A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

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.

I still don't see how efferent vision would negate nuclear reactions? Where is the connection?

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

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.

Why would they not work?

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

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.

I am not disputing any of this. I just don't see where seeing the world in real time would cause our world to be unrecognizable.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

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.

How is that so? My line of sight would be exactly the same as it is now. The only difference is that I would be seeing stars as they are, not as they were billions of years ago.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

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.

But stars are extremely distant from each other, so even if we saw them in real time they would not all be clumped together.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

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.

I understand that we can only see the visible part of the Universe. Whether or not we see that part of the universe in real time is still an unanswered question. If afferent vision is true, the math works because we're interpreting signals from the light. If we see efferently, then we are seeing stars because they are either close enough, bright enough, or massive enough to be seen with space based telescopes, earth based telescopes, or the naked eye.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still don't see how efferent vision would negate nuclear reactions? Where is the connection?

That's the thing about reality. Its all connected. That little formula E=mc2 is a direct consequence of the speed of light being constant in all frames of reference. In fact you could say that Einsteins theory of special relativity is nothing more than the exploration of those consequences in a rather thorough fashion.

And since reality is all interconnected, if you say that one part does X then that has consequences for other parts of reality. Which is why people are giving you so much grief about the claims of Lessans. This is why they are pointing out that if Lessans were right then all sorts of things should not work and we should not see the things we see such as the time lag of the orbit of the moons of Jupiter or GPS tracking.

Until you can address this disconnect in a reasonable and plausible way you should expect to continue to get the reaction you are getting.

I still think that you should present the book as philosophy. Then you could easily sidestep all of this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

WHAT WOULD BE WRONG? SEEING THE PAST INSTEAD OF THE PRESENT?? NOTHING ELSE.

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

You still didn't answer. Who's weaseling now?

Originally Posted by davidm

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 told you 100 pages back that I read the part that was relevant to this discussion.

Transduction (physiology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)
In physiology, transduction is the conversion of a stimulus from one form to another.
Transduction in the nervous system typically refers to synaptic events wherein a mechanical/physical/etc stimulus is converted into an action potential which is transmitted along axons towards the central nervous system where it is integrated.
For example, in the visual system, sensory cells called rod and cone cells in the retina convert the physical energy of light signals into electrical impulses that travel to the brain. The light causes a conformational change in a protein called rhodopsin. This conformational change sets in motion a series of molecular events that result in a reduction of the electrochemical gradient of the photoreceptor. The decrease in the electrochemical gradient causes a reduction in the electrical signals going to the brain. Thus, in this example, more light hitting the photoreceptor results in the transduction of a signal into fewer electrical impulses, effectively communicating that stimulus to the brain.
In neuroanatomy, sensory transduction is the process in which a receptor cell converts the energy in a stimulus into a change in the electrical potential across its membrane.[1] It causes the membrane to depolarize and allows the neuroimpluse to be transducted to the brain for integration.

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

Even if there is no objective fact about what is happening, we are all experiencing what is called "the present" regardless of our frame of reference. Can you agree with that?

Originally Posted by davidm

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!

You're bringing all of these concepts into the discussion for what reason? What do any of these concepts have to do with efferent vision?

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

And how does the anthropic principle disprove real time seeing?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I still think that you should present the book as philosophy. Then you could easily sidestep all of this.

And then she could step into a philosophical dialogue on 'Free Will', 'Determinism', 'Greater Satisfaction', and a quagmire of other issues, that her insistance that the ideas are undeniable, will certainly meet with more resistance and argument than she is getting here, if that is possable. The book is basicly untenable, with no valid support, scientificly or philosophically, and philosophically all these issues are being debated with no resolution in sight. Lessans insistance that he has settled the issues because he has clarified the definitions of certain terms will undoubtedly be met with ridicule.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And then she could step into a philosophical dialogue on 'Free Will', 'Determinism', 'Greater Satisfaction', and a quagmire of other issues, that her insistance that the ideas are undeniable, will certainly meet with more resistance and argument than she is getting here, if that is possable. The book is basicly untenable, with no valid support, scientificly or philosophically, and philosophically all these issues are being debated with no resolution in sight. Lessans insistance that he has settled the issues because he has clarified the definitions of certain terms will undoubtedly be met with ridicule.

