A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Fixed your quote tags below, please correct them in your post as well, I didn't say most of this

Originally Posted by peacegirl

davidm, you are giving the same example, but on a bigger scale, that Lessans gave in the beginning of that chapter. We would see the sun explode instantly, but it would take 8 minutes for that same light to travel to Earth. It is all about how the eyes work, not how light works.

Now you are acting histrionic LadyShea, because you can't back your theory up. If we see in real time, this does not change the fact that light hasn't reached Earth yet, so how can seeing efferently cause the catastrophic events you are purporting?

You are talking about two different things, as Lessans explained regarding the Sun.

The real thing meaning the real event, not a virtual event via light. It's you that's making it complicated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

david, peacegirl acknowledges that photons take time to travel, and that detecting instruments are subject to that travel time, but she maintains that we do not need those photons to travel to our eyes to see something. We can see it instantly regardless of where traveling photons are located. So instantly seeing eyes/brains, or cameras, must be a part of the experiment to refute her point.

So, hey peacegirl, cameras take photos in real time too, right? No need for returning photons? So, if a video camera with a timer was triggered when the laser was turned on, then it would pick up the light on the moon in real time, right, at 1.25 seconds rather than 2.5 seconds. Is this correct? I can't find any inconsistency with your or Lessans statement in this.

So, anyone know of a video of this particular observation?

It seems to me that it may cause the same problem due to the time it takes to capture the image, once the timer goes off, because the light could already be back to Earth. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would have to be calibrated perfectly. Maybe something as simple as a timer could solve the problem. Good idea.

[peacegirl]

sorry, another repeat

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test

I averaged 262 milliseconds, and I am slow

No way could it take me a full second and quarter to click a button

I was doing OK for 4 tries with a 287 average and then I had a 496 flier, that took me to a 329 average.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you are now saying we don't need humans to do this experiment, when it is the eyes of humans that this discussion is about? I really believe it is you that you are fighting with, not me. You are trying to convince yourself that your investment of time and energy has been worth it, which explains why you are so defensive.

No, peacegirl, what I mean is, we don't have some stooge scientist like Larry, Moe or Curly hovering over a stop watch trying to time it JUST right when someone presses a big red button to send a laser blast to the moon! Gosh, are you dumb.

If you want to know how this experiment is conducted, Google it. I'm not doing any favors for a willful ignoramus like you any longer.

The fact is, peacegirl, scientists have been doing this experiment since 1962, and the result is always the same: We see the light on the moon 2.5 seconds after it leaves the laser, measured with an accuracy correct to give or minus one second in 20 million years. This is a direct and incontrovertible disproof of real time seeing, of your own claim, made right here in this thread, that we would see the light 1.25 seconds after it leaves the laser. We don't.

Just to show how preposterous your claim is, we can imagine a person standing on the moon, where the laser is aimed. According to Lessans and peacegirl, we are expected to imagine that the man on the moon sees the laser IMMEDIATELY when it is activated on earth, but that the people on earth don't see the laser on the moon where the man is standing for 1.25 seconds.

Just try to imagine how The Buffoon "reasoned" out this logically self-refuting conclusion. I really can't even imagine it!

Sorry, peacegirl, you can type words until the day you die, but they all mean nothing. Real time seeing is false, as the moon/laser experiment proves. And everything else, your charges that I, or anyone else, is "defensive" or fears having their "world view overturned" is pure projection and refers entirely to your own terrified feelings, because deep down you know Lessans is wrong.

Peacegirl, you've admitted that you have come here for "socialization" and you will even take it in the form of "negative attention." This is sick. You should get help, really.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So how many instrumental people have you met on the internet in the last decade? How many have you met on FF?

I already answered this. It is the venue that is the problem, not the discovery. That's why I'm moving on to a different venue. I could go to 50 more forums like this one and get the same result. Don't you see what you're doing NA? You are presupposing that Lessans must be wrong, and then try to justify your premise by saying that by now people would have understood it, if he was right. Your logic is so flawed, I'm amazed that you are so completely clueless. You are a perfect example of why I haven't been able to break through this sound barrier of ignorance that continues to get in the way.

[LadyShea]

I only used 1 light year to illustrate the simple mathematical formula that seems to be eluding you. A star exploding only one light year away would vaporize us. Again 1 year is just to have an easy reference point, because it is easier to use 1 and 0 in the formula. Get it?

If we see instantly in real time, we would see the supernova explosion immediately when it happens.

If it were possible to happen without killing us all, for illustrative purposes only, if the supernova happened 1 light year away, it would take 1 year for the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova to reach Earth to be detected, according to your own claims.

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
1 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Do you get it yet?

