A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I can't, but I can guarantee you one thing. He is right when it comes to crackpottery on the part of scientists who claim that time dilates, [snip]

Umm ... you do know that we can actually measure time dilation? Far from being some kind of theoretical construct, it's an observed phenomenon. Time dilation must be corrected for in the use of GPS, for instance, as has already been explained to you.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have never spoke in English; you use words that you know people will misunderstand, and this is supposed to support your cause?

Yep, people like you and me misunderstand lots of what experienced scientists say, sometimes even when they say it in lay terms. The combination of google and keeping my mouth shut about things I know nothing about seems to get me through it just fine.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would ask him why and try to correct him, but I would not call him names LadyShea.

Why do you call scientists here names when they say Lessans ideas are nonsense? Why would you give Sam Harris a "free pass" when you have not done the same for Dragar or The Lone Ranger? Why wouldn't you accuse him of being ignorant as you've done to those here?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your namecalling is out of insecurity. It does not support or verify your thoughts on a given subject, it detracts from it.

My namecalling is not meant to support or verify my thoughts on a subject, only to express my opinion of a person.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

More weaseling.

Why do you think Savain is right? What led you to that conclusion? What evidence or argument did he present that you found convincing? Why is his evidence or argument superior to Dragar's?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, do you actually think I'm going to take your bait? You said nothing of import except to say that because Dragar is a scientist, she must be right. You need to learn what a syllogism is before you start talking because it makes you look stupid.

I am asking you questions about how you come to your conclusions about who is right and who is wrong.

I think a physicist probably knows more about physics than does a computer networker who thinks the Bible contains secret codes, yes. Why is that problematic for you?

And lol, I admittedly learned a new word in this thread, syllogism, and you keep using that to try to insult me. I admit again, I do not know every word in the English language and sometimes have to look them up to solve the problem of ignorance of a word! This makes me stupid according to peacegirl, who at one time believed there were "Internet checkers" verifying information posted on websites- which does not make her stupid, at all, according to herself.

[LadyShea]

So peacegirl, you no longer want to discuss vision, and you have ended all discussions we've had about free will and conscience also because you refuse to address the charges of fallacious reasoning and assumption. Can we revisit the discussion of the mysterious final chapter on death?

Here is what you've given us from that chapter

Originally Posted by Lessans

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity pp. 497-498

Because you
are conscious of your existence and individuality during those years in
the present, write a book, build a home, make a lot of friends who cry
when you die, doesn’t take away from the fact that you are a
combination of A and B which continues in existence even while you
are alive, and regardless of what happens to C. Consequently, the
consciousness of your individuality without understanding that you
are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences that die,
but the germinal substance A and B which never die because they are
carried along from generation to generation and when united develop
into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation. Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived.

Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

From a superficial observation this is all very true, but the
reasoning as to what actually happens after your death is an inference
based upon your observations during your life. This reasoning
complicates even more the difficulty of understanding this
phenomenon. While you are alive you know that many people die
who never return. You also know that many babies are born who are
in no way the people who died, therefore, since you too must die and
the babies born are not the people who died, you cannot be one of the
babies born after your death.

Another way of saying the same thing
is this: If you could remain alive for 200 years, not one of the babies
born during that time could possibly be you, so if you had died after
80 years why should one of the same babies born during the 120 years
following your death be you when they were not you before. Can’t you
see how easy it is for reasoning to prove that we are not born again?

As was just mentioned, from a superficial observation this is all very
true, but your reasoning as to what actually happens after your death
is an inference based upon your observations during your life. When
you die you cannot possibly have any more observations. In other
words, your reasoning doesn’t reveal a deeper truth.

Does matter
itself reveal atomic energy? Do the individual planets, moon and sun
reveal the solar system? Do individual people reveal the mankind
system unless we observe certain undeniable laws? Does all of it
together reveal the reality of God, unless certain mathematical
relations are perceived? Certainly your grandparents gave birth to
your parents who gave birth to four children, but this tells us nothing
about the deeper law which is necessary to perceive in order to
understand why there is nothing to fear in death and why we will be
born again and again and again.