Not really. It's not as if she is proposing anything new that hasn't been hashed over to no effect philosophically for the last 2000 years. Unlike science, there is no way to prefer one philosophy over another other than personal preference. And that should work out splendidly for peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

That's the thing about reality. Its all connected. That little formula E=mc2 is a direct consequence of the speed of light being constant in all frames of reference. In fact you could say that Einsteins theory of special relativity is nothing more than the exploration of those consequences in a rather thorough fashion.

And since reality is all interconnected, if you say that one part does X then that has consequences for other parts of reality. Which is why people are giving you so much grief about the claims of Lessans. This is why they are pointing out that if Lessans were right then all sorts of things should not work and we should not see the things we see such as the time lag of the orbit of the moons of Jupiter or GPS tracking.

Until you can address this disconnect in a reasonable and plausible way you should expect to continue to get the reaction you are getting.

I still think that you should present the book as philosophy. Then you could easily sidestep all of this.

I'm going to have to do something else because there is a definite disconnect here. I don't know how to resolve it. Lessans was a mathematician. He never discredited Einstein's E=MC2, or GPS systems, or fiber optics or any technology that uses the properties of light. To make the leap that efferent vision destroys all of this is beyond me. I really don't want to continue on this subject because it will get nowhere. From now on I will take your advice. I will treat this book as a philosophy [in this thread] because of the negative reactions and because we've made no progress whatsoever.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was a mathematician.

Do you happen to know his specialties? Did he publish any papers?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

What do you mean by "image of a star"? How are you defining "actual image"? This sounds like nonsense so you really need to define your terms.

Science says we are seeing/detecting the light only, and not an "image of a star" whatever that even means. Since the light had to travel here, and it travels at a finite speed, it is necessarily aged during the trip so we are detecting light that was emitted in the past.

This is really quite simple, what part are you not understanding?

If light is traveling that fast, you would think that eventually we wouldn't need a telescope to see the closest stars to us.

We can see the closest stars without a telescope, they're those lights in the night sky.

http://www.deepastronomy.com/why-is-...-at-night.html

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.

You do know that the universe is expanding and so all stars are moving away from us, and that the further away they are the faster they are traveling?
This increases the distance and therefore the time it takes to detect the light. Some light will never reach us because of the increase in distance and time.

I want to cease the discussion because there is no way anyone is going to prove him wrong with the limited information available.

You want to cease the discussion because you know you can't address these points.

I've said that more empirical testing is the only way we will know, definitively, whether his claim has validity.

No more testing is needed if his claim fails in the current real world, which it does unless you can answer these challenges.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you 100 pages back that I read the part that was relevant to this discussion.

Really?

So you read -- and understood -- the portions which explained why neurons can only generate and conduct impulses from dendrites toward axons and not the other way around? And you read and understood why this means that the optic nerve -- the only neural connection between the retina and the brain -- therefore cannot be efferent, even in theory, much less in practice?

And you read -- and understood -- the portions which explained that phototransduction by cells in the retina and subsequent transfer of the resulting impulses to the brain via the optic nerve is not some theoretical proposal but an observed phenomenon?

I call bullshit.

Lessans was a mathematician. He never discredited Einstein's E=MC2, or GPS systems, or fiber optics or any technology that uses the properties of light. To make the leap that efferent vision destroys all of this is beyond me.

That's because you're too ignorant of the relevant material even to understand what it is that you don't understand.

Ignorance per se isn't a sin. But willful ignorance is, in my opinion. And you've repeatedly demonstrated that your ignorance of such matters very much is willful.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Do you happen to know his specialties? Did he publish any papers?

She claims he was an autodidact and had the knowledge of a mathematician without the formal education or credentials.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She claims he was an autodidact and had the knowledge of a mathematician without the formal education or credentials.

