[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range.

Then you haven't understood the explanation. We just explained exactly why an image of that piece of matter cannot be resolved beyond a certain range. There's nothing strange about it at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.

Again, that is exactly what was just explained to you, and it makes perfect sense. What part do you not understand?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

You are conflating two different points. One is the claim that an object can be in direct line of sight and still be too far away to be seen. That is what has just been explained. The other is that an object cannot be seen at all unless that object is still in existence and within a certain range at the time light from it is arriving at the eye/detector. That is not true and therefore does not need explaining.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present. I've said this all along.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

That is simply not true, and is directly disproven by the Hubble telescope. The object has to be within a certain range at the time light leaves it for an image of it to be resolved, but that object need not still be within that range or even still exist at the time that light arrives at the detector. Our explanation does not have to explain this latter 'fact' because it is not a fact. It is your own unsupported claim. You can't argue that our explanation is inadequate because it can't explain your own made up 'facts'. You might as well claim that afferent vision is an inadequate model because it can't explain real-time vision.