A revolution in thought

[davidm]

We're still only on Page 97?

[davidm]

Wait! That last post of mine put us on Page 98!

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein was not published in mathematics journals

Wrong!

A. Einstein and M Grossman, Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und eine Theorie der Gravitation. Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, 62, 225–244, 245–261

[erimir]

Yes, but Einstein didn't know about the two-sided equation, so there

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein was not published in mathematics journals, so???

Borrowed from Kyuss Apollo.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If my dad was a goodball, there's no telling what kind of goofball your dad was.

YEAH DAVID, we can only imagine what a goofball and/or goodball YOUR dad was! What are you trying to hide?

Come on, David. Do it. Post a .pdf of YOUR dad's Big Book of Bombastic Buncombe. We want to read about how man's will used to be free until the Consortium of Invisible Purple Lizardmen of the Outer Planets stole the freedom and hid it in a secret cave on Io. How dare you keep this universe-changing knowledge secret!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Now, could you please restate the puzzle so that it's coherently worded?

Goliath, that's all I was given. Here is what he writes:

The author asks that you arrange 105 alphabetical blocks divided equally between A and O in groups of 3 and in 7 lines, so that no letter is ever twice with the same letter. He gives the answer, and also the proof. I hope this helps. His proof starts wit A and ends with O with combinations of 7 in each line.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

It is published in what mathematics journal?

--J.D.

No Doctor X, I wish it was. Maybe that would give you renewed interest because obviously if he was in a journal, you would take a second look.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Simplicio: "Hello there, Friend. I have this wonderful new theory of navigation that will revolutionize how we travel. There will be no more worries about high fuel costs when people understand the significance of my discovery, because it's a mathematically-certain fact that you can travel from any point on the Earth's surface to any other point almost instantly. Would you like to take a look at my proof?"

Jones: "Um, okay."

Simplicio: "Excellent! Mainstream geographers are too stupid and close-minded to accept my mathematically-certain and undeniably-true observations, but I'm sure that you will be able to appreciate my remarkable genius, Friend."

Jones: "Well, I must say that it's difficult to make heads or tails of this 'proof' of yours. You could really use a good editor. Still, from what I've read of it, your 'theory' could only be true if the Earth is a flat disc."

Simplicio: "I object to your characterization of my work; it is the most simple and elegantly-written proof of all time. You must have reading problems. Nevertheless, I'm glad that you've gotten the gist of my theory."

Jones: "Um, I just pointed out that for your 'theory' to be true, the Earth would have to be flat. Also, though you call it a 'theory,' I can see no evidence that you have tested it in any way."

Simplicio: "Yes! That's what I'm telling you. The Earth is flat! All of those eggheads who insist that it's round are just proving how stupid and close-minded they are! As for testing my theory, why should I? It's based on my own infallible and mathematically-certain observations. If people want to test it, they're certainly welcome to do so, but they'll only find that my observations are completely and utterly correct."

Jones: "You do realize that your 'theory' conflicts with literally centuries of accumulated and mutually-consistent data which demonstrate that the Earth is round, don't you?"

Simplicio: "Stop being so close-minded! All the claims of the Earth being round are due to errors in thought by ancient Greek philosophers. Everybody else has just thoughtlessly copied their errors. If you'd only open your mind, you'd see that I'm right and everybody else is wrong."

Jones: "But aircraft and ships routinely circumnavigate the planet, demonstrating that it's round."

Simplicio: "So you say. I say you're wrong. It's an undeniable truth that the Earth is flat. I have established this truth through careful observation."

Jones: "But we have satellites in orbit which routinely send us pictures of the Earth. They all show that the Earth is round. We've sent astronauts up into space; they all tell us that the Earth is round, too."

Simplicio: "Nonsense. It's all a conspiracy by mainstream geographers who are too close-minded to accept my mathematically-certain findings."

Jones: "Okay, let's perform a simple test to see if the Earth is flat."

Simplicio: "Excellent! Though I must express my disappointment that you're letting this one little disagreement interfere with your appreciation of my revolutionary and undeniably-true theory of navigation."

Jones: "Whatever. Okay, here we are, standing on a beach and watching a ship leave the harbor. If the Earth is flat, as the ship moves away from us, it should dwindle until it's a tiny dot, too small to be seen. If the Earth is round, then we should see the ship sail over the curvature of the Earth."

Simplicio: "Right. This is a splendid test. If the ship seems to sink beneath the horizon instead of shrinking to a dot, that will disprove my theory."

Jones: "Okay. The ship is sailing out to sea."