At one time man was afraid of
thunder and lightning thinking it was the wrath of God, but now we
don’t fear the thunder and try to protect ourselves as best we can
against the lightning. Until man discovered the cause of an eclipse
which required knowledge of the solar system or, to phrase it
differently, knowledge of the laws that inhere in particular bodies in
motion, he was afraid that something terrible was going to happen and
it became an ominous sign that was blamed for whatever evil followed.
Such is the reason it seems strange to be alive at this moment with all
the millions of years behind you, because you don’t understand the
truth. When it is thoroughly explained the strangeness disappears,
but I must proceed with undeniable relations and begin with this
statement which I shall prove.

“But I see that death is a terrible thing.”

“For the living only; the dead don’t know it, right?”

“It’s true that they don’t know it, but I know that they don’t know
it and that’s what disturbs me because one day I will also be in their
position, and I don’t like to know that I won’t know from nothing.”
“I know this is a disturbing thought, and one that science has not
yet been able to solve — that is, how to get rid of this disturbance, but
once the laws relating to death are thoroughly understood, then this
disturbance will come to an end.”

“The problem, then, is simply to discover and understand the
various laws of this universe...”

“But it isn’t that simple. It took me two years to understand what
it meant that man’s will is not free, and an additional three years to
break through this sound barrier of words.”

“Not ignorance anymore?”

“Just words; this is the source of the unconsciousness and the
ignorance. However, without these words we could never have
discovered the laws necessary for an adequate understanding of
ourselves and the world in which we live.”

“How do words play a role in death? There is certainly a big
difference between the theory of free will and the obvious evidence
that when you’re dead you’re dead. What’s that saying, “Ashes to
ashes, and dust to dust.”

“But when you use the words ‘you, I, him, she, he, etc.,’ you are
making an assumption and not using mathematical language. We
discussed this once before. The word ‘orange’ circumscribes an
undeniable bit of substance, but the word ‘I’, what word does that
circumscribe?”

“It circumscribes me; little ole me, from the tip of my toes to the
top of my head.”

“And you feel that when they lay you out in a coffin…”
“Do you have to use that word? It sends shivers up my spine.”
“When they lay you out in a box, this body is still you? Is that
the way you think?”

“I don’t feel this way, I know for a fact that when I looked at my
dead uncle it was my uncle, not anybody else.”

“But if I can prove to you, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the
word ‘I’ not only pertains to you as you are now existing but also to
the sperm and ova that are still living in an unborn state, then you
will know that when this part of you dies, the other still lives on.”

“Is that supposed to satisfy me? To know that when I die I am
part of a stream of ova and sperm that still continues to float around
in a protoplasmic world?”

“Of course not; but it is supposed to reveal that when you say a
certain word circumscribes you from the tip of your toes to the top of
your head, this is an assumption because before you were born you
were nothing but the union of a spermatozoa with an ovum and,
according to you, if that particular spermatozoa had never united with
that particular egg, you would never have been born, is that right?”

“That’s exactly right.”

The actual reason it is not strange that we are conscious now is
because you, no one else (that is, not you as you are now, but you as
someone else), will always be conscious as long as mankind exists (I
shall prove this, remember?). It is we who will exist many years from
now, not our posterity.

The fact that your consciousness is the only
consciousness that can exist does not mean that other people are not
conscious of their existence also, only that they cannot be seen except
through your consciousness. It would therefore make no difference
when the question is asked, ‘Doesn’t it seem strange...’ because you,
your consciousness, will always be present to answer. As you begin to
understand what death actually is, your fear will be replaced by the
certain knowledge that death is truly not the end.

I’m going to clarify this difficult relation a little more.
Let us go back to the time just before you were conceived. We shall
let A represent all the sperm pertaining to mankind, B all the ova, and
the combination of one with the other will be designated C which is
you, your potential consciousness of existence. Your parents have
decided to create a child. This is you, but you don’t know this yet,
nor do they know whether you will be a boy or girl or what other
characteristics you may have. You might be the first child, second,
third, fourth, fifth, and so on.

Now remember, you are not born yet
so you cannot possibly be conscious of your existence, but you are a
potential candidate for this consciousness. As luck would have it, you
die during your uterine journey when your mother has a miscarriage
which means that the conditions are exactly as they were before.
Consequently, you are not conscious of your existence because your
body was never born to give you this and therefore the relation
expressed in these words — ‘he died, she died, or it died,’ would have
no meaning where you are concerned (only those who are living),
because you just died, and your existence is absolutely necessary for
the relation.

