A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, do you agree that light can be of different colors, that the color of light is constituted by its wavelength, and that neither light nor its wavelength can exist one without the other?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I shouldn't have used the word "travel." No wonder you got mixed up. Sorry.

No.

No, the blue does not travel along with the light, although light does travel.

The light took time to arrive from the Sun. In other words, the light from the Sun is constantly shining, therefore the photons are constantly being renewed. Those photons are whitish in color when all the colors in the visual spectrum come together. Light is the medium that allows us to see the external world in real time. Whatever we are looking at we will see due to light's properties of absorption and reflection. The blue light, therefore, did not take time to arrive. It is there for us to see as long as the object is reflecting that light and the object (or image) is within our visual field of view.

No. The photons are always traveling, but the image of the blue ball does not travel along with the photons. The blue ball can be seen because of light's properties of reflection and absorption.

My answer was no.

The ball was blue. The light was neutral. You keep talking about light, and I'm saying you need to focus on the object, not the light.

Red.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quoted to preserve it from retrofitting. Let us review.

So light merely needs to be at the camera for this camera to somehow, through merely detecting light and it's qualities, detect the qualities of the object, not of the light that is striking it.

This is achieved by means unknown.

No Vivisectus, the light is the same light that would strike the retina if we saw afferently, but instead of light traveling to the eye, the light is allowing a mirror image to be seen on the lens instantly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So the light that reaches the camera mysteriously turns blue even though the object emitting it was red at the time it emitted that light.

Oh my goodness. I need to take a breather.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whatever made the light change must have travelled faster than light - because the camera is designed to do nothing else than detect what kind of light is hitting the sensor.

That is exactly what it's doing Spacemonkey. It is a mirror image on the lens of the object. It is strictly due to light that the lens is able to use the light that is there. It's a snapshot of a moment in time that is seen instantly. If it is seen instantly by the lens of the eye; it is also an instantaneous mirror image on the lens of a camera because the lens of a camera and the lens of an eye work in the same way. The only difference is that the image that we see with our eyes shows up on our retina, whereas that same image shows up on the lens of a camera.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So - through means unknown, and means that are in conflict with the current thinking on physics, the light knows to turn a different color when it hits the sensor?

The light reflects whatever the colors of the object are. So if an object were to change colors, the light would reflect that change. Geeeeeeeezzz!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or... just maybe... there is a delay in sight as there is in hearing? A delay we have observed over and over ever since the 1600's? That is critical in how radar works, GPS systems, that we have observed directly when we sent probes to far away planets in our solar system... you name it!

Can you really not see it?

That light travels and that we have developed GPS systems and have probes sent to far away planets does not contradict efferent vision.

[Spacemonkey]

I can see you're back to magical instantaneous reflections. In reality, a reflection is just light which travels along at a given speed, hits a surface, and bounces of in another direction, all while traveling at a given speed. For you, a "reflection" can be somewhere instantaneously, and therefore cannot consist of light at all. Which means you are changing your claim about what it is that interacts with a camera's film. You first agreed that the color of the image will be determined by the properties of the light present at the camera. Now you claim it will be determined by something completely different - some kind of magical "reflection" not consisting of light, completely unknown to modern science, and which can be instantaneously present somewhere without travelling to get there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, do you agree that light can be of different colors, that the color of light is constituted by its wavelength, and that neither light nor its wavelength can exist one without the other?

I understand that, and I also understand that white light can be broken into a spectrum of colors. Depending on atmospheric conditions we are able to see all kinds of colorful phenomena such as rainbows, sunsets, blue skies, clouds, etc.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You're 200 pages behind. Why don't you get with the program already instead of rehashing the same old story, which you believe proves Lessans wrong. I already explained exactly why we would see the Sun turned on instantly. It's the same reason we would see anything instantly in the external world. Because as the lens looks at the object, the light is reflecting a mirror image on the lens INSTANTLY. You're all washed up David.

[/QUOTE]

...but you do not explain it at all. You just turn a lens into a magical object, that through the mysterious action of "focusing" somehow communicates directly with the object, not with the incoming light.

How this happens we still do not know.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that, and I also understand that white light can be broken into a spectrum of colors. Depending on atmospheric conditions we are able to see all kinds of colorful phenomena such as rainbows, sunsets, blue skies, clouds, etc.

So if you agree that the light at the camera at T1 has a color/wavelength (blue), that it is this blue light interacting with the film, that the blue light had to travel to get to the camera, and that the blueness is not something which can travel separately from the light itself..

