Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not assuming anything. These are accurate observations...
|
How do you know? Nobody else thinks they are accurate, everyone disagrees with his observations, and his conclusions contradict the known laws of physics.
And no, that's not just because I'm looking at things from the 'wrong' perspective. If we, as you claim, saw in real time, that means information (provided by vision) can propagate instantly across any distance. That breaks relativity completely, ruining causality. That's only one of dozens of physical principles wrecked by Lessans daft proposal. And before you claim "That's because you're looking at it from the wrong perspective!", nothing about vision or even the behavior of light underpins relativity. Granting your claims about vision are true can not and does not change the conclusions of relativity - conclusions that contradict your claims about vision. |
It does not mean that anything can propagate instantly across any distance. |
Of course it does. Sun goes off, I see that happen instantly. Boom, information has propagated instantly from the Sun to me. Forbidden by relativity unless you want to abandon causality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragar
So how do you know his 'observations' (which they aren't - they are claims, not observations) are correct?
|
They are his observations based on his understanding of how the brain works. You can't tell me that he is wrong because we are in the rudimentary stages of understanding the brain.
|
By the same token you can't tell me they are right. How do you know his understanding of the brain is correct? Especially given everything seems aligned to point to the fact he was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragar
You can't explain why gravitational lensing produces two images of a galaxy, one being an image at a different time to another. You say, "Oh, I'm sure there's some reason. That must be to do with gravity."
|
Gravitational lensing is two different light pathways. That doesn't negate efferent vision. 
|
Of course it does. According to Lessans, we see the galaxy instantly. So why can we see two different images of the same galaxy? That's easy for me to explain - light takes longer to go down one path than the other, so I see a slight delay in one image. But for you, it flat out contradicts 'instant' vision. Or is there a magical reason you can't tell me for this too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dragar
You can't explain why our rockets can reach distant planets using what is (according to you) a flawed calculation of their present position. That shouldn't work if Lessans is right, but what do you say? "Oh, there must be some explanation. I don't have to explain what it is, but Lessans is right, so there must be one."
|
Those calculations have nothing to do with efferent vision. Remember, we can calculate the speed of light and come to a correct conclusion, but when it comes to sight that's a different story if sight is efferent. |
Of course they do. Because we use where we see the planets to be to work out where they are. If we assumed we saw them instantly like Lessans claims, we would get it wrong. Instead we assume that we see them with a delay due to the travel of light, and get it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
THERE IS NO MAGICAL EXPLANATION; JUST OBSERVATION BASED ON A DIFFERENT PREMISE!
|
Oh really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We don't know if there is another explanation yet because scientists haven't looked.
|
A magical one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Just as in the moons of Jupiter, there may be a different explanation than the one proposed.
|
Another magical one? Really? |
Bump, as you chose to respond (twice more) to my previous post, instead of this.