I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
And again, this is not what happens, ever. The photons and neutrinos from the supernova are detected within minutes of seeing the supernova visually, hours at the very longest. Never, ever, ever are the two occurrences separated by years.

Where have I said anything about virtual events vs real events? You are adding a bunch of meaningless bullshit as a weasel. Humans can see stars expand greatly when they go supernova. They can see it through telescopes and take pictures of it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems to me that it may cause the same problem due to the time it takes to capture the image, once the timer goes off, because the light could already be back to Earth. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would have to be calibrated perfectly. Maybe something as simple as a timer could solve the problem. Good idea.

You are weaseling

A video camera can be turned on, and the computer that turns on the laser simultaneously starts the stopwatch. The watch continues and when the light appears you could see on the video what time it was at

Did you look at the Internet stopwatch I posted? You can practice starting and stopping it and can do so well under a second every time. And you are a human. A computer can do it precisely

[davidm]

Anyway, peacegirl, if you dispute the moon/laser experiment for the utterly preposterous reason that no human alive can tell the difference between 1.25 and 2.5 seconds (laugh out loud) you still stuck the examples of the moons of Jupiter and the fact that we use delayed-time seeing to calculate how to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies. You have NEVER been able to explain why this is so, if Lessans is right, and you know it. The best you've come up with is "something else must be going on there."

And, as I've already explained to ITT, the same moon/laser experiment is replicated with radio (which is just light of a different wavelength) and Mars. We have Rovers there, and we send them messages via radio light. Depending on where Mars is in the course of the year (the distances between the two planets change due to their relative orbits) it takes the radio light up to 20 minutes to reach the Rovers on Mars. Then they send a signal back. If Lessans were right, we would receive that radio light signal IMMEDIATELY, but we don't. Instead, we have to wait up to 20 minutes. Are you now going to suggest, peacegirl, that humans can't tell the difference between "instantly" and "twenty minutes"?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems to me that it may cause the same problem due to the time it takes to capture the image, once the timer goes off, because the light could already be back to Earth. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it would have to be calibrated perfectly. Maybe something as simple as a timer could solve the problem. Good idea.

I'm pretty sure that when the experiments are done they have 'naked eye observers' watching to verify the results. When possible scientists do not rely on instruments alone.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this. It is the venue that is the problem, not the discovery. That's why I'm moving on to a different venue. I could go to 50 more forums like this one and get the same result. Don't you see what you're doing NA? You are presupposing that Lessans must be wrong, and then try to justify your premise by saying that by now people would have understood it, if he was right. Your logic is so flawed, I'm amazed that you are so completely clueless. You are a perfect example of why I haven't been able to break through this sound barrier of ignorance that continues to get in the way.

The only thing I'm doing is trying to get you to seek help. The only one here who does not understand the significance of Lessans discovery is you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

Anyway, peacegirl, if you dispute the moon/laser experiment for the utterly preposterous reason that no human alive can tell the difference between 1.25 and 2.5 seconds (laugh out loud) you still stuck the examples of the moons of Jupiter and the fact that we use delayed-time seeing to calculate how to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies. You have NEVER been able to explain why this is so, if Lessans is right, and you know it. The best you've come up with is "something else must be going on there."

And, as I've already explained to ITT, the same moon/laser experiment is replicated with radio (which is just light of a different wavelength) and Mars. We have Rovers there, and we send them messages via radio light. Depending on where Mars is in the course of the year (the distances between the two planets change due to their relative orbits) it takes the radio light up to 20 minutes to reach the Rovers on Mars. Then they send a signal back. If Lessans were right, we would receive that radio light signal IMMEDIATELY, but we don't. Instead, we have to wait up to 20 minutes. Are you now going to suggest, peacegirl, that humans can't tell the difference between "instantly" and "twenty minutes"?

Lessans only stated we could see without a light-time delay, not that we couldn't measure electromagnetic radiation travel speed. peacegirl extended that to photography is also instant/real time

Any experiment to refute peacegirl's assertions has to include the element of either human vision or photography. It can't be fully instrumental.

That's why the supernova example works, there is the visual/photographic element along with the known travel speed of photons

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans only stated we could see without a light-time delay, not that we couldn't measure electromagnetic radiation travel speed. peacegirl extended that to photography is also instant/real time

Any experiment to refute peacegirl's assertions has to include the element of either human vision or photography. It can't be fully instrumental.

That's why the supernova example works, there is the visual/photographic element along with the known travel speed of photons

Of course I know what Lessans is claiming, and it's utterly fucking ridiculous. It's easily disproved in hundreds of ways -- the supernova, the moon/laser, the moons of Jupiter, special relativity, how we calculate sending spacecraft to Mars -- peacegirl can't answer ANY of these counterexamples.

