Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.
|
That's the afferent theory Spacemonkey. If the object is in range (which is not required in the afferent model), and if the non-absorbed light reveals the object but does not travel (although the non-absorbed photons are continually being replaced by the Sun's energy), then you are misunderstanding what is actually happening. You are still imagining a great distance between the object and the camera which would then cause a time delay. But if the camera is aimed at the object, then the light becomes an instant mirror image just like it does with the eyes, and there is no time involved.