“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[bilby]

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

I never said I was the “end of truth.” This is in keeping with your weird belief that “truth” is decided by authority.

Thats how you come off.

His claims have been examined, for hundreds of years. They are false.

Do you have any references I can check out?

Start here: http://sirisaacnewton.info/writings/opticks-by-sir-isaac-newton/

Once you have read and understood that, and undertaken the experiments described therein, to test it against reality, you will only be 320 years behind the state of the art, which will be an order of magnitude improvement on your current position.

 

[pood]

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

I never said I was the “end of truth.” This is in keeping with your weird belief that “truth” is decided by authority.

Thats how you come off.

His claims have been examined, for hundreds of years. They are false.

Do you have any references I can check out?

Start here: http://sirisaacnewton.info/writings/opticks-by-sir-isaac-newton/

Once you have read and understood that, and undertaken the experiments described therein, to test it against reality, you will only be 320 years behind the state of the art, which will be an order of magnitude improvement on your current position.

Bear in mind that all this has been explained to her over the past 25 years and numerous message boards, including this one some 15 years ago. It never takes, perhaps because the author is her father, I don’t know. Most of us, when we are kids, reflexively agree with our parents. But when we mature, we become able to say things like, “Sorry, dad, you are full of shit.”

Not peacegirl.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

I never said I was the “end of truth.” This is in keeping with your weird belief that “truth” is decided by authority.

Thats how you come off.

His claims have been examined, for hundreds of years. They are false.

Do you have any references I can check out?

Start here: http://sirisaacnewton.info/writings/opticks-by-sir-isaac-newton/

Once you have read and understood that, and undertaken the experiments described therein, to test it against reality, you will only be 320 years behind the state of the art, which will be an order of magnitude improvement on your current position.

That’s assuming the experiment described therein actually has anything to do with what is being tested. Stop huffing and puffing with no ability to show me the actual proof that disproves this claim. I will look at your link but mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.

I just looked at it. It’s way too long. Please highlight that proves we see in delayed time. Thank you.

 

[pood]

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

I never said I was the “end of truth.” This is in keeping with your weird belief that “truth” is decided by authority.

Thats how you come off.

His claims have been examined, for hundreds of years. They are false.

Do you have any references I can check out?

Start here: http://sirisaacnewton.info/writings/opticks-by-sir-isaac-newton/

Once you have read and understood that, and undertaken the experiments described therein, to test it against reality, you will only be 320 years behind the state of the art, which will be an order of magnitude improvement on your current position.

That’s assuming the experiment described therein actually has anything to do with what is being tested. Give me the experinent bilby. Stop huffing and puffing with no ability to show me the proof. I will look at your link but mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.

Of course, it’s only Isaac Newton.

But your writer knew better than Newton, Einstein, really, everyone.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

I never said I was the “end of truth.” This is in keeping with your weird belief that “truth” is decided by authority.

Thats how you come off.

His claims have been examined, for hundreds of years. They are false.

Do you have any references I can check out?

Start here: http://sirisaacnewton.info/writings/opticks-by-sir-isaac-newton/

Once you have read and understood that, and undertaken the experiments described therein, to test it against reality, you will only be 320 years behind the state of the art, which will be an order of magnitude improvement on your current position.

That’s assuming the experiment described therein actually has anything to do with what is being tested. Give me the experinent bilby. Stop huffing and puffing with no ability to show me the proof. I will look at your link but mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.

Of course, it’s only Isaac Newton.

But your writer knew better than Newton, Einstein, really, everyone.

No, you are once again being misleading.

