So if I understand you correctly, you're going to leave us to our party while you sit at home and bask in your reward?

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Did you miss the first post at the top of page two? Beaver was essentially on the money! Go read

http://home.jam.rr.com/dicksfiles/reality/CHAP_I.htm

I suggest you either ignore it or read it carefully. If you just scan it, you won't understand it and, if it dosen't interest you enough to read carefully it, isn't worth your time to look at it. I am not worried about the issue at all as, at the moment, I doubt there is anybody on this forum who has the education necessary to follow it. That is not intended to be an insult, it is just a statement of my impressions. If I am wrong, someone here ought to be able to talk about it rationally.

And what great reward would you be referring to here? You couldn't possibly be trying to deflect that "ignorance is bliss" reference back on me now would you \/

Just ignore him.

Well first you must have misread because I don't know where the telepaty thing came from. I was pretty explicit about how data gets into our brains.

In your second quote, data is provided to us in a way that if our senses are decieving us, its easy enough to tell. If for example the data is the weight of an object, you get it by reading it off the scale (digital). This data is so unambiguous that the only way to read it wrong upon close inspection (barring plain old errors) would be to halucinate. And the proof is easy enough - have a large number of people read the scale and if someone reads it differently they must be wrong. Unless of course you are saying we are all victims of identical mass halucinations or delusions, ie The Matrix.

My two cents worth… :wink:

I found the central gist of the paper to be an expose (in the eyes of the author) of Einstein's theories (which, if I read correctly,) he ultimately sees later in his paper as invalid. He sees Einstein's concept of time as fundamentally flawed. To support the contention of these flaws, the author employs a series of mathematical arguments wherein a presented flow of equations serve to illustrate how misplaced perception is interpreted as actual phenomenon. (At least as I recon from what I understood, and I’m leaving out a lot.)

These equations are also used to support the position that mainstream physics and science today, while accepting relativity theory, is similarly blind to a more (common sense) reality. The author attempts to show that "…gravitational red shift is not a valid test of Einstein's general theory." He states that gravity has "analogous relationships" to the "classical pseudo force" known as centrifugal force. (I wasn't sure if he found this as a problem of general relativity or not, it's a long paper and I read it quickly.) He describes Einstein’s use of Minkowski's space-time geometry as "foolish" in support of special relativity though concedes that it is strongly supported in general relativity. He does not see the "perhelic" shift of Mercury as a valid test of "Einstein's theory." (Einstein seems to be the central target here.) The author claims that his math shows that the bending of starlight by our sun (the eclipse test) is invalid, because "the radial motion of the photon is only comparable to the angular motion for large r."
The author also feels that the paper demonstrates that Minkowski's mathematical concept of spacetime does not validate the Lorentz transformations and cannot test general relativity.

Therefore, to me, this is one of quite a few "anti-relativity" sites found on the Internet these days. Some are not really "anti-Einstein" but rather "anti-relativity," offering alternate ideas. Some are really "anti-Einstein," and some are completely loony. Many are totally unscientific, and some have absolutely no reference to actual equations that Einstein or other scientists used. This one, in my opinion, is surely the most intellectual I’ve seen. His main gist (as I saw it) returns to the opening concept of perceptions in that our instruments have "rigid components" but, as he puts it "Einstein's refusal to allow us to even define rigid objects throws a wrench into the whole field of physics."

Though Einstein is not infallible, I see no reason to vilify him or call him names. (I’ll clearly state my pro-Einstein bias here that the evidence offered by Dr. Dick is unconvincing to me. No doubt facing insult, I’ll state right up front that I appreciate the achievements of Einstein and have not yet seen contradictions to relativity theory that give me pause. But if I did, my opinion of Einstein would remain very high.) If people have objections to relativity, bring them out but let the memory of this great mind and humanitarian remain above the fray. The fact that Einstein and his theories are the target along with all modern physics should give one pause that something is way off kilter with this paper. Also, the beginning chapter on perception and consciousness might benefit from some of the insights of Julian Jaynes. Finally, the author’s overall rudeness in this BABB thread precludes much discussion, but if there is a core value to the paper (in my opinion,) it would best codify in an essay on perceptions, and questioning values embedded in the methods of science rather than criticism of people or contradiction of proven theories. It seems an extreme intellectual-mathematical version of the argument that nature must follow "common sense." Nature is not always obligated to do that. Good luck.

Well, Dick, you never responded to my post. I am still waiting for your response.

(emphasis mine)

You are clearly not an expert but when I offered you the following bit of expertise to correct your error, you ignored it. So I'll post it again and see if you care to either agree you did not understand the human brain or cite some evidence that you do.

This is an oversimplification of brain development. There are critical periods where certain things such as language acquisition must occur. It appears, and we don't really have enough examples to be certain, that if a person has no communication stimulus for the first 10+ or - years, they will be unable to acquire language. But a deaf person who's hearing is restored as an adult, can learn language. So what you are attributing to sensory input, sound, is not the critical brain feature in this problem. It is the intellectual skill of communication. In other words, language, written, spoken, signed, what ever that must be built in the brain by a certain developmental stage or the structures needed will not be able to form.

If I don't experience any color sensory input, I don't expect the color receptors in the eye to deteriorate. Whether or not I have to build a brain structure to perceive that color, and whether or not there is a time limit are possibilities.

And,
Of course there are errors in one's mental image of reality!!!!!!! Biologists, Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Neurologists, Healthcare Professionals, and just about anyone with a little education on how the brain functions knows that.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Hi,

I have noticed that you have not commented on my response. If it was your intention not to respond to my answer, I apologize for bothering you; however, it just occurred to me that you might be depending on the notification system and not generally perusing the forum. If that is the case, you may very well have missed my response as I started a new thread. If you are still interested, you can check out

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=8107

On rereading that post, I realized that it was entirely possible that you took my final comment to you on that post as an insult. Believe me, no insult was intended. I was merely letting you off the hook if you wanted off.

Again, sorry if I have upset you. -- Dick

I did see your new thread. I didn't get the impression I needed to respond. I understand what you are getting at in your discussion, but I have nothing to add to it. I don't view the Universe from such a perspective. From my perspective, everything is an illusion our minds construct. But we construct that illusion around neuro input. The structure of our brains and how we compose that illusion is a very concrete process.

The difference here is I am in the field of biology. I have learned a great deal about how the brain functions. From my point of view, the brain can be dissected and understood. All of the neuro-input is filtered through previous experience. Our brain function alters the input, assigns value, arranges it, mixes it up on occasion, and so on.

As individuals, I fail to see how you can connect that brain function which can be seen evolving from single celled organisms all the way to all 'brains' on the planet today, to the basis of the reality itself, rather than as a mere player in the reality surrounding us. We just aren't that important to the Universe's existence.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.