A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just hand waved my three questions away. You gave no explanation as to how seeing in real time has any influence on bomb making (you just said it would); you gave no explanation as to how efferent vision would turn people into non-sentient beings; and you gave no explanation as to how efferent vision would cause the sky to be completely white. Very convenient.

And I owe a dishonest little shit like you an explanation for these things -- because why, again?

Many people in this thread, myself included, have patiently sought to explain many things to you. For example, The Lone Ranger wrote a 35-page essay, with illustrations, that explains how we see down to the molecular and the atomic level -- and you refused to read it. I, myself, have written long, detailed posts on why the theory of relativity is wholly incompatible with Lessans' "real-time seeing" -- and you either read none of it, or understood none of it. These presentations to you were all at a very basic, elementary level. And you hand-waved them all the way. After all this effort was taken by myself and many others to educate you to these matters, after 400 pages of you simply ignoring all these posts, you still can't, and won't, understand the most basic facts -- like the fact that relativity makes real-time seeing impossible, because it shows that that there is no real time -- no objective fact of the matter about what is happening and when it is happening that holds for all frames of reference. That fact alone destroys your father's monumentally stupid claims about real-time seeing.

Having now failed to understand such basic facts that a reasonably intelligent grade-school student could apprehend with little difficulty, you now expect people to attempt to educate your sorry little ass about more complex subjects, like E=MC2, Obler's Pardox, the expansion of the universe, the meaning of the observable universe, which I brought up many pages ago and you predictably ignored, consilience in scientific theories, cosmological fine-tuning, and the anthropic principle, all of which would have to be explained and understood? And I should try to do that why?

Fuck off!

BTW, LadyShea DID explain why the sky would be white! I might add, too, that if the sky were completely white at night, the temperature on earth would make life impossible: Another reason why real-time seeing is false. The very fact that we exist disproves real time seeing. That's part of what is know as the above-mentioned anthropic principle; another subject of which you are wholly, and it would appear happily, ignorant.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right that there seems to be a contradiction...

So, you admit Lessans is wrong when he said that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly on earth.

Now, what else do you suppose your Holy Book got incorrect?

[LadyShea]

BTW, LadyShea DID explain why the sky would be white!

And guess how I did that peacegirl? I looked up Obler's Paradox because davidm included (see Obler's Paradox) in his statement. I read a very basic outline meant for laypeople, understood the implications (I think), and posted a very elementary explanation. This took me approximately 5 minutes. Why couldn't you do the same thing?

I may have gotten it all wrong, this is the first I have ever heard of it as well, and if so I ask to be corrected.

My point is it isn't impossible to learn this stuff, if you have an open mind and some curiosity about our universe.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing cameras. Although cameras are detectors of light, the lens has to focus on the object or light source in order for the reflected or emitted light to be used to take a photograph.

Your ignorance of how a camera works does not prove efferent vision.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the lens has to focus on the object or light source in order for the reflected or emitted light to be used to take a photograph.

Then explain the photos of the Aurora and Rainbows and the Greenwich laser beam where there is no object or light source being photographed.

Do you really not see how you keep contradicting yourself?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The lightsource (Alpha Centauri) being four light years away is in question.

In question how? What is questionable? How far away do you think Alpha Centauri is and how did you calculate that distance?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The lightsource being four light years away is in question.

How far away is it, then? Across the block? In the next room? Right in front of your nose? Is it in Paris, France? How would you know how far away it is? By what method would you calculate its distance?

Gee, you don't know! It was just something for you to say, I guess!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, you admit Lessans is wrong when he said that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it instantly on earth.

Now, what else do you suppose your Holy Book got incorrect?

No, I said it was hypothetical. He was trying to show that we are not interpreting images from the light. I'm leaving it at that. And to respond to your constant sarcasm, if this knowledge can actually prevent war, crime, and hatred, it wouldn't be just my Holy book.

[LadyShea]

He was trying to show that we are not interpreting images from the light.

By claiming that we can see something without having to await the emitted light reaching us. He then expanded that to being able to instantly see something that is 800 light years away.

That claim has so many, many, many consequences and implications including all the Relativity stuff we've been discussing.

Sorry peacegirl, you don't get to "leave it at that" because "that" happens to be a monumental claim directly challenging reality as we know it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In question how? What is questionable? How far away do you think Alpha Centauri is and how did you calculate that distance?