Mankind has been slowly developing and if you go back far enough in history you will find that we believed pregnancy was caused by the bite of an enamored snake, which prevented many girls from bathing at certain times but never prevented them from mating. Today we have thousands of lesser Aristotle’s preventing breakthroughs into various hermetically sealed doors. We call them professors and Ph.D.s. Again, this is not a criticism, but they accept what has been taught to them and pass it along from generation to generation, which makes it very difficult for them to listen to any explanation that must contravene their reputation as leading authorities. That is why they reject people, put anyone down who does not have what they are proud of — their formal education. But please remember that they, too, are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and it isn’t fair to criticize them for being proud of their scholastic achievements. I refused to let a Ph.D. in math read my book, not because he gave me the wrong answer to a math problem, but because he said my answer must be wrong since he was a Ph.D., and I was not. You might find this problem of interest since it originated with Sir Isaac Newton. If it takes 3 cows two weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the grass that grows on the two acres in two weeks, and if it takes two cows four weeks to eat two acres of grass and all the grass grown on the two acres in the four weeks, how many cows would be required to eat 6 acres of grass in 6 weeks and all the grass that grows on the 6 acres in the six weeks? Because it was difficult for this Ph.D. to accept the fact that he could not work out this problem, it gave him greater satisfaction to put me and my answer down. Are you beginning to recognize how difficult it has been for me to bring this knowledge to light when it is utterly impossible for our leading authorities to get greater satisfaction listening to any explanation of new knowledge that must reveal their unconscious ignorance that they never knew the truth, only thought they knew? I, however, know the truth and know that I know the truth, and one day, as Gregor Mendel declared when he didn’t bring his discovery to light, “My time will come.” Now let’s continue.

 

[pood]

Isn’t that precious.

 

[peacegirl]

Isn’t that precious.

Yes it is. Why would you think everyone else knew better than him regarding the eyes when this was not even discussed? You keep appealing to authority for some odd reason.

 

[pood]

Isn’t that precious.

You keep appealing to authority for some odd reason.

Wrong. I appeal to reality. You appeal to Daddy’s Authority.

 

[peacegirl]

Isn’t that precious.

You keep appealing to authority for some odd reason.

Wrong. I appeal to reality. You appeal to Daddy’s Authority.

You appeal to modal fallacies! He appealed to REALITY!

 

[pood]

He appealed to reality, and reality told him, “You’re wrong.”

 

[peacegirl]

He appealed to reality, and reality told him, “You’re wrong.”

This back and forth is dumb. I am still waiting for proof he was wrong about the eyes and why this changes what we see. It does not change anything about light (light is at the eye whether we see in delayed time or real time) All those examples you posted that you thought proved him wrong did nothing of the sort.

 

[Crumb]

This back and forth is dumb.

At least we can all agree om something.

It does not change anything about light (light is at the eye whether we see in delayed time or real time)

How can light be at the eye when it is 8 minutes away from the eye? The REASON we see in "delayed time" is because the light is NOT at the eye.

 

[peacegirl]

This back and forth is dumb.

At least we can all agree om something.

It does not change anything about light (light is at the eye whether we see in delayed time or real time)

How can light be at the eye when it is 8 minutes away from the eye? The REASON we see in "delayed time" is because the light is NOT at the eye.

If the eyes are efferent (assuming he was correct in his observations), the light waves are not traveling through space and time to reach the eye. The light is at the eye as soon as we turn our gaze toward what it is we are looking at. As a result we see the object directly, not the image. Nothing else changes but this knowledge has a major impact on how we are conditioned by words that are not symbolic of reality. This may be upsetting to people who believe we are seeing the past, but if Lessans is right, this is not the case.

 

[bilby]

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

I never said I was the “end of truth.” This is in keeping with your weird belief that “truth” is decided by authority.

Thats how you come off.

His claims have been examined, for hundreds of years. They are false.

Do you have any references I can check out?

Start here: http://sirisaacnewton.info/writings/opticks-by-sir-isaac-newton/

Once you have read and understood that, and undertaken the experiments described therein, to test it against reality, you will only be 320 years behind the state of the art, which will be an order of magnitude improvement on your current position.

That’s assuming the experiment described therein actually has anything to do with what is being tested.

Experiments. Plural.

Stop huffing and puffing with no ability to show me the actual proof that disproves this claim.

This is the beginning of the journey to understanding the physics of light, or, to be more precise, of electromagnetism, the carrier for which is the photon.

I will look at your link but mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.

This from the person who accuses others of being closed-minded, and who posts thousands of words of barely comprehensible copypasta.