...then what color was that light at T-1, just before it arrived at the camera?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Fix your post please, Peacegirl. That's Vivisectus you're replying to, and not me.

And I can see you're back to magical instantaneous reflections. In reality, a reflection is just light which travels along at a given speed, hits a surface, and bounces of in another direction, all while traveling at a given speed.

I agree with that. But the light does not take the wavelength of blue with it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For you, a "reflection" can be somewhere instantaneously, and therefore cannot consist of light at all. Which means you are changing your claim about what it is that interacts with a camera's film.

Absolutely wrong. It is light that is interacting with the film, along with the chemicals that turn it into a picture.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You first agreed that the color of the image will be determined by the properties of the light present at the camera.

That's exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now you claim it will be determined by something completely different - some kind of magical "reflection" not consisting of light, completely unknown to modern science, and which can be instantaneously present somewhere without travelling to get there.

Rubbish! I never changed my position. You're grasping at straws.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So if you agree that the light at the camera at T1 has a color/wavelength (blue), that it is this blue light interacting with the film, that the blue light had to travel to get to the camera, and that the blueness is not something which can travel separately from the light itself..

...then what color was that light at T-1, just before it arrived at the camera?

I see your problem Spacemonkey. You are doing the same thing David is doing. You are coming from an afferent model, and for the life of you, you can't understand how efferent vision works. You are still trying to put a square peg into a round hole, and you can't do it. That's why you are accusing me of being wrong, when it is your lack of understanding of efferent vision that's the problem.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, your responses are contradictory and completely inconsistent:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that, and I also understand that white light can be broken into a spectrum of colors. Depending on atmospheric conditions we are able to see all kinds of colorful phenomena such as rainbows, sunsets, blue skies, clouds, etc.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with that. But the light does not take the wavelength of blue with it.

Read through the above carefully, and try to identify your error.

Wavelength is not some separate thing that might or might not be carried along in addition to the light. Wavelength is a property of the light itself. Light travelling without its wavelength is as nonsensical as a triangle travelling along without its shape.

You clearly do not understand what you are claiming to agree with.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, this has nothing to do with vision. This is just about light. Since you claim not to reject any of the rules of how light behaves, why should any of our understanding different from yours on the rules of light?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see your problem Spacemonkey. You are doing the same thing David is doing. You are coming from an afferent model, and for the life of you, you can't understand how efferent vision works. You are still trying to put a square peg into a round hole, and you can't do it. That's why you are accusing me of being wrong, when it is your lack of understanding of efferent vision that's the problem.

You are weaselling out of answering the question again, Peacegirl.

Your own answers are massively inconsistent. Try again:

So if you agree that the light at the camera at T1 has a color/wavelength (blue), that it is this blue light interacting with the film, that the blue light had to travel to get to the camera, and that the blueness is not something which can travel separately from the light itself..

...then what color was that light at T-1, just before it arrived at the camera?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are weaselling out of answering the question again, Peacegirl.

Your own answers are massively inconsistent. Try again:

So if you agree that the light at the camera at T1 has a color/wavelength (blue), that it is this blue light interacting with the film, that the blue light had to travel to get to the camera, and that the blueness is not something which can travel separately from the light itself..

...then what color was that light at T-1, just before it arrived at the camera?

When her feet are in the fire and she is painted in a corner she can't get out of, she falls back on "You just don't understand." She is both ill, and massively dishonest. This could go on for 10,000 more pages and you will never get an honest answer out of her, because honestly requires recognizing that Lessans' claims are wrong.

[ceptimus]

According to Peacegirl and Lessans, I think the mechanism works like this:

1. Any object that is currently lit can be seen, or photographed instantly. The eye, or camera, looks out and can instantly perceive objects that are not dark.

2. Some 'active' objects, such as the sun, or a light bulb, emit their own light. The instant they are turned on, they are lit and we can therefore see them immediately. A camera can also photograph these objects immediately.

3. A second class of 'passive' objects - which includes the vast majority of objects - do not provide their own light and must be lit with light from an active source before they can be seen. The light can travel directly from the source to the object, or it can be reflected (ambient) light that will also ultimately have come from some active source.

4. Passively lit objects, described in (3) above, providing they are lit, can also be seen immediately and without delay. They can also be photographed in real time.