Wiki answer: Proxima Centauri is about 4.2 light years from Earth.

About 4 x 1013 kilometers (40,000,000,000,000)
About 2.5 x 1013 miles (25,000,000,000,000)
About 265,606 AU
About 1.3008808 Parsecs

If the Earth was only an inch from the Sun, at the same scale, Proxima Centauri would be 4.2 miles away.

It is the closest star to us, after the Sun.

Alpha Centauri (α Centauri, α Cen; also known as Rigil Kentaurus, Rigil Kent, , or Toliman) is the brightest star in the southern constellation of Centaurus. Although it appears to the unaided eye as a single object, Alpha Centauri is actually a binary star system (designated Alpha Centauri AB or α Cen AB) whose combined visual magnitude of -0.27 would qualify it as the third single brightest star in the night sky after -0.72 magnitude Canopus.

This calculation is based on what is believed to be the light coming from the star, not the star itself. This whole discussion is not getting anywhere and it's certainly not going to prove that Lessans is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By claiming that we can see something without having to await the emitted light reaching us. He then expanded that to being able to instantly see something that is 800 light years away.

That claim has so many, many, many consequences and implications including all the Relativity stuff we've been discussing.

Sorry peacegirl, you don't get to "leave it at that" because "that" happens to be a monumental claim directly challenging reality as we know it.

Regardless of how far a star is believed to be, these estimated distances have no direct impact on any proven technology that is dependent on these calculations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]Wiki answer: Proxima Centauri is about 4.2 light years from Earth.

About 4 x 1013 kilometers (40,000,000,000,000)
About 2.5 x 1013 miles (25,000,000,000,000)
About 265,606 AU
About 1.3008808 Parsecs

This calculation is based on what is believed to be the light coming from the star, not the star itself.

Yes, Alpha Centauri is about 26 trillion miles away

There is a geometric way to calculate distances Parallax Calculation

I am unsure what you mean by "what is believed to be the light coming from the star and not the star itself". You don't believe the light is coming from the star(s) (it is binary, BTW)? You don't believe we can calculate to the "star itself" or what exactly?

This whole discussion is not getting anywhere and it's certainly not going to prove that Lessans is wrong.

It certainly can and will prove Lessans wrong, unless you can explain how all this is compatible with his claims. Which so far you have not been able to, hence your continued attempts to cease the discussion of instantaneous sight.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of how far a star is believed to be, these estimated distances have no direct impact on any proven technology that is dependent on these calculations.

What? How can something have no direct impact on something else yet be dependent on it at the same time?

Of course they have a direct impact on proven technology. The technologies wouldn't work if science is wrong about how mass, distance, time, and light interact with each other.

[LadyShea]

You want us to carefully study how Lessans principles would extend in society (the focus of the book and the basis for the Golden Age, correct?), yet refuse to study how they extend currently in reality. How do you think that's reasonable or rational?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then explain the photos of the Aurora and Rainbows and the Greenwich laser beam where there is no object or light source being photographed.

I already answered this. There has to be something in the atmosphere to cause light (which is usually invisible) to become visible. In the case of a rainbow light from the sun strikes a raindrop; some of the light is reflected, the rest of the light is refracted and colors are dispersed. Fog would allow us to see a thin laser beam coming from the laser.

I never heard of a Greenwich laser which is similar to a regular laser except that the beam diverges which makes it appear arched. There is no reason we wouldn't see this in real time if the conditions allow for it.

Question: I'm watching the greenwich laser beam that appears to go straight then drastically arches. Why is this?

Answer: Light does travel in a straight line. The beam does diverge or spread a small amount which may make it appear bent depending on angle you are looking.

General Knowledge Questions and Answers – kgb answers

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you really not see how you keep contradicting yourself?

I am not contradicting myself. We see the effects of light all the time. We may see the light coming from a star because the atmosphere allows the photons to become visible, but that is not the same thing as seeing a past image of a star. Seeing a rainbow is seeing a combination of events that produce this phenomenon. But we are seeing this phenomenon in real time. Seeing a thin laser beam is seeing visible light that is being emitted from a light source (the laser pen), due to atmospheric conditions. When looking at a laser pen directly, we are seeing the object, not a past image of the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You want us to carefully study how Lessans principles would extend in society (the focus of the book and the basis for the Golden Age, correct?), yet refuse to study how they extend currently in reality. How do you think that's reasonable or rational?