That is nothing new, many great mathematicians were self taught. But the reason why we know they were mathematicians is because they wrote and published mathematical papers or at a minimum wrote letters to other mathematicians. One of the greatest mathematical conjectures was put forth by a self taught amateur, Fermat's last theorem.

But other than the context of this thread, I've never heard of Lessans.

[LadyShea]

I agree that autodidactism is valid and has produced great work, but no, Lessans did not publish any scientific or mathematical papers.

He claims to have a solved a puzzle though, one that a mathematician labeled unsolvable, but she won't share the solution with us, nor was she able to coherently explain the rules of the puzzle.

[LadyShea]

Here's the puzzle if you wish to try it yourself N.A.

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

[LadyShea]

Hey peacegirl, have you watched this video?

Hubble Ultra Deep Field 3D

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here's the puzzle if you wish to try it yourself N.A.

That doesn't sound like a difficult problem. There are 15 different symbols (letters) repeated seven times and then grouped into three 7x5 matrix. If the blocks were arranged in sequential order ordered as five columns by seven rows it would solve the "puzzle". I'm assuming that "no letter is ever twice with the same letter" means that all adjacent blocks pairs have different letters.

I certainly hope he has more to show to back his credentials as an amateur mathematician.

[thedoc]

Watching one of my favorite PBS science videos 'The Creation of the Universe', illustrates what science has accomplished as of the production of the video, 1985. I know a lot of research has superceded this information, but it is still good basic science, and quite enjoyable. Clearly does not support any of Lessans ideas, and does support science as we know it.

[thedoc]

One of the details on the show is that the Cosmic Background Radiation can be picked up on an ordinary TV set, (This was in 1985) but only if you do not have cable. Tuning to an empty channel about 1% of the snow on the screen is this CBR, and is photons that have been traveling towards us since shortly after the Big Bang. Interesting that we can pick up this radiation in the microwave part of the spectrum but we can't see the glow, which would have been in the visible part of the spectrum in the begining. Apparently we are detecting 'Old Light' and not seeing in 'real time'. The explination is that the light from the Big Bang has been so streached out from the expansion of the universe that the wavelengths have shifted from the visible to the microwave. So we are detecting light that shows us the past, aprox. 15 billion years ago, and not seeing what is right now. We are seeing light that has been streached out over time.

[Angakuk]

This is all very interesting, but it is only true if it is actually true. More empirical studies need to be done on this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Do you happen to know his specialties? Did he publish any papers?

No, he didn't. That in itself means nothing except to convince others of his math abilities. I gave an example in the book that no one could figure out, but he did. People said this was not math, but a puzzle. Regardless, he had an unusual ability to solve math problems.

I just scrolled back and saw that you posted the puzzle. I was only trying to show in this example that he was no slouch when it came to figuring things out; not to be arrogant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really?

So you read -- and understood -- the portions which explained why neurons can only generate and conduct impulses from dendrites toward axons and not the other way around? And you read and understood why this means that the optic nerve -- the only neural connection between the retina and the brain -- therefore cannot be efferent, even in theory, much less in practice?

And you read -- and understood -- the portions which explained that phototransduction by cells in the retina and subsequent transfer of the resulting impulses to the brain via the optic nerve is not some theoretical proposal but an observed phenomenon?

I call bullshit.

I read what was pertinent to this discussion.

Lessans was a mathematician. He never discredited Einstein's E=MC2, or GPS systems, or fiber optics or any technology that uses the properties of light. To make the leap that efferent vision destroys all of this is beyond me.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger]That's because you're too ignorant of the relevant material even to understand what it is that you don't understand.[/quote]

This is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.

[quote="The Lone Ranger

Ignorance per se isn't a sin. But willful ignorance is, in my opinion. And you've repeatedly demonstrated that your ignorance of such matters very much is willful.