Now this potential mother and father still want their
first baby — they want YOU — which word symbolizes human living
substance, so they try again, but this time you are born only to die
one month later of a heart problem. Still persistent and having a lot
of fun they try again with viable success but 18 years later you end up
in a car accident where you die. Much older now, but still capable of
propagating, mom and dad are not satisfied to lose YOU, so they try
once more to bring YOU into existence. In actual reality, though
heredity differences exist between the three C’s, the word YOU is a
designation only for the viable substance that comes into the world
and is identified with a name to establish these differences which mom
and dad grow to love.

But what is the difference between the potential
YOU who died during the uterine journey, the YOU who died one
month after birth, or the YOU who died 18 years later? Because you
are conscious of your existence and individuality during those years in
the present, write a book, build a home, make a lot of friends who cry
when you die, doesn’t take away from the fact that you are a
combination of A and B which continues in existence even while you
are alive, and regardless of what happens to C.

Consequently, the
consciousness of your individuality without understanding that you
are not only C, which represents the hereditary differences that die,
but the germinal substance A and B which never die because they are
carried along from generation to generation and when united develop
into your existence, makes you perceive an improper relation. Simply
because the entelechy of A and B develops into the consciousness of
C, which permits the recognition of individuality, does not negate the
substance from which C is derived.

Even if all the individual
characteristics lie potential in the germinal substance, this still has
nothing to do with consciousness which is not an individual
characteristic like your face. The word ‘I’ or ‘you’ not only reveals this
individual difference between yourself and others, but your
consciousness of this. There is no actual difference between the
potential YOU who died one month after birth, the YOU who will die
in a relatively short period of time, or the YOU who lived for many
years. If you had died a hundred thousand times in the uterus of
somebody, eventually YOU, which is a word describing the
consciousness of differences about yourself after your parents create
you, would have been born.

When someone dies it is true that he is gone and will never return
in our lifetime because these relations are also undeniable. I also
know that my father and his father before him are derived from this
protoplasmic substance that never dies and is handed along from
generation to generation. It is very true that we have grown to love
our fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, but
their time of death and our relationship to them does not change
reality. If my father had died during his uterine journey this does not
mean that I would never have been born because the word ‘I’ is a
symbol of any individual that is derived from this germinal world of
potential consciousness, and is given to us upon being born.

You stated the following about the germinal substance

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

All he meant by germinal substance is the substance that holds the potential for human life.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing metaphysical about "germinal substance"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Germinal substance is that substance from which our individuality is derived. This germinal substance from which we all are born doesn't die, like individuals do, but is passed along from generation to generation when we procreate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what the germinal substance is; the potential of human consciousness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's what allows the transference of DNA, or the germinal fluid [aka substance] that allows the next generation to be born

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(The Germinal Substance is) Sperm and ovum before they become united.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sperm and ovum can't get to each other without a medium. It is the testes that keeps the sperm alive, and the ovary that creates mature eggs during ovulation. This material where A and B are kept to form C (the individual) is what Lessans has coined "the germinal substance." It's what holds the DNA of all mankind so that the next generation can continue the circle of life.

This germinal substance has mass. It's not beyond the physical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

all you need to know is the sperm and the ovum. You can replace germinal substance with that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance is the substance that is carried along from generation to generation that is within each of us. That's what gives baby boys semen, and little girls ovum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The germinal substance has mass and occupies space. This substance is the genetic material that holds the potential for consciousness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is the substance that allows one sperm and one egg to meet.

LOL, please try again to tell us what exactly the germinal substance is

[Stephen Maturin]

So consciousness flows through human history on an actual, literal river of jizz. I feel comforted already!

[ChristinaM]

...all that stuff from chapter 10....

That was the first time I was ever tempted to reply to a post with "lol wut?".

[Vivisectus]

Another way of saying the same thing
is this: If you could remain alive for 200 years, not one of the babies
born during that time could possibly be you, so if you had died after
80 years why should one of the same babies born during the 120 years
following your death be you when they were not you before. Can’t you
see how easy it is for reasoning to prove that we are not born again?

Lessanese reasoning at it's finest! By which I mean, most typical. For this to start to logical you have to die at 80 AND 200 years of age.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So peacegirl, you no longer want to discuss vision, and you have ended all discussions we've had about free will and conscience also because you refuse to address the charges of fallacious reasoning and assumption. Can we revisit the discussion of the mysterious final chapter on death?