I am being confronted and challenged at every turn, which is understandable. I'm only trying to defend this knowledge (by showing that no proven technology needs afferent vision to be true for it to work) until further evidence comes in. I do not see where I'm being unreasonable or irrational.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this. There has to be something in the atmosphere to cause light (which is usually invisible) to become visible. In the case of a rainbow light from the sun strikes a raindrop; some of the light is reflected, the rest of the light is refracted and colors are dispersed. Fog would allow us to see a thin laser beam coming from the laser.

You said the camera lens has to focus on the object or light source
. So is the lens focusing on the raindrop? The water vapor droplets in fog? Those are too small for a camera to focus on. Is the lens focusing on the sun which is the light source?

What exactly do you mean?

I never heard of a Greenwich laser

I posted pictures of it not long ago, in response to your stating that if we could prove a camera could photograph light itself you would admit you were wrong.

I am not contradicting myself. We see the effects of light all the time.

No, we see light itself all the time.

We may see the light coming from a star because the atmosphere allows the photons to become visible, but that is not the same thing as seeing a past image of a star.

The photons have traveled a long distance, meaning the photons are from the past. If we see the photons, we are necessarily seeing information from the past.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am being confronted and challenged at every turn, which is understandable. I'm only trying to defend this knowledge (by showing that no proven technology needs afferent vision to be true for it to work) until further evidence comes in. I do not see where I'm being unreasonable or irrational.

You are not "showing" anything, you are refusing to demonstrate you even understand the challenges, refusing the look at the evidence that already exists, changing or dismissing definitions, weaseling, and handwaving the examples away with nonsense.

[LadyShea]

Maybe you missed this, which extends the principle of efferent vision into current reality

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The development of atomic bombs and atomic energy, cell phones and computers (as well as to many of the technologies we rely on today), are not dependent on afferent vision for these technologies to work. If they were, then that would be conclusive proof of afferent vision.

1. If efferent vision is true, as Lessans described, instantaneous transfer of information is possible via vision
2. The Theory of Relativity states instantaneous information transfer is not possible by any means
3. Several technologies only work if the Theory of Relativity is accurate
4. These technologies do in fact work

Therefore efferent vision contradicts the Theory of Relativity and would "negate proven technology" if it were true

Additionally: Unless you can offer a valid working definition or explanation of "seeing/sight" that is NOT circular and does not include the transfer/detection/gain of information then 1. holds as a valid premise and the rest follow

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This calculation is based on what is believed to be the light coming from the star, not the star itself.

As was explained literally hundreds of pages ago, for relatively close stars like Proxima Centauri, their distances can be calculated directly, using basic trigonometry. The speed of light doesn't enter into the calculations at all.

So, unless you're now claiming that mathematics is also invalid, then no, there is no debate about the fact that Proxima Centauri is approximately 4.2 light years distant.



And while it has been explained to you already why -- if we saw in "real time" (which would necessarily invalidate Relativity Theory) -- nuclear weapons would not work, the Universe would almost-certainly not support life (not just sentient lfe, but any life), and why the sky would be uniformly white, it might be worth exploring these things in a bit more detail.

Not, of course, that you couldn't learn this for yourself if you'd make a minimal effort. As has been pointed out to you.



First of all, as has been repeatedly explained, "real-time" seeing, if it occurred, would necessarily invalidate Relativity Theory. So, what are the implications of this?


Nuclear weapons work because of E=mc2. That "c" in the equation represents the speed of light. A nuclear bomb works because a small amount of matter (the "m" in the equation) is converted into energy (the "E" in the equation).

How much energy is released when you convert a given amount of matter into energy? As the equation explains, it can be calculated by multiplying the mass of the matter by the speed of light squared.

We can, of course, measure the amount of matter that is converted to energy in nuclear reactions. And we an measure the amount of energy that is released. And guess what? They correspond exactly to what the equation says should be the case, given the known speed of light.

If the speed of light were different or if the Theory of Relativity was wrong, then nuclear reactions either would not occur at all, or would release different amounts of energy than they acctually do.

And so nuclear bombs either wouldn't work at all, or they would release different amounts of energy than they're observed to do when they explode.



Stars also work by converting matter to energy. So E=mc2 applies to them as well. So if the speed of light was different or if Relativity Theory was wrong, then stars either would not shine at all, or they'd produce different amounts of energy than they're observed to do. We can be absolutely certain that no matter how weird it might seem to us, life everywhere in the Universe is absolutely dependent on energy. Why? Because living things are -- by definition -- complex and highly-organized. And energy is required in order to maintain any complex and highly-organized system. So, all life is dependent on an outside energy source.

