensitive enough to pick up speeds as 'low' as 85,000 mph, even though this is just a tiny fraction of the speed of light.

At first, they tried to explain the results by 'aether dragging' - large objects, such as the Earth, were presumed to drag the local aether along with them - in the same way that when your car is travelling through rain it collects a layer of water on the car that travels along with the car itself.

It took the genius of Einstein to accept that the speed of light would always be a constant, no matter how it was measured and whether the observer was moving or not. He then worked out all the results of this observation - the mind-blowing facts that time isn't constant, objects change their dimensions and mass when they move, mass can be converted into energy and so on.

Compared to Lessans, Einstein was asking people to abandon many more of their common-sense notions of how the universe worked - notions that had worked well for centuries!

Note however that people were prepared to believe Einstein! His theory explained observations better than the existing theories of the time, so even though Einstein's universe certainly seemed weird, people came to accept that this is how things really are!

If Peacegirl could point to one observable fact that can't be explained by current theories, and can be better explained by Lessans' new ones (and the new theories don't contradict other observations known to be correct) then people would quickly abandon the theories of Einstein and accept the new Lessans system.

Of course, she can't point to any such facts - all the 'examples' given by Lessans and Peacegirl are make believe and fly in the face of known accurate observations. Therefore they prove nothing - they are not even self-consistent, so couldn't hold in any logically possible universe, let alone this one!

His observations do not conflict with other observations known to be correct. You say that Lessans' examples are make believe and fly in the face of known accurate observations. But how do you know that those known observations are accurate if the very people who are claiming they are accurate are invested in their accuracy? I'm not saying people are intentionally deceiving anyone, but for science to have made a logical error of this magnitude does involve having to admit they made an error, and that's difficult to do. Who wants to admit they were wrong about how sight and light interact? Furthermore, to say that his explanation is no better than the present explanation doesn't mean he's wrong. An explanation as to how something works can sound perfectly correct, but have fundamental flaws.

davidm · #**12418** 10-15-2011, 07:17 PM

Yes, scientific bias makes the moons of Jupiter looks as if real-time seeing is impossible; bias is what drives relativity theory, which contradicts Lessans; it's bias that makes our GPS devices and radar and high-speed particle accelerators and hundreds of other devices that invalidate real-time seeing work; bias is what makes us think the eye is an afferent structure with no efferent elements at all; it is bias that makes it impossible for peacegirl to address the contradiction in her claims with those of Lessans, it is all bias! Ding dong, she's a crazy lady! :lol:

davidm · #**12419** 10-15-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations do not conflict with other observations known to be correct.

Hey, crazy lady:

MOONS OF JUPITER

One example among hundreds. You really are a contemptible character.

Dragar · #**12420** 10-15-2011, 07:25 PM

So as we said... you do actually want us to reject well established science. Purely on your word that the observations are biased. What happened to Lessans work being perfectly consistent with science, peacegirl? What happened to this all being well founded on how we see the world? What happened to not being a crackpot demanding we reject perfectly good science that is responsible for huge amounts of modern technology that works?

ceptimus · #**12421** 10-15-2011, 07:32 PM

I told you, Peacegirl, we've landed a probe on Titan, a moon of Saturn. The probe was aimed using our notions of seeing - that is to say we allowed for the fact that we see Titan where it was about NINETY MINUTES AGO.

Now if you were right about real time seeing, then the probe would have missed Titan completely. But it didn't, it entered Titan's atmosphere exactly as designed and sent back video of its descent and for a while after it touched down.

How do you explain this? I bet you can't.

davidm · #**12422** 10-15-2011, 07:41 PM

Actual image of the surface of Titan:

Golly, peacegirl, nothing Daddy said conflicted with known science, huh? See ceptimus's question.

:derp:

davidm · #**12423** 10-15-2011, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Absolutely. There is no such thing as a completely rigid object. Even if the 'string' were made of a solid rod of diamond, the effect of tugging on one end would travel along the rod at much less than the speed of light.

Another thing you hear people say is that liquids, such as water, are 'incompressible'.

Tell them that, yes, liquids are hard to compress. But they're not completely incompressible or sound waves either couldn't travel through them or would have to travel at infinite speed.

You're string analogy didn't fit exactly. You were getting warm, but you can't win a prize, therefore all of this discussion is getting off track.