This was discussed hundreds of pages ago. This thread is like Groundhog Day or something.

Peacegirl is so addled that she cannot even accept that Lessans has allies on this very point. She flies into hysterics when it is pointed out to her that Lessans' claims are identical in every way with those of Tom Clark at naturalism.org and Wayne Stewart at mbdefault.org. I have repeatedly urged her to send this part of Lessans' book to both Clark and Stewart, but she won't do it. It really appears that she actually revels in being opposed, probably because of her martyr's complex.

Lessans also bollixes up a clear description of the idea with his prolix bafflegab. But I recognized the idea at once through all the fog of verbiage, because I was already familiar with the writings of Clark and Stewart, and I assure you Lessans, Clark and Stewart are in complete agreement even though they use different terminologies and examples (Clark and Stewart have already acknowledged the agreement of their ideas, each having independently discovered the writings of the other.)

If you really want to discuss this idea, I suggest someone e-mail Tom Clark and invite him to join this discussion. I wouldn't bother contacting Stewart; I've discussed this idea with him at the old Dawkins message board, and he isn't worth bothering with, IMO.

Metaphysics by Default WARNING: LONG BOOK by Wayne Stewart.

For the short take, see Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity. This is by Tom Clark.

Clark calls it generic subjective continuity. Stewart calls it existential passage.

It's not reincarnation, because it has nothing to do with a soul. The idea is that "consciousness" or subjectivity, is a generic and not a private property, and when we die, the "conscious perspective" as it were, simply shifts from the dead person to a new live person.

As to Louis Savain, the relativity denier to whom peacegirl linked, he has been spamming message boards for about ten years with his stuff, meaning that maybe he and peacegirl ought to get together. He is famous for describing prominent scientists in vulgar terms, and then appending a laugh: "ah-ha-ha-ha!" Which I guess is his version of

His argument is that according to relativity theory, nothing moves. But, stuff moves. Ergo, relativity theory is wrong.

He has made an elementary conceptual error in addition to a math error. In terms of, let us say, a single photon (but the principle applies to everything else as well, including humans), he has confused "photon" with "photon's world line."

It is true that the photon's world line is frozen in space-time and does not move. But this is only because the world line of the photon is a complete description of its trajectory from the moment it is emitted, until the time it is absorbed. Similarly, humans have world lines, often called world tubes. The world tube of a human life is a complete description of its trajectory through space-time from birth to death. And that is indeed frozen and unchanging. However, when we we talk about motion and change over time within space-time, we are talking about the photon at a time and place, and its change from then and there to a different time and place. Thus we are talking about a cross section of the totality of the photon's world line.

Now, if you are a realist about the ontology of space-time such that all moments in time are real in just the same way that all points in space are real, then you are, philosophically, an eternalist, as opposed to a presentist, who believes that only the NOW exists, and quantifies over all existent objects simultaneously: No object exists that does not exist at the present moment. The relativity of simultaneity, however, destroys presentism; indeed, as Vasselin Petkov argues, relativity theory entails eternalism, and the kinematical effects of relativity theory could not be observed even in principle if presentism were true.

On this account, light indeed does not travel, and nothing moves, but this is because the true ontology of a photon is its world line spread out across 4 space-time and not just the photon at a particular time and place, which on this account is just a cross section of the photon as a whole; i.e., a cross-section of its existent world line. See here.

From the above link:

In a four-dimensional world conventionality of simultaneity is trivial -- as all events of spacetime are equally existent it is really our choice which events constituting a three-dimensional cross-section (lying outside of the light cone of a given event) will be regarded as simultaneous. So the profound message of the vicious circle is: we live in a four-dimensional world in which there are only worldlines of particles and light signals; the velocity of light is just a description of light worldlines in terms of our three-dimensional language since in reality (in spacetime) light does not travel at all (if the world were three-dimensional and light were really propagating, its one-way velocity could not be conventional because Nature would "know" what is the magnitude of that velocity).

Bold face mine.

If eternalism is true, you should not think of yourself as wholly existing at a time. Rather, just as you have spatial parts, you also have temporal parts. The true ontology of "you" is a world tube with its boundary conditions your birth and death.