Here on Earth, virtually all living things depend (directly or indirectly) on the Sun (which, of course, is a star) to provide that energy. Presumably, life forms elsewhere in the Universe also depends on stars for their energy needs.

But, as has already been pointed out, if either the speed of light was different or Relativity Theory was wrong (specifically, if E did not = mc2), then stars either wouldn't radiate energy at all, or they would radiate different amounts of energy than they actually do. Either way, life on Earth (sentient or otherwise) almost-certainly would not be possible.



And finally, if "real-time" seeing were true, then the entire sky would be as bright as is the surface of the Sun. That's because no matter which direction you looked, your line of sight would eventually intersect a star. There would, therefore, be no such thing as night.

The reason we don't see the night-time sky as blazing with light is because of the finite speed of light and because we don't see in real time. Therefore, many stars are far-enough away from us that their light hasn't had time to reach us yet. And because of the fact that the Universe is expanding, the light from many of those stars never will reach us.

That's why, when talking about the Universe around us, we have to make a distinction between the Universe as a whole and the Visible Universe. The Visible Universe is that portion of the Universe which is actually visible to us, because the stars in it are close-enough to us that their light has had enough time to reach us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, Alpha Centauri is about 26 trillion miles away

There is a geometric way to calculate distances Parallax Calculation

I am unsure what you mean by "what is believed to be the light coming from the star and not the star itself". You don't believe the light is coming from the star(s) (it is binary, BTW)? You don't believe we can calculate to the "star itself" or what exactly?

Of course light is coming from the star(s) and it is finite, therefore measurable as far as time and distance. But this in no way proves that this same light is being interpreted as an image in the brain. This is what it boils down to, and nothing else matters.

This whole discussion is not getting anywhere and it's certainly not going to prove that Lessans is wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It certainly can and will prove Lessans wrong, unless you can explain how all this is compatible with his claims. Which so far you have not been able to, hence your continued attempts to cease the discussion of instantaneous sight.

You are trying to prove that we can't be seeing the actual star because it is too many light years away to be seen. But is it? This goes back to the basic question: Are we seeing a past image of a star as the light reaches our eyes, or are we seeing the actual image. I don't think this question has been answered satisfactorily. The reason Lessans asked the question, "Why do we always need a microsope to see bacteria (tiny bits of matter), is because they are too small to be seen with the naked eye. Because of this we need a microscope to magnify them. The same holds true for stars. Some are just too small to be seen with the naked eye and require a telescope to see them. If light is traveling that fast, you would think that eventually we wouldn't need a telescope to see the closest stars to us. The reason this never happens is because stars are in a relatively fixed position and can no more be seen without a telescope than bacteria can be seen without a microscope. I want to cease the discussion because there is no way anyone is going to prove him wrong with the limited information available. I've said that more empirical testing is the only way we will know, definitively, whether his claim has validity.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As was explained literally hundreds of pages ago, for relatively close stars like Proxima Centauri, their distances can be calculated directly, using basic trigonometry. The speed of light doesn't enter into the calculations at all.

So, unless you're now claiming that mathematics is also invalid, then no, there is no debate about the fact that Proxima Centauri is approximately 4.2 light years distant.



And while it has been explained to you already why -- if we saw in "real time" (which would necessarily invalidate Relativity Theory) -- nuclear weapons would not work, the Universe would almost-certainly not support life (not just sentient lfe, but any life), and why the sky would be uniformly white, it might be worth exploring these things in a bit more detail.

Not, of course, that you couldn't learn this for yourself if you'd make a minimal effort. As has been pointed out to you.



First of all, as has been repeatedly explained, "real-time" seeing, if it occurred, would necessarily invalidate Relativity Theory. So, what are the implications of this?


Nuclear weapons work because of E=mc2. That "c" in the equation represents the speed of light. A nuclear bomb works because a small amount of matter (the "m" in the equation) is converted into energy (the "E" in the equation).

How much energy is released when you convert a given amount of matter into energy? As the equation explains, it can be calculated by multiplying the mass of the matter by the speed of light squared.

We can, of course, measure the amount of matter that is converted to energy in nuclear reactions. And we an measure the amount of energy that is released. And guess what? They correspond exactly to what the equation says should be the case, given the known speed of light.

