Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
According to efferent vision, the full visible spectrum stays intact even when it bounces off of objects. But, of course, until it's proven that efferent vision is true, anything that depends on efferent vision for its validity, will also be suspect.
|
It is clear that Lessans' efferent vision requires that light behave differently than is stipulated by current theory so you have to postulate some new property of light that will allow efferent vision to work. However, absent empirical evidence for this previously unknown property of light, the property itself is purely speculative. You cannot use a speculative property of light to defend your claims about efferent vision. That is like trying to prove a maybe with a maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Regardless of how far away the observer is from the object, that non-absorbed wavelength is still an instant mirror image on the film/retina as long as it's still within visual range. The object just gets smaller and smaller as it gets further and further away, which means that less photons are interacting with the film/retina.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
I trust that you do realize that the object does not actually get smaller. It just appears to be smaller.
|
Of course. That's why I said it depends on the location of the observer. If they're closer to the object than someone else, it will obviously appear bigger in comparison.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Given that the actual object remains the same size, regardless of its distance from the film/retina, is there any reason to suppose that the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object changes? If the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object does not change, and they do not have to travel in order to interact with the film/retina why, according to efferent vision, should there be fewer photons interacting with the film/retina simply because the object is further away?
|
Yes, there would be less photons interacting with the film/retina. Optics explains this very clearly, and it supports Lessans' claim. Remember, when the lens of the film/camera focuses on the object, it will be an exact mirror image on the film/retina regardless of how small or large the object is in relation to the observer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
In other words, if, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor with regard to efferent vision, just so long as the object is visible, then why should the distance of the obect from the film/retina affect the number of photons interacting with the film/retina? For that matter, why, according to efferent vision, should it be the case that the further away the object is the smaller it appears to be?
|
This has to do with optics. The further away an object is from the film/retina, the less photons are interacting with it. No surprise here. I'm not sure what you're getting at. |
If, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor in efferent vision, then the mirror image you are talking about should be an exact duplicate of the object itself, as it actually exists. That means that the mirror image should be the same size as the actual object. The apparent size of the object would be irrelevant. In fact, if, according to efferent vision, what we are seeing is the actual object then we should see it in its actual dimensions. There should be no such thing as apparent size, only actual size. The difference between actual size and apparent size only exists because distance is a factor and distance is factor because the light from the object has to travel across that distance. According to efferent vision the light does not have to travel and so distance is not a factor. Therefore, there should be no such thing as apparent size, only actual size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But if you understand efferent vision, then what you get is a true mirror image no matter how far away that object is from the lens. All that's required is that the lens, focusing on the screen of the external world, will get that same image on film instantly because the object and light are one and the same.
|
If the object and the light are the one and same, then that means that the object itself is present at the film/retina. That means (as I believe davidm pointed out a lifetime ago) that when you look at the sun the sun is physically present in your eye. Ignore, for the moment, the sheer physical impossibility of that being the case. This also means that if two people are looking at the sun at the same time that each of them has the same sun physically present in their eyes. The means that the sun is in at least three different places at the same time. It occupies space in the galaxy, space in your eye and space the second person's eye. That is remarkable, to put it mildly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If light is coming from an object...
|
You can stop right there. The phrase "light is coming from an object" implies that light is traveling away from away from the object, something you have repeatedly claimed is not necessary for efferent vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I DID NOT WRITE THIS BOOK.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Except, of course, the substantial portions that you did write.
|
No Angakuk, I did not make this discovery, okay? I only added examples where I felt it would clarify the concept, but in no way, shape, or form did I make changes to the original concepts. That would not be good stewardship, and that was my biggest worry as I was compiling his 7 books. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
How is that not an example of you having written some substantial portion of the book?
|
I wouldn't say that. The majority of the book was written by Lessans. Why do I sense hostility in you Angakuk? |
I never said that you wrote the majority of the book, only that you are responsible for substantial portions of the book. Why do you persist in trying to deny this?
As for why you are sensing hostility, I couldn't possibly say. |
Look back at your responses. I don't think this is coming from my sensitivity. You seem to be getting angrier, for what reason I don't know. I hope you listen to what I'm saying (which no one seems to care about) because you have stuck with me this long. At the very least you could give me the same respect you always have. |
I asked you several quite specific questions about the behavior of light and I offered some well reasoned critiques of your claims and the only thing you want to talk about is your mistaken belief that I am angry and being hostile. Why is that?
For the record, I am not the least bit angry and any hostility that you think you are sensing is purely the result of your imagination. If you think this is not true then please quote the specific instances where I have been hostile and expressed even the least bit of anger. Do that and then get cracking on answering my questions and rebutting my critiques.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Angakuk, if you think I wrote most of the book, I am going to be selling an MP3 audio of him reading his book. It is Lessans talking and elaborating on his principles, not me. It is his own words, not mine. So will you finally concede that you are wrong? I did NOT discover these concepts. I did NOT add large portions to the book either. I added examples, which you seem to be ignoring to get people to reject this discovery. And you wonder why I sense your hostility????
|
I will say it again, I never suggested that you wrote most of the book. I merely pointed out that you are responsible for substantial portions of the book. Substantial does mean "most" and it does not mean "majority". I do indeed wonder why you sense hostility when hostility does not even enter into it.