As to radio, it's light. It can be converted to TV images. Therefore we should see TV broadcasts instantaneously. We don't. Even Lessans said we don't. WTF? His own spurious claims were always inherently self-contradcitory.

It is sheer madness to disconnect seeing from detecting electromagnetic radiation. Not only is in empirically false, it CAN"T be right. That's why every "model" peacegirl presents in an effort to explain what Lessans said ends up in flat self-contradiciton or the ditch of "Voila! We see!"

[LadyShea]

I know, but everything else is too much a chance to weasel. If you don't mind, please stick with those proofs with a visual element, for my edification if nothing else.

[davidm]

Well, the visual proofs have been given, ad nauseum. A review:

1. The laser/moon experiment

2. The moons of Jupiter

3. The fact that we calculate sending spacecraft to Mars and other bodies by delayed-time seeing and not real-time seeing.

4. The special theory of relativity. SR DEMANDS that we see light in delayed time; the whole theory is structured on this premise. If we saw in real time, there would be no special theory of relativity; it would not describe anything in the real world, and hence no one would ever have developed it.

5. The reason the whole night sky is not lit up at night is because the light of some distant stars in an expanding universe has not reached and some of it never will reach us (others have had their light red-shifted out of the visual range). If we saw in real time, we would see every star and galaxy no matter how far away it is; we don't. Actually, we wouldn't see anything at all, because in this case, the temperature on earth would be approximately 10,000 degrees F and we would all be dead!

6. Fast-flickering lanterns right here on earth measure not just the speed of light, but prove we see in delayed time. If we saw in real time, the experiment could not possibly work as it does. Indeed, if we saw in real time, NO visual experiment could establish the speed of light, and we would have to conclude that light travels infinitely fast. Since we CAN establish the speed of light visually, it proves we see in delayed time.

Boy, howdy, how many more examples need be given? We don't see in real time, peacegirl! Too bad, so sad!

Oh, and ETA: 7. The Hubble Space telescope.

Even ONE example of how the real world works suffices to disprove real-time seeing. Here I've given seven examples. Oh, and here is No. 8 : There are no fucking efferent nerves in the eye! Therefore the eye is a sense organ. QED.

I mean, how long are people going to beat this dead horse with peacegirl? This horse is not only dead, it's vaporized.

[davidm]

In the case of SR, I should add that all one need do is read Einstein's own words on the subject (his book from about 1920 is online, I think at Gutenberg and several other places) and his train thought experiment. In this experiment, we see in about a minute while real-time seeing is not only false, it's impossible.

Yet Lessans alluded to the genius of Einstein in his book, blissfully oblivious to the fact that Einstein's SR already ruled out everything that Lessans was claiming!

[LadyShea]

Hello and welcome Cynthia of Syracuse, you have been reading this thread for at least a few days, but have not posted. What brings you to and especially to this particular thread?

[thedoc]

Welcome to the forum 'Cynthia of Syracuse' Is that Syracuse NY? If so I was there many years ago and it had some very nice architecture in the down town area.

[But]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

216 milliseconds here, slowpoke.

160 average.

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, the visual proofs have been given, ad nauseum.

AD NAUSEAM AM AM AM AM

[davidm]

Yes, I AM nauseated by this thread, too.

A "nauseum" is a museum of nausea. Where this thread will someday find a home.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by But

160 average.

[But]

Yeah, but I am the youngest of us 3 and it has dropped to 180 now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not ridiculous at all when the fundamental belief system supports the premise Spacemonkey. How can you compare real science with faulty science. I already said that it's rare in science that a mistake could be made, so why are you resorting to defending scientists when there is nothing to defend because I never said they aren't exact in their calculations. The only mistake they made was believing the eyes worked like the other senses, which is an understandable mistake. Why can't you even entertain the possibility that a mistake was made. I get worried that people's egos are so big, they can't handle it.

You're not even addressing the moon/laser example any more. You're just weaseling. Scientists can operate a timer and reliably distinguish between 1.25 and 2.5sec. Scientists can reliably indicate when the laser light becomes visible on the moon. Therefore this is a simple, reliable, and conclusive disproof of real-time vision. The evidence proves you and Lessans wrong, no matter how much your delusion compels you to deny it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're getting outright nasty, and if you keep this up don't expect any communication between us.

There's nothing nasty about it. You really are mentally ill, and the best thing anyone can do is continue to remind you of this so as to disabuse you of the illusion that you are behaving rationally by continuing to post here.

You yourself said that you were leaving because to continue here would be insane. But when I asked if your continued presence here a month from now would therefore show you to be insane you said no. You know you would have to be crazy to continue, and yet you also know you have no intention of leaving. What does that tell you?