It should be noted that the fact that light does not travel, if we take the primary ontology of light to be its entire world line, does not in the least bit help Lessans' claim that we see in real time.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to respond to you anymore. Your flat-earth analysis as a way to discredit Lessans' is so completely off-base that I have nothing more to say to you.

So you responded to my post to tell me that?

You ain't here for the huntin' are you honey?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

So I read that as if I were a very busy person who is well-known and respected in my field and who frequently gets asked to lend my credibility to someone else's work and I tried to gauge what my reaction would be. I struck out the section on how he was ignored or dismissed because all that would say to me as a complete stranger who has never seen the material is that many qualified people have already reviewed it and found it to be without merit. Why on earth would you want to introduce your father that way? If you believe that his ideas are valid then they would be equally as valid if they were met with immediate rejoicing so the whole thing is irrelevant to anyone that didn't personally know and care about the man. It's very personal for you but the rest of us are basing our interest on his words and not his sincerity or intelligence since we never met him. I struck out "scientific discovery" because not only will that bring you endless grief and rejection from scientists but you are also limiting your audience to those interested in scientific discoveries and knowledgeable about the subject. That leaves out a whole lot of people who are somewhat interested but not willing to dedicate the time to read 500 pages when they have no idea of what this idea even is yet. You're asking too much of them. Are you really willing to exclude every other area of expertise that isn't hard science even though you refute the validity of the scientific method? That doesn't seem like a promising approach to me.

Peacegirl, if you want to succeed you have to write a short summary that engages people and makes them want to know more. It's not optional and you can't move forward to the next stage until you've done it. Even if you completely disagree and feel that the persecution thing is somehow helping his cause (at best it evokes pity and not respect) you still have to follow it up with a brief summary of the book. Busy well-respected people are simply not going to take the time to read the whole thing in order to decide if they're interested in the first place - they'll just delete the email and move on to the next one. Even if they are interested they aren't going to sit back and mull over what it is they can do to help you. You have to tell them.

Thanks for your thoughts. I am listening to every word. I realize it's going to be hard to get well-respected people to want to learn more. Until I come up with a summary that I like, it will be trial and error. I also would like to say there will be people who will be intrigued by the mere concept of peace, and there will be people who will be put off by his claims, unless the book is recommended by another well-respected person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why? He gets the definition of four velocity wrong. That makes him a crackpot, and you are pretty stupid for believing anything he says.

I don't think it makes him a crackpot. I think he has made a lot of good points.

A Time Dimension Forbids Motion or the Case of the Missing Time Dimension
What I am about to say may sound amazing but do not take my word for it. Figure it out on your own, for your own satisfaction. The moment one postulates the physical existence of a time dimension (as in string theory, for example), motion immediately becomes an impossibility. Note that, in this context, dimension is defined as a degree of freedom such as an axis in a coordinate system. And it is not a matter of motion in time being possible in one direction only as most people assume. A time dimension forbids motion altogether, forward or backward, or any other direction. Conclusion: There is no time dimension along which we move in one direction or the other. There is only the ever changing present. The so-called "arrow of time" is an absurdity and to speak of the possibility of time travel through wormholes is the ultimate in crackpottery.

<snip>

A Crackpot Is a Crackpot

Crackpottery in High Places is the Most Dangerous form of Crackpottery

Readers should feel free to suggest more names to include in my list of notorious time travel crackpots. Please use the email address at the bottom of the page. This is important because the correctness of humanity's fundamental understanding of nature is crucial to further progress. Crackpottery in high places is the most dangerous form of crackpotteryl. It condemns generations of young people to believe in lies and, as a result, scientific progress suffers. In fact, this whole motion in spacetime nonsense has already cost humanity close to a century of wasted time and wasted minds. In my opinion, we would have figured out the exact causal mechanism of gravity by now if our young people had not been falsely taught that Albert Einstein had already figured it out close to a century ago.



Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Oh FFS get over yourself you twit. If I'm not serious? Is that supposed to be a joke? You've been trying to push this shit online for a decade without taking an hour to write a freaking useful summary and I'm not the serious one? Why can't you talk about it out here? Because it might entail real work instead of just babbling about shit you know nothing about? You want people to respect your dad based on absofuckinglutely nothing but your word yet you show an unbelievable amount of disrespect for the intelligence and knowledge of these scientists who dedicated years of their lives to reach the level of understanding that they have. This childish refusal to read anything that doesn't support your BS and "lalala I can't hear you" stuff is more appropriate for a child than a full grown adult. Is that the way that you're going to respond to the people that you contact if they question the book or your approach?