This requires that the efferent action of the eye works at infinite speed. Cameras also possess this same infinite speed efferent action - presumably we must have designed this feature into them by accident even though we misguidedly thought we were building passive light detectors.

The apparent changing times for the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter are due to some as-yet-unexplained interaction between the earth's position and the orbits of the moons.

The fact that we sometimes manage to send space probes to their destinations, despite misguidedly aiming them in the wrong direction is down to luck.

Radar works because although the reflections can be 'seen' immediately once the radar beam illuminates the target, the radar waves still have to travel out to the object before it becomes 'visible'. Radar waves must actually travel at half the speed we assume they do - we think they have to travel to the target and back, but really they only have to travel out to the target.

I'm sure all the other technologies that work, such as GPS, that we thought depended on afferent theory can also be explained using efferent theory, if we only try hard enough.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

You also switched your original story, and claimed that light has to be at the camera, for a picture to be recorded.

I asked you what happens if the neighbor is holding a camera when the sun is turned on. According to Lessans, the light won't be at the camera for eight and a half minutes. That is what HE SAID, peacegirl.

This means Lessans is claiming we see in real time, but photos are taken in delayed time.

Much as I do not want to support Lessans or Peacegirl, this would mean that we would see the Sun instantly in real time, but the camera would need to wait 8 1/2 min. for the light to arrive, at which time it could also take a photo of the Sun in real time. The real question is that if a light is switched on several light min. away, would we see it and be able to take a picture of it at the same time, or would the camera be delayed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where I am not following the rules of light. Light is in a constant stream. When I said that it's already there, I was talking about the constant stream of photons that are already there, such as the Sun's rays.

The change in color will affect the light's wavelength as we're looking at it, and that is the color we will see. If the ball is blue, that is the color that will be seen on the lens instantly.

No, the blue does not travel along with the light, although light does travel.


The light took time to arrive from the Sun. In other words, the light from the Sun is constantly shining, therefore the photons are constantly being renewed. Those photons are whitish in color when all the colors in the visual spectrum come together. Light is the medium that allows us to see the external world in real time. Whatever we are looking at we will see due to light's properties of absorption and reflection. The blue light, therefore, did not take time to arrive. It is there for us to see as long as the object is reflecting that light and the object (or image) is within our visual field of view.


No. The photons are always traveling, but the wavelength that allows us to see blue does not travel along with the neutral colored photons. The blue in the ball can be seen because of light's properties of reflection and absorption and our ability to see those objects in color is due to the cones in our retina that the brain looks through, as a window.


The ball was blue. The light was neutral. You keep talking about light, and I'm saying you need to focus on the object, not the light.

I thought it might be instructive to review some of Peacegirls previous statements.

[ceptimus]

There's another effect that can be used to determine whether Lessans' model is correct. This effect is known as Stellar Abberation and was first successfully measured by James Bradley in 1725.

The effect produces an apparent displacement of all stars, galaxies and other astronomical objects, regardless of their distance, and is due to the Earth's motion around the Sun.

Note that this is NOT a parallax effect due to the Earth's changing position. The parallax effect can be used to measure the distance of some nearby stars, but Stellar Aberration affects all the stars in the same part of the sky equally, regardless of their distance.

Stellar Aberration is not due to the Earth's changing position, rather it is due to the Earth's changing velocity. Velocity is not the same thing as speed - velocity also includes direction. Although the Earth is always orbiting the Sun at a roughly constant speed of 66,600 miles per hour, it is moving in a circle.

The usual analogy to explain Stellar Aberration is that of walking in the rain.

Imagine you are outside on a calm day when rain is falling. When you stand still the rain comes from directly overhead and falls straight down. If you have an umbrella, you will hold it directly above your head to keep yourself dry.

Now when you begin to walk, the rain appears to slant towards you from the direction you are walking towards. You will hold your umbrella tilted forward to keep yourself dry. If you run, you will have to tilt the umbrella more.

Imagine you are running around a large circle. You will sometimes be tilting the umbrella North, later East, later still South and West and eventually North again. From your (moving) point of view, you would say that the rain is coming from these different directions as you traverse the circle.

Exactly the same thing happens with light from the stars as it reaches the moving Earth. When we look up at the sky at right angles to the plane of the Earth's orbit, we see all the stars slightly deflected towards the current direction of the Earth's travel.

Six months later, when the Earth is travelling in the opposite direction, the stars appear to be slightly deflected the opposite way.