I just looked at it. It’s way too long.

You would need to take that up with reality. Reality is apparently far more complicated than you had guessed. Who would have thought it.

Please highlight that proves we see in delayed time. Thank you.

Unless and until you understand the basics of what light is, and how it interacts with matter, you cannot understand any such demonstration.

When you start with the confident claim "mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.", you eliminate any chance of ever understanding.

Fortunately, reality doesn't care one whit if you remain wrong, and nobody else has to care either. It's a free world; You can be as wrong as you want, for as long as you want.

If you choose to change that, you could start with Newton's Optiks; That's where humanity at large started. Or you could skip to the end, and read QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (though that one isn't readily available online free of charge).

Your problem here seems to be twofold: You refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong; And you expect to be able to understand complex subjects without putting in any particuar effort.

Either one will inevitably result in abject ignorance.

 

[DBT]

Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) is the practice of measuring the distance between the surfaces of the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. The distance can be calculated from the round-trip time of laser light pulses travelling at the speed of light, which are reflected back to Earth by the Moon's surface or by one of several retroreflectors installed on the Moon.

To compute the lunar distance precisely, many factors must be considered in addition to the round-trip time of about 2.5 seconds." - Wikipedia.

 

[pood]

Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) is the practice of measuring the distance between the surfaces of the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. The distance can be calculated from the round-trip time of laser light pulses travelling at the speed of light, which are reflected back to Earth by the Moon's surface or by one of several retroreflectors installed on the Moon.

To compute the lunar distance precisely, many factors must be considered in addition to the round-trip time of about 2.5 seconds." - Wikipedia.

Discussed this with her in detail at FF. Her response: “Something else must be going on there,” because as she said many times: if Lessans had been wrong, he would have said so; since he never said so, he must be right.

 

[pood]

I just looked at it. It’s way too long.

Says the woman who posts endless streams of bullshit copypasta from a crank writer and expects everyone not only to read that bullshit, but demands that they agree with it!

 

[pood]

Here is a comprehensive list of disproofs of real-time seeing we discussed in detail with her at FF. Note that the list includes lasers bounced off the moon. So, if anyone were thinking of bringing any of these to her attention, don’t waste your time.

 

[peacegirl]

Yes , that is true! You are not the end all of truth Pood Face it! All your put downs mean nothing until they are examined by others in the field who hopefully will give this author the time of day!

I never said I was the “end of truth.” This is in keeping with your weird belief that “truth” is decided by authority.

Thats how you come off.

His claims have been examined, for hundreds of years. They are false.

Do you have any references I can check out?

Start here: http://sirisaacnewton.info/writings/opticks-by-sir-isaac-newton/

Once you have read and understood that, and undertaken the experiments described therein, to test it against reality, you will only be 320 years behind the state of the art, which will be an order of magnitude improvement on your current position.

That’s assuming the experiment described therein actually has anything to do with what is being tested.

Experiments. Plural.

Stop huffing and puffing with no ability to show me the actual proof that disproves this claim.

This is the beginning of the journey to understanding the physics of light, or, to be more precise, of electromagnetism, the carrier for which is the photon.

I will look at your link but mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.

This from the person who accuses others of being closed-minded, and who posts thousands of words of barely comprehensible copypasta.

I just looked at it. It’s way too long.

You would need to take that up with reality. Reality is apparently far more complicated than you had guessed. Who would have thought it.

If you highlighted where he shows anything about experiments that prove we see in delayed vision, I would read it.

Please highlight that proves we see in delayed time. Thank you.

Unless and until you understand the basics of what light is, and how it interacts with matter, you cannot understand any such demonstration.

I don't have to. It's not a prerequisite because it's not about light. it's about the eyes and brain and how the brain begins to focus the eyes due to the stimulation of the other senses.

When you start with the confident claim "mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.", you eliminate any chance of ever understanding.

Fortunately, reality doesn't care one whit if you remain wrong, and nobody else has to care either. It's a free world; You can be as wrong as you want, for as long as you want.