<A few minutes pass>

"Notice that the ship's lower hull is no longer visible, as if it's sinking beneath the waves?"

<A few more minutes pass>

"Now we can see that the upper hull has disappeared from view as well. The superstructure and masts are still clearly visible, however."

<A few more minutes pass>

"Notice that the superstructure has now disappeared?"

<A few more minutes pass>

"Now only the tops of the masts are visible."

<A few more minutes pass>

"And now even the tops of the masts are no longer visible. You saw it with your own eyes. The ship sailed over the curvature of the Earth, and that's why it appeared to sink below the water as it sailed away. If the Earth were flat, it would have appeared to gradually shrink to a point, instead."

Simplicio: "I'm sorry to laugh at you, Friend, but you are so naive! It's all a trick of the light. If you understood optics the way that I do, you'd understand that it's only an optical illusion that creates the impression that the ship is sailing over the (nonexistent) curvature of the Earth."

Jones: "But you just said that if we saw the ship appearing to sink beneath the water, that would disprove your claim that the Earth is flat."

Simplicio: "I said no such thing! You must be having memory problems! Besides, if you'd only stop being so close-minded and just accept my undeniably-true claim that the Earth is flat, we could get on to the real meat of my theory."

Jones: [mumbling] "Razza frazzin', cotton-pickin' ..." [in normal voice] "Okay, here's another test of your claim that the Earth is a flat disc. The Earth is in orbit around the Sun, and the Moon is in orbit around the Earth, correct?"

Simplicio: "Of course! Everyone knows that!"

Jones: "Just checking. Now then, the Moon does not orbit the Earth in the same plane that the Earth orbits the Sun."

Simplicio: "Okaaaay ..."

Jones: "The Earth casts a shadow in space, and sometimes, when the Moon's orbit carries it behind the Earth with respect to the Sun, the Moon passes into the Earth's shadow. This is called a lunar eclipse."

Simplicio: "Yeeessssss ..."

Jones: "But because the Earth and Moon don't orbit in the same plane, the Earth and Moon are oriented differently with respect to the Sun during different lunar eclipses."

Simplicio: [scratches his head a bit] "Um, okay."

Jones: "Now then, assuming you've ever taken a high school-level geometry course ..."

Simplicio: [blushes, but says nothing]

Jones: "... you'd understand that it's physically impossible for a flat Earth to cast a circular shadow on the Moon unless they're perfectly aligned."

Simplicio: " ... "

Jones: "And every single time there's a lunar eclipse, the Earth casts a circular shadow on the Moon, proving that the Earth is, in fact, round. Heck, Greek philosophers noted this over 2,000 years ago, and in fact, were able to measure the Earth's circumference using simple geometry."

Simplicio: "Look, I've just about had it with you! All you do is ridicule my mathematically-certain theory. You're just as close-minded as all those other fools who refuse to acknowledge my genius! You haven't offered one shred of evidence that my theory is wrong!"

Jones: "Shall we watch another ship depart?"

Oh my goodness, I could not stop laughing. I still am trying to catch my breath. You helped me see why people are so skeptical. It was definitely an eye opener, I have to admit. It's not that Lessans is stating something and everyone is wrong if they disagree (don't get me laughing again ), but I can see why everyone thinks this is exactly what is happening. Therefore, his observations need to be confirmed in some other way because they will never be accepted otherwise. Because of this post, I really get it now. Thanks Lone Ranger.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well then just where is my answer wrong? Of course you could post the correct answer and prove it, but I don't believe you have the right answer.

I have the answer, I'm not lying about this, but I don't want to post it because then anyone could copy it and it wouldn't be proof of anything. I will tell you if you get it right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

U R INVITED 2

THE 100-PAGE PARTY

A celebration of teh worst thrad evah posted on teh Intertoobs.

Only seven more pages to go!1

There will be dancing! Singing! Live Music!



There will be lots of food, including cheese!







There will be outlandish REVELRY! Including CONGA LINES OF GAY MONKEY BUTTSEX!



Of course, there will be sammiches.



Michael Jackson will dance!



Lots of drinking



RELIVE when YOU first heard about "the two-sided equation"!

RECALL when YOU first learned that we see "instantaneously"!

REVEL in the coming Golden Age, when all evil will be abolished!

REMEMBER: The eye is not a sense organ!

COMING SOON!