Now you can see, from the rain analogy, that the apparent deflection angle is down to the ratio of the speed of fall of the raindrops, compared to your speed of movement. If you could run (or more likely drive) forwards at the same speed the raindrops fall, then your would see the raindrops approach you at an angle of 45.

Because the speed of the Earth is so low compared to the speed of light, the actual angles of Stellar Aberration are tiny, so observers have to carefully allow for other effects, such as the diffraction caused by the Earth's atmosphere in order to measure them. Nevertheless, Bradley and others were able to make these measurements, and surprise surprise they agree exactly with predictions based on the known speed of light and the speed of the Earth on its orbit.

Infinite speed seeing would not be affected by Stellar Aberration, so we have yet another strand of conclusive evidence that proves we do not see distant objects instantly.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

There's another effect that can be used to determine whether Lessans' model is correct. This effect is known as Stellar Abberation and was first successfully measured by James Bradley in 1725.

The effect produces an apparent displacement of all stars, galaxies and other astronomical objects, regardless of their distance, and is due to the Earth's motion around the Sun.

Note that this is NOT a parallax effect due to the Earth's changing position. The parallax effect can be used to measure the distance of some nearby stars, but Stellar Aberration affects all the stars in the same part of the sky equally, regardless of their distance.

Stellar Aberration is not due to the Earth's changing position, rather it is due to the Earth's changing velocity. Velocity is not the same thing as speed - velocity also includes direction. Although the Earth is always orbiting the Sun at a roughly constant speed of 66,600 miles per hour, it is moving in a circle.

The usual analogy to explain Stellar Aberration is that of walking in the rain.

Imagine you are outside on a calm day when rain is falling. When you stand still the rain comes from directly overhead and falls straight down. If you have an umbrella, you will hold it directly above your head to keep yourself dry.

Now when you begin to walk, the rain appears to slant towards you from the direction you are walking towards. You will hold your umbrella tilted forward to keep yourself dry. If you run, you will have to tilt the umbrella more.

Imagine you are running around a large circle. You will sometimes be tilting the umbrella North, later East, later still South and West and eventually North again. From your (moving) point of view, you would say that the rain is coming from these different directions as you traverse the circle.

Exactly the same thing happens with light from the stars as it reaches the moving Earth. When we look up at the sky at right angles to the plane of the Earth's orbit, we see all the stars slightly deflected towards the current direction of the Earth's travel.

Six months later, when the Earth is travelling in the opposite direction, the stars appear to be slightly deflected the opposite way.

Now you can see, from the rain analogy, that the apparent deflection angle is down to the ratio of the speed of fall of the raindrops, compared to your speed of movement. If you could run (or more likely drive) forwards at the same speed the raindrops fall, then your would see the raindrops approach you at an angle of 45.

Because the speed of the Earth is so low compared to the speed of light, the actual angles of Stellar Aberration are tiny, so observers have to carefully allow for other effects, such as the diffraction caused by the Earth's atmosphere in order to measure them. Nevertheless, Bradley and others were able to make these measurements, and surprise surprise they agree exactly with predictions based on the known speed of light and the speed of the Earth on its orbit.

Infinite speed seeing would not be affected by Stellar Aberration, so we have yet another strand of conclusive evidence that proves we do not see distant objects instantly.

Yep, and this stuff was also on the page I linked to peacegirl, here.

And painted into a corner with no way out, she will say:




It's time to ignore the nut. If she gets no further responses maybe her family can tear her away from the puter and get her some much needed help.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can't. Light travels and light arrives unless we're looking at an object or image through a lens. Then light becomes a mirror image on the lens.

I get it. Light only travels when we aren't looking at anything. As soon as we look at an object the light stops traveling. This is very helpful.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-121

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive...”

I am with the teacher here. No matter how positive I was about my facts I would not put my hand on a chopping block in Lessans presence if he was armed with a cleaver of some sort. Not because I was not sure of my facts, but because I was not sure of Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-121

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes.

What in the hell is an "electric image"? Lessans appears to think that light is like a man in black suit walking through a room full of cats. With each cat that he comes into contact with during his passage he picks up some new samples of cat hair. When he arrives at his destination he takes his suit to the drycleaners and the drycleaner is able to describe back to him the appearance and characteristics of each cat that he came into contact with.

This thread is so educational. I learn something new with nearly every one of peacegirl's posts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why you are accusing me of being wrong, when it is your lack of understanding of efferent vision that's the problem.