You're right, I didn't answer you nicely and there was no reason for it except that when I'm tired I go into persecution mode much more quickly than when I'm rested. Sorry for being a twit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it has been.

Oh really? Show it to me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will find out the degree to which my thoughts are irrational.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How will you do that?

By taking a survey.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need YOU to determine what or who I am, because you are extremely biased and threatened by Lessans' claims.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. You're just making shit up again.

So are you Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really need you to move on because you are not helping the situation Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'd rather stay.

You can take over after I leave.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are loyal to your field, you should realize that the longer you stay here, the more you look like you have an agenda.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The longer you stay here, the more obvious your mental dysfunction becomes.

No, the longer I stay here, the more opportunity people have to try to make it appear that I have a mental dysfunction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did you stick your ear against the screen? How did you work out what it sounds like without reading it?

You're right, it was a silly thing to say. I never said I was perfect.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think I asked her that once too, don't remember getting an answer.

peacegirl, how would you react to Sam Harris if he said the stuff about efferent vision is nonsense (he is, after all, a neuroscientist so knows quite a lot about the brain), or Deepak Chopra if he questions the germinal substance?

If you are positive that 2+2=4, you don't have to depend on what anyone else says. In other words, Lessans did not have to wait for someone to tell him that his perceptions were correct. I have posted this before but I'll post it again for those who didn't read it.

Introduction

p. 6 This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that
brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude
the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the
long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks
he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you even read what I asked? This is not at all relevant to the post you are responding to. You are completely unhinged in your anger at me.

I was asking you how you would react if some of the people you approach criticize or questions Lessans conclusions? What would you say to Sam Harris if, as a neuroscientist, he told you efferent vision is nonsense?

BTW we've had the torture discussion. I think it is always wrong. Period.

I know we've been through this discussion but it came up again. How can you be so sure as to how you would react if you were in a position where the need to get someone to talk in order to save your child required you to force the issue in some way, maybe even causing extreme physical discomfort as a necessary means?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I've picked words deliberately so that people can understand them, as I was explaining some technical tensor calculus to a lay-audience. What words do you think people will misunderstand?

Meanwhile, can you explain why LinkGuy uses the wrong definition for four-velocity? I don't think you can. I think this was a case of once again, you reaching for anything you think might help your case, and finding yourself out of your depth. And now you weasel and lie your way out of it, but you're too stubborn to admit you made a mistake. Willful ignorance and deception at its finest.

I'm not lying my way out of anything. What he says makes sense to me.

Simple Proof that Nothing Can Move in Spacetime

Why is motion in spacetime impossible? It has to do with the definitions of space and time and the equation of velocity v = dx/dt. What the equation is saying is that, if an object moves over any distance d x, there is an elapsed time d t. Since time is defined in physics as a parameter for denoting change (evolution), the equation for velocity along the time axis must be given as v = dt/dt which is self-referential. The self-reference comes from having to divide dt by itself. dt/dt always equals 1 because the units cancel out. This is of course meaningless as far as velocity is concerned.

To emphasize, it is logically impossible for the t coordinate of an object to change because such a change is self-referential. Et voilà! It is that simple. No time travel, no motion in spacetime, no spacetime and no time dimension. They are all abstract mathematical constructs without any counterpart in nature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Translation: "I didn't understand a word of that, and I'm definitely not going to make any effort to educate myself -- so it's wrong."

That is not what I'm saying at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are positive that 2+2=4, you don't have to depend on what anyone else says. In other words, Lessans did not have to wait for someone to tell him that his perceptions were correct.

And that was Lessans problem, his perceptions were incorrect, and he had no-one to tell him where he made his mistakes, but I doubt if he would have listened, just like Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really not interested in taking the conversation to the detriment of Lessans. You can think anything you want, and try to make anyone a crackpot LadyShea, and it will fit into your little world like a glove, but you have no proof of what you're defending, NONE. I know this thread is dying just like a supernova, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, nice dodge there, Weasel. You think the astrophysicist, Dragar, came to the wrong conclusion, but the guy who thinks Revelation is a blueprint for AI got it right, yet you won't explain why you think that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why do you think Savain is right? What led you to that conclusion? What evidence or argument did he present that you found convincing? Why is his evidence or argument superior to Dragar's?