I wish I wasn't laughing, but I can't help it. This is such a mockery on the most important discovery of all times, but your wittiness has won me over. I just hope I'm invited to the bash. BTW, with all that booze and live music, who's gonna foot the bill?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK no need to share,

The first group of 15 are sets of 3 letters A - O
The 2nd group of 15 the first column are the letters A - O, the 2nd column the letters are shifted down one space so the top letter is O, the 3rd column is shifted down 4 spaces so the top letter is M, the first group is AOM. etc.
The last group of 5 is what I had posted previously. AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO.

Wrong doc. There isn't even an AOM in the entire 35 combinations. As far as the last group, none of them are right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You are still going by the theory that images are coming from the light itself. Of course it logically follows that there is no real time, if you hold this as your premise.

[qipte="davidm"]2. It has been empircally and repeatedly confirmed that the optic nerve is afferent, and that impulses enter the eye, impinge on the optic nerve and are interpreted by the brain as images. In fact, the whole relationship between light and vision is very well understood down to the atomic level, as demonstrated by the essay written by a professional biologist that you in all your glorious chutzpah variously (1.) ignored; (2.) called "sketchy; and (3.) called "detailed" -- directly contradicting your earlier characterization of it as "sketchy." Then you went back to ignoring it.

I never said his essay was sketchy. I said that people's analysis of Lessans' presentation is sketchy at best. So there was no contradiction. I'm sure that most of what Lone Ranger presented is correct. But there is reason to believe that the relationship between light and sight is mistaken. I know there has to be more empirical proof. I don't want to sound like Simplicio.

Originally Posted by davidm

3. The claim by Lessans that if the sun were suddenly turned on, we would see it turned on in real time but see our neighbors only eight minutes later, is not just false (see 1. above, due to Albert Einstein) but is actually incohrent, as it seems to differentiate between source light and reflected light, when they are both the same light.

It was a hypothetical occurrence, to bring home a point that images are not interpreted from the light itself.

Originally Posted by davidm

4. The claim by Lessans that photons that fall on the other side of the world and then wait around to "smile" on us when we wake up is not only false, it is insane. Photons, except when refracted, always travel at c; they have no rest mass. Thus photons do not "stop" and hang around to smile on us. Every moment of every day, untold numbers of photons newly arrived from the sun, which they left eight minutes earlier, are falling on us. The behavior of photons has been empirically confirmed and is very well understood.

He never said that light just sits around waiting to smile on us again. He said light is continuous, but will smile on us again (his harmless metaphor) when morning comes. Geeze!

Originally Posted by davidm

5. Lessans claimed that dogs cannot recognize masters by sight alone. The Lone Ranger posted the studies that empirically refute this claim.

More empirical tests need to be done. Not just one or two that begin with a bias toward dogs seeing their masters.

Originally Posted by davidm

6. You claimed that birds cannot identify objects by sight alone; this claim is empircially false. The studies refuting it have been posted.

If I said that, I was probably wrong. I don't know enough about birds to make that kind of determination and I don't want to do the same thing I don't like people doing to Lessans. This is not even a discussion about object identification; it's about facial identification.

Originally Posted by david

Anything else, your royal highness? Always pleased to be of service!

Thank you Your Majesty!

[Kael]

From what you're describing about this puzzle there would likely be several possible solutions.

If you won't post your father's solutions, perhaps you could be bothered to post and individual group of three, or a few groups, showing what is and is not a correct arrangement? Some clarification is definitely needed, since the puzzle as presented in the book says "not twice with any other letter" while you have more recently said "not twice with the same letter." Which is it, and what would that look like?

For example, if it's "the same letter" then ABC would be ok, but AAB would not? because that's twice with the same letter? Seriously, either we need a much clearer description or we need some examples here. The puzzle as described doesn't even make sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, we're not completely off the beaten track, you little idiot. Lessans claimed we can see in real time. Since he himself (and you) admit that light is "condition of seeing," it then follows that for an observer on Rigel with a powerful telescope to witness Columbus landing, as Columbus was actually landing as measured by time on earth, the light would have to be propagating instantaneously, i.e., at an infinite rate of speed. So this is precisely what you and Lessans are claiming, and, as usual, you are both wrong. Imagine that!

No David. Not if a person is looking directly at the event, not the light. There is no time involved. You still don't seem to get it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hey, what about my solving the puzzle? What am I chopped liver?

You're not chopped liver, but you're not liver and onions either. I can't tell you that you're right when you're wrong, now can I? That would be lying and everyone knows I'm not a liar.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Goliath, that's all I was given.

That's all you were given. So you have no clue whether the "puzzle" makes sense or not, Ja?