If the speed of light were different or if the Theory of Relativity was wrong, then nuclear reactions either would not occur at all, or would release different amounts of energy than they acctually do.

And so nuclear bombs either wouldn't work at all, or they would release different amounts of energy than they're observed to do when they explode.



Stars also work by converting matter to energy. So E=mc2 applies to them as well. So if the speed of light was different or if Relativity Theory was wrong, then stars either would not shine at all, or they'd produce different amounts of energy than they're observed to do. We can be absolutely certain that no matter how weird it might seem to us, life everywhere in the Universe is absolutely dependent on energy. Why? Because living things are -- by definition -- complex and highly-organized. And energy is required in order to maintain any complex and highly-organized system. So, all life is dependent on an outside energy source.

Here on Earth, virtually all living things depend (directly or indirectly) on the Sun (which, of course, is a star) to provide that energy. Presumably, life forms elsewhere in the Universe also depends on stars for their energy needs.

But, as has already been pointed out, if either the speed of light was different or Relativity Theory was wrong (specifically, if E did not = mc2), then stars either wouldn't radiate energy at all, or they would radiate different amounts of energy than they actually do. Either way, life on Earth (sentient or otherwise) almost-certainly would not be possible.



And finally, if "real-time" seeing were true, then the entire sky would be as bright as is the surface of the Sun. That's because no matter which direction you looked, your line of sight would eventually intersect a star. There would, therefore, be no such thing as night.

The reason we don't see the night-time sky as blazing with light is because of the finite speed of light and because we don't see in real time. Therefore, many stars are far-enough away from us that their light hasn't had time to reach us yet. And because of the fact that the Universe is expanding, the light from many of those stars never will reach us.

That's why, when talking about the Universe around us, we have to make a distinction between the Universe as a whole and the Visible Universe. The Visible Universe is that portion of the Universe which is actually visible to us, because the stars in it are close-enough to us that their light has had enough time to reach us.

You have more patience than I, my good sir.

Well, thar ya go, peacegirl!

Now watch what she'll say:

[thedoc]

My grandson and I are watching a Nova program about a 4 winged Dinosour. There are 2 teams working on the reconstruction, and one of the comments was that each person will believe what they already believe, till proved wrong. Much like this forum, each side believes what it believed before, but unlike real science, facts and real evidence are being ignored and dismissed by Peacegirl.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]Wiki answer: Proxima Centauri is about 4.2 light years from Earth.

About 4 x 1013 kilometers (40,000,000,000,000)
About 2.5 x 1013 miles (25,000,000,000,000)
About 265,606 AU
About 1.3008808 Parsecs

If the Earth was only an inch from the Sun, at the same scale, Proxima Centauri would be 4.2 miles away.

It is the closest star to us, after the Sun.

This calculation is based on what is believed to be the light coming from the star, not the star itself. This whole discussion is not getting anywhere and it's certainly not going to prove that Lessans is wrong.

So how would Lessans determine distances without a ruler?

[ceptimus]

How about a thought experiment? (Einstein was a big fan of these).

We send an astronaut to the moon, we give him a very powerful laser - powerful enough that when he points it at a spot on the Earth, someone standing at that spot can see the laser with their naked eye.

We have a similar laser here on earth. We line up our laser pointing at the spot on the moon where the astronaut is, and he lines up his laser pointing back at us. Both lasers are switched off to begin with.

Now we are ready to begin the experiment. The astronaut knows what he should do - the moment he sees our laser, he is to switch on his own.

We turn on our laser and... what happens?

Before the moon mission began, we practised this experiment back on earth, using less powerful lasers and with the soon-to-be-astronaut stood on nearby hilltops. There was a delay of about half a second between us switching on our laser and seeing his laser light up in reply. We put this delay down to the astronaut's reaction time - we couldn't measure any difference in time whether the astronaut was 100 yards away, or 1 mile, or 10 miles.

But now he's a quarter of a million miles away. Our scientists calculate that the light takes about two-and-a-half seconds to get from the Earth to the moon and back; add on the half second of reaction time, and they're predicting a delay of about three seconds between switching on our laser and seeing the astronaut's reply.

What would Lessans' prediction be for the outcome of this experiment? Would he be in disagreement with our scientists? If he wouldn't, what modifications to the experiment would we have to make so that we would have an empirical means of testing whether or not Lessans was right?