I believe he is right because there is absolutely no way we can time travel. Believe it or not, this is endorsed by the scientific community, including Stephen Hawking. Crazy!!!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am willing to bet you know as much about four vector and four velocity as I do, which is fuck-all, but you just can't accept that a real scientist might know more than a non-scientist with an idea.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's actually very straightforward.

A vector is an arrow, that points in a space. A four vector points in a four dimensional space (spacetime). This can be used to describe something's location in spacetime - it points from the origin of your coordinate system to their location.

You can talk about how that position arrow changes with respect to a variable - typically the proper time - of an observer. The rate of change of a position is a velocity, so you call it a four velocity. The proper time is the time that an observer experiences. (You don't do this with light, as it has no proper time, so you use an 'affine parameter' instead - same deal.)

If you are an idiot or a crackpot, you might use the coordinate time instead. The coordinate time is just a coordinate - you can define a coordinate system any way you like! It's meaningless. So it's daft to use this to measure anything objective. An idiot or crackpot would then make a big fuss about it. But only a crackpot would then write webpages about designing an AI based on the book of revelation.

Oh my gosh, this is such word play I refuse to argue with you. The truth behind your argument is without any credibility as far as I'm concerned. Go on, attack me. You have never spoke in English; you use words that you know people will misunderstand, and this is supposed to support your cause?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What word play? What makes you think it is word play? Why do you find Dragar lacks credibility to discuss physics, seeing as he is a physicist? What words did he use that were not in English or not understandable?

I thought Dragar was female. Sorry Dragar! Word play is using words that are unfamiliar and serve to cause more confusion than clarity. I know to Dragar these concepts are simple, but they are new to me. That being said, I don't see how time is, or can be, a fourth dimension based on what this guy explained.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are positive that 2+2=4, you don't have to depend on what anyone else says. In other words, Lessans did not have to wait for someone to tell him that his perceptions were correct. I have posted this before but I'll post it again for those who didn't read it.

[/I]

Again not answering my question. But, that brings up another question...why are you seeking celebrity endorsements if it doesn't matter what anyone thinks? Why are you here arguing with us if it doesn't matter what we think?

If you don't have to depend on what anyone else says or thinks, why hasn't the Golden Age already commenced?

Of course you depend on what others say and think, because if nobody else ever agrees with Lessans then there can't be any Godlen Age.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dragar is an astrophysicist. Louis Savain is not. Which of the two do you think knows more about spacetime?

Louis Savain thinks the book of Revelation gives instructions for building an AI (artificial intelligence). That's a crank.

LOL, yeah, no crackpottery there

He admits to believing crackpot stuff

Maybe he does have some strange ideas, but you cannot come to the conclusion that everything he says is therefore wrong. The same goes for Mike Adams.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I thought you said you were a skeptic? The first points that came to my mind were:

Not a single bit of supporting evidence, just a bunch of assertions
Promoting fear with no offered solutions or mitigating actions...who benefits?
No way of vetting his anonymous source, could be made up

Those are what I would jump off with for further investigation.

I agree that it's promoting fear, but maybe that is what will get the industry to do something. It was mentioned on a news program (not just from Mike Adams) that these younger pilots are only being computer trained, and don't have the expertise that the older more experienced pilots have. If that's true, they need to train their pilots differently, and this crash may give them the impetus to do just that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe he is right because there is absolutely no way we can time travel. Believe it or not, this is endorsed by the scientific community, including Stephen Hawking. Crazy!!!

Nope, as usual, you are totaly fucking wrong.

First, as explained, your newest nutter hero is arguing that we can't travel FORWARD in time, or move at all, if relativity is right. Hence, relativity is wrong, he says. But in my last post I pointed out his conceptual confusion between an object and its world line, a post that no doubt went over your head even if you read it.

Second, Hawking fully endorses the backward-in-time travel solutions to general relativity. His point is only that while time travel to the past is conceptually possible, it is probably not physically possible because the energy required to keep open a worm hole to allow time travel to the past would destroy the wormhole. As usual, you've no idea what you are babbling about, because all you do is skim shit rather than try to learn what stuff really means. Just like your father.