Reality may not care one whit if I or you remain wrong, but wouldn't you want to know if you were wrong? I would want to know if I was wrong too. I just don't think the author was. We all just want to know the truth. We are learning new things everyday about ourselves and our world. This discovery just happens to be a big one.

If you choose to change that, you could start with Newton's Optiks; That's where humanity at large started. Or you could skip to the end, and read QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (though that one isn't readily available online free of charge).

It will probably just state that light travels, therefore we see the past. They will say the reason we don't see that it's the past is because light travels so fast we don't realize we are seeing a delayed image. Isn't that the theme? The animosity here really doesn't serve anyone.

Your problem here seems to be twofold: You refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong;

Why should I consider the possibility that he was wrong if I truly think he was right? Maybe it sounds like I'm too cocksure of myself. I don't mean it to sound that way.

And you expect to be able to understand complex subjects without putting in any particuar effort.

I have made lots of effort. People who understand his observations will either want to pursue it in more depth to see if there's something to them, or not. All I can do is offer to people what he observed. But problem is that we've been inculcated with the theory of delayed vision for so long that it's blasphemous to even suggest that science may not have gotten it right. If the author was wrong, so be it, but so far no experiments have actually proven that we see in delayed time. The logic that light travels and therefore it takes time to get to our eyes has made this theory feel airtight. But in this rare case, science may gotten it wrong.

Either one will inevitably result in abject ignorance.

Yep. Who that is is yet to be determined.

 

[pood]

\

If you highlighted where he shows anything about experiments that prove we see in delayed vision, I would read it.

We already gave you an avalanche of information at FF that shows we see in delayed time. You ignored it.

Please highlight that proves we see in delayed time. Thank you.

Unless and until you understand the basics of what light is, and how it interacts with matter, you cannot understand any such demonstration.

I don't have to. It's not a prerequisite because it's not about light. it's about the eyes and brain and how they begin to focus to see what it is they are experiencing due to the stimulation of the other senses.

Wrong.

When you start with the confident claim "mark my words, it will not show what you want it to show. That’s how sure I am.", you eliminate any chance of ever understanding.

Fortunately, reality doesn't care one whit if you remain wrong, and nobody else has to care either. It's a free world; You can be as wrong as you want, for as long as you want.

Reality may not care one whit if I or you remain wrong, but wouldn't you want to know if you were wrong? I would want to know too.

That’s exactly what you DON’T want to know.

I just don't think he was. We all just want to know the truth. We are learning new things everyday about ourselves and our world. This discovery just happens to be a big one.

No. It’s not a discovery.

If you choose to change that, you could start with Newton's Optiks; That's where humanity at large started. Or you could skip to the end, and read QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (though that one isn't readily available online free of charge).

It will probably just state that light travels, therefore we see the past, but because light travels so fast we don't realize we are seeing a delayed image. Isn't that the theme?

No, it’s not.

We are all just looking for answers.

Except for you.

The animosity really doesn't serve anyone.

Ad hom.

Your problem here seems to be twofold: You refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong;

Why should I say he could have been wrong if I truly think he was right? Maybe it sounds arrogant, but I don't mean it to be.

Modal fallacy.

And you expect to be able to understand complex subjects without putting in any particuar effort.

I have made lots of effort.

He meant make an effort to understand Newton. You didn’t. It was “too long” for you to read.

People who understand his observations will either reject it or try to confirm it.

Everybody everywhere has rejected it, and it was experimentally ruled out hundreds of years ago.

We've been inculcated with this belief for so long that it must feel blasphemous to even suggest that science may not have gotten it right.

“Blasphemy” and “science” have nothing to do with each other. Science is not religion, and scientific findings are always under challenge.

If the author was wrong, so be it, but so far no experiments have actually proven that we see in delayed time.

Yes, they do, great big shit tons of them dating back hundreds of years.

The logic that light travels and therefore it takes time to get to our eyes has made this theory feel airtight. But science has gotten certain things wrong, although it's a rarity. This book is science based.

It is the opposite of science.

Either one will inevitably result in abject ignorance.

Yep. Who that is is yet to be determined.

It’s you.