Lone, I know that not knowing is not a sin. What are you getting at? I am not willfully doing anything. Just because I disagree with YOU DOES NOT MAKE ME WILLFULLY IGNORANT OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not really. It's not as if she is proposing anything new that hasn't been hashed over to no effect philosophically for the last 2000 years. Unlike science, there is no way to prefer one philosophy over another other than personal preference. And that should work out splendidly for peacegirl.

Unfortunately natural.atheist, there is a consequence with this approach. People will hand wave it away as if to say, it's just another philosophical idea. This is not what it is. That is the quagmire that I'm faced with as someone representing these claims.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately natural.atheist, there is a consequence with this approach. People will hand wave it away as if to say, it's just another philosophical idea. This is not what it is. That is the quagmire that I'm faced with as someone representing these claims.

I would hope that by this point in this thread that you would realize that the book does not even begin to provide the basis for what is purported to be new scientific claims. And that as proud as you may be of Lessans, it is more like the pride of a mother for their child than something that will holdup to the real world. For Lessans to achieve any kind of recognition, it is going to have to come from a far less biased source. And from what I've seen, there just isn't anywhere near enough in the book to do that. As a work of science it conflicts far too much with current scientific knowledge with nothing but hand waving as justification for its radical claims.

So philosophy it must be or it is just another book from just another crackpot.

But if you really want to hit the big time then religion is where it is at. The book can make statements that are obvious fantasies presented as cold hard fact and it is all as good as gold. Those statements will enter into the realm of "Truth", which philosophy only dreams of achieving.

[peacegirl]

cont. from last post...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you 100 pages back that I read the part that was relevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really?

So you read -- and understood -- the portions which explained why neurons can only generate and conduct impulses from dendrites toward axons and not the other way around? And you read and understood why this means that the optic nerve -- the only neural connection between the retina and the brain -- therefore cannot be efferent, even in theory, much less in practice?

And you read -- and understood -- the portions which explained that phototransduction by cells in the retina and subsequent transfer of the resulting impulses to the brain via the optic nerve is not some theoretical proposal but an observed phenomenon?

I call bullshit.

I did read it, and I am not disputing these findings. What I disagree with is the supposition that the afferent axons and dendrites translate to afferent sight. Obviously there is a connection between the optic nerve and the brain, otherwise we could not see anything at all. But just because the impulses go inward does not necessarily mean that those same impulses carry signals that can be decoded into an image. These are two distinct phenomena.

Lessans was a mathematician. He never discredited Einstein's E=MC2, or GPS systems, or fiber optics or any technology that uses the properties of light. To make the leap that efferent vision destroys all of this is beyond me.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's because you're too ignorant of the relevant material even to understand what it is that you don't understand.

That's a non-answer because it is a misdirected accusation for the purpose of making you look right and me wrong.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Ignorance per se isn't a sin. But willful ignorance is, in my opinion. And you've repeatedly demonstrated that your ignorance of such matters very much is willful.

Sorry, but I am not purposefully being willfully ignorant. You can use this against me all you want, but I stand by my position based on what I know to be true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm going to have to do something else because there is a definite disconnect here. I don't know how to resolve it. Lessans was a mathematician. He never discredited Einstein's E=MC2, or GPS systems, or fiber optics or any technology that uses the properties of light. To make the leap that efferent vision destroys all of this is beyond me.

Except that The Lone Ranger just got through explaining to you why this is so. Liar.

I really don't want to continue on this subject...

I'm sure you don't. The subject you really don't want to continue on is called "reality."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

That doesn't sound like a difficult problem. There are 15 different symbols (letters) repeated seven times and then grouped into three 7x5 matrix. If the blocks were arranged in sequential order ordered as five columns by seven rows it would solve the "puzzle". I'm assuming that "no letter is ever twice with the same letter" means that all adjacent blocks pairs have different letters.

I certainly hope he has more to show to back his credentials as an amateur mathematician.

Yes, it's five columns and seven rows. And yes, no letter is ever twice with the same letter which means exactly what you said: all adjacent blocks pairs have different letters. If it's so simple, then you should be able to give me an answer within a reasonable amount of time.