Not to speak for any of the other posters here, but I have to agree that I do not understand efferent vision. However, I believe that the reason that I do not understand efferent vision is because it is entirely incoherent. In any case, I am not accusing you and Lessans of being wrong because I don't understand efferent vision. I am accusing you and Lessans of being wrong because you are wrong. It really is that simple.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's time to ignore the nut. If she gets no further responses maybe her family can tear her away from the puter and get her some much needed help.

To hell with that noise. I look forward to my daily dose of peacegirl with an ever growing sense of eager anticipation. I am like a junkie jonesing for my next fix. Withdrawal could be well be fatal.

David, what have I ever done to you that you want to cause me such pain? Do you hate me that much?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can't. Light travels and light arrives unless we're looking at an object or image through a lens. Then light becomes a mirror image on the lens. BTW, Lessans was absolutely right in his observation regarding seeing the Sun instantly before the light arrives 8 minutes later. I hope my explanation will help people better understand why this is true.

If sight is efferent, the sun being turned on would be seen instantly because it would be in our field of vision, therefore light would be striking the lens. Once again, you have to picture everything within that space. A candle in the dark would be viewed in the same way that the moon in the dark would be viewed. We can interpret the difference, but the lens cannot. Furthermore, Lessans said nothing about light not being at the eye. I'll post this excerpt again for those who didn't have a chance to read it.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-121

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light?

The answer is very simple. An
image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because
the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with
the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel.

This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars. To paraphrase this another way; if you
could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see
me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same
time that a person sitting right next to me would — which brings us
to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Upon hearing this
explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see
the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at
12 noon?” Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present. If the sun were to explode
while we were looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not
8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant
stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes
away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these
objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when
enough light is present.

This fallacy has come into existence because
the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes
longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a
thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the
same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the
waves of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun,
or distant stars.

To sum this up — just as we have often observed
that a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a
distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been
taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a
telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move
instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3
seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling
186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric
image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this
distance.

So peacegirl, are you willing to have your hand chopped off is Lessans is wrong?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Lessans

Since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when five thousand...

I think this is backwards, even for Lessans. Presumably this is a simple mistake and he meant to write 'less time' rather than 'longer'.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

That is exactly what it's doing Spacemonkey. It is a mirror image on the lens of the object.

Which got there... how? Do you mean image as something you experience, or image as something you see on a screen or a photograph? Do you even know?

It is strictly due to light that the lens is able to use the light that is there.

Lol?

It's a snapshot of a moment in time that is seen instantly. If it is seen instantly by the lens of the eye; it is also an instantaneous mirror image on the lens of a camera because the lens of a camera and the lens of an eye work in the same way.

Gotcha. Lenses are magic! Problem solved.

The only difference is that the image that we see with our eyes shows up on our retina, whereas that same image shows up on the lens of a camera.

And then you even get THAT wrong. Camera lenses don't record anything. You mean sensor.

Magic efferent cameras that we accidentally created while designing something else entirely! Capturing images at infinite speed no matter what the distance is! Because of the magic of lenses and light that allows you to use light because of light!

Groundbreaking stuff. All we need now is a few sattelites around, say, Jupiter and we can start sending messages back in time because we will be able to communicate without having to wait for the boring old speed of light. We can receive answers to questions we have not asked yet, since Lessans is right and we have tested relativity, and it is right as well. Huzzah!

We will have to re-think all of science. Causality is now definitely out the door: that which causes something can now precede that something happening.

But wait a minute! Time being a one-way street is the exact thing that Lessans based his unfree will on, as well as his belief in reincarnation! Lessans is so revolutionary, he even overthrows his own ideas!

Truly this is a revolution in thought - it goes round and round, and everything is back to front.

[LadyShea]

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

This has always bothered me. What scientist or encyclopedia or textbook said or says this shit about seeing Columbus from Rigel? I've never heard or read any such thing except from Lessans.

[LadyShea]

What do you mean by "on" the lens?

Geometric Optics - Refraction, Lens, Vision - PhET

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/camera.htm

[LadyShea]

you can't understand how efferent vision works.

Because you can't explain how it works. None of your explanations make any sense.

We know how lenses work, we know how light works, we know how they work together...anyone can demonstrate how light and lenses work together for themselves with some lenses and light.

You keep talking about mirror images on a lens as if that explains something and it doesn't. Can you draw a diagram and scan it and upload it to the gallery so we can all see what you are trying to describe, and then how it fits with what any child can see when playing with lenses?