View Single Post
  #39700  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:43 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What encloses the system IS THE IDEA THAT THE REFLECTION (DO NOT CALL THIS A STRAWMAN BECAUSE IT IS NOT) DOES NOT TRAVEL IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO SEE AN IMAGE IN DELAYED TIME WHICH YOU, SPACEMONKEY AND OTHERS ARE DEPENDING ON TO PROVE YOUR CASE.
:lolwut:

So what you are saying is that light is that is reflected does not travel to eye at the speed of light, but a "mirror image" is somehow projected from the object to the eyes instantaneously?
No LadyShea, that's not what I'm saying. All light is traveling. Does a light emitted from a candle travel? Of course it does, but the viewer is within optical range of the CANDLE. Just because the Sun is farther away doesn't change the fact that the light that is traveling from the Sun is at our eye just as quickly because the Sun and the viewer meet the requirements of efferent vision, not afferent vision which is the complete opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Hmm, which "idea" can be and has been empirically observed and measured and has been tested in many different ways, and which "idea" is completely made up by you and does not conform with reality at all?
I know it doesn't conform, but it's questionable which account is more consistent with reality. The verdict is still out.

Quote:
YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CASE EVEN BY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION AS FACT WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN C0NCLUSIVELY?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Standard optics stands up to rigorous testing and empirical observation, and makes predictions that are actually useful because they actually work in the real world. That's pretty conclusive proof in my book.
Of course optics is useful. When did I ever say it wasn't? I have never disputed standard optics. The only thing I'm questioning is whether our brain is looking at the world through the eyes, as a window, or whether the afferent account is the correct one. Optics still works in either case.
Optics does not allow for instantaneous physical light interactions from afar, light traveling virtually instantly, the negating of actual physical distance by any means, or candles having an optical range.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-03-2014)
 
Page generated in 0.08027 seconds with 11 queries