Oh, but because Daddy said it, it must be true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that Lessans is stating something and everyone is wrong if they disagree (don't get me laughing again ), but I can see why everyone thinks this is exactly what is happening. Therefore, his observations need to be confirmed in some other way because they will never be accepted otherwise. Because of this post, I really get it now. Thanks Lone Ranger.

It took you, what -- ten years? -- to get this?

Now, here's the second half of your problem (call this the "two-sided equation.")

Your father's eerie ruminations have already been disconfirmed.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David. Not if a person is looking directly at the event, not the light. There is no time involved. You still don't seem to get it.

YOU don't seem to get it. This has been done, and tested, and observed repeatedly for hundreds of years. It is FACT that you do not see distant events as they happen, but instead with a delay equivalent to the time it takes for light from the event to reach you.

You have been provided evidence of this repeatedly, and all you have done is obfuscate and talk in circles, claiming we need 'more evidence.' No, we don't. We have evidence, and it unequivocally destroys Lessans' assertion that an observer on Rigel would see us now, instead of a distant historical event. THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS.

This is entirely because of a false assumption that Lessans makes, which is that we do not see via processed data from light that strikes our eyes. This is EXACTLY how we see, as has been extensively tested and proven by countless people across centuries of scientific inquiry on the topic. You CANNOT look "directly at the event." You have no means by which to observe it. The ONLY way we see ANYTHING is by detection and processing of the light reflected by it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Lessans' needs a great deal of it, since his claim here isn't just extraordinary, it is impossible. He provides none whatsoever. There is no impetus, no justification, no compelling reason of skepticism or rationality to even CONSIDER the possibility that this claim is correct, given the utter lack of support and just how much more would be needed to reconcile this claim with the actual facts.

It is that simple. Pick up a book (besides your father's) sometime. Do the studying. Many of these experiments, especially the ones in astronomy, can be run yourself with only a modest telescope and good note-taking skills.

Or you could continue what you've been doing. After all, the problem must be with the bias in all these centuries of accumulated data and experimentation, rather than in your dear father's ASTUTE OBSERVATIONS(!), right?

* Kael is helping get those last two pages.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David. Not if a person is looking directly at the event, not the light. There is no time involved. You still don't seem to get it.

You can't look directly at any event. You look at the light reflecting the event. You little nincompoop.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE,
FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ,
KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, OOO,
AOM, BAN, CBO, DCA, EDB,
FEC, GFD, HGE, IHF, JIG,
KJH, LKI, MLJ, NMK, ONL,
AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO,

How does this not solve the puzzle? It may not be the exact sets your father came up with, but given the directions, there are probably several possable correct solutions. You do not need to reveal your fathers solution, just point out where this one is wrong?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE,
FFF, GGG, HHH, III, JJJ,
KKK, LLL, MMM, NNN, OOO,
AOM, BAN, CBO, DCA, EDB,
FEC, GFD, HGE, IHF, JIG,
KJH, LKI, MLJ, NMK, ONL,
AFK, BGL, CHM, DIN, EJO,

How does this not solve the puzzle? It may not be the exact sets your father came up with, but given the directions, there are probably several possable correct solutions. You do not need to reveal your fathers solution, just point out where this one is wrong?


The original directions, not restated.

Originally Posted by Seymour Lessans
I recently gave a math problem to a student of mathematics. I asked
this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares
divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the
15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice
with any other letter.

I took that to mean never twice in a group with any other letter. Are you trying to change the rules?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Doctor X, I wish it was. Maybe that would give you renewed interest because obviously if he was in a journal, you would take a second look.

It merely underscores he is not worth a first look: just another crank in a sea of cranks making grandiose claims they could not sustain.

--J.D.

[thedoc]

AAO - FFE - KKJ - ANJ - FDO - KIE - AFK
BBA - GGF - LLK - BOK - GEA - LJF - BGL
CCB - HHG - MML - CAL - HFB - MKG - CHM
DDC - IIH - NNM - DBM - IGC - NLH - DIN
EED - JJI - OON - ECN - JHD - OMI - EJO

The original directions, not restated.

Originally Posted by Seymour Lessans
I recently gave a math problem to a student of mathematics. I asked
this person if it was possible to arrange 105 alphabetical squares
divided equally between A and O into groups of 3 so that each of the
15 different letters on a line and in all 35 groups would never be twice
with any other letter.

Does anyone else see where this does not solve the puzzle, peacegirl has her fathers solution and may not recognize a different one?

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein was not published in mathematics journals, . . .

Are you telling me that only people that are published are correct, . . .

They have the evidence and are able to support it before those who actually know the discipline.

Cranks, like Lessan, cannot do that.

Sorry to make you cry.

--J.D.