Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The retina is a location and the Sun is a location. If the Sun is newly turned on at noon, and the photons are on the retina at noon as well as being emitted by the Sun at noon, that means light is in two places at the same time.
|
Quote:
|
No it does not. It means the photons are at the retina
|
Are the photons also at the Sun or en route to Earth?
If yes, then you have the same photons at two locations
If no then you have photons teleporting to retinas
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Then why did you say "No it does not" when my point absolutely stands?
|
Quote:
|
No it does not stand. Light energy is constantly traveling so how can photons be at two places at the same time?
|
Because you have stated they are located at the retina and also at the Sun at noon
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
I did not say "no it does not" when the conditions are favorable. What are you talking about LadyShea, and why are you trying, as koan does, to implicate me on things that have no bearing on this discussion?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What are you talking about with favorable conditions? We are using Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon, and being able to see the Sun at noon when no photons, at all, are on Earth..again according to his very own scenario. These "conditions" are very clearly stated in the quoted posts above.
You have stated that photons will physically interact with retinas and camera film under these conditions at noon.
|
Only if the Sun is so bright that we are able to see this star when it's first turned on. |
According to Lessans scenario, this is the case. He sated we will see the Sun at noon.
Where all are photons located at noon in that scenario?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
That means you have photons located 1. on the Sun, and 2. on camera film or retinas, at noon. That's two different locations (count them) at the same time(noon).
|
No it doesn't. |
Yes, it does. Unless you are not saying photons are on the retina, or you are not saying that photons are not beginning to be emitted by the Sun at noon
Quote:
|
You are looking at the photons traveling to Earth before we can see the Sun (the afferent perspective)
|
No I am not talking about seeing at all.
I am only asking you to clarify where photons are physically located, at noon, in Lessans scenario. Which you know what I am asking and are choosing to act dense as a way to weasel. |
You are so confused as to what efferent vision allows that you think you are right in your condemnation. But you are not right, and for you to act as if you do is a total sham LadyShea. Just admit that you aren't sure, and that would be a great leap toward deciphering what is actually true from what is THOUGHT to be true. |
I am sure you are copping out with your weaseling. Answer the questions, that will help decipher the efferent account, which you currently have as something from Wonderland.
Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time.
Are there photons located on retinas at 12:00:00? If yes, where did they come from? How did they get there?
Are there photons located on the Sun just being emitted at 12:00:00? |
I didn't come back to get into this again. Light does not have to travel to Earth for light to interact with the retina in the efferent model. |
Then light has completely different properties in the efferent model. Why do you keep denying that this is the case? |
Sorry, but light does not have completely different properties in the efferent model. Light energy travels; photons travel. The only thing that has changed is the direction we see. |
Then why did you say " Light does not have to travel to Earth for light to interact with the retina in the efferent model"?
The ability to physically interact with matter at a physical distance is not a property that light has.
Quote:
|
If it is true that the brain looks through the eyes, as a window to the world, that is what allows light to be at the retina even though light hasn't reached Earth yet.
|
Interacting with matter at a physical distance is an unknown property of light. Sorry that's just a fact. If you can explain how this occurs without positing new properties of light or impossibilities, then do so, if you are just going to keep making assertions you can't support, what's the point of your "coming back"? |
There is no physical distance in this account. It's not like shaking hands across the internet. |
According to the laws of physics there is physical distance and it is exactly like shaking hands across the Internet. So, you need new laws of physics for your model to work as well as new properties of light.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegir
That's what I'm trying to tell you. But you can't see this because you are thinking in terms of light instead of the eyes.
|
I am asking about light, it's locations and properties, in your model, based on statements about the locations and properties of light
you've made.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl[quote=peacegirl
Light is a condition of sight; it does not cause sight. It allows the object to be seen in real time; it does not travel through space/time without the event or object present in some form.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In this scenario the object is the Sun, and it is present.
And light does travel through space and time. That is a known and empirically observable property of light.
So, please admit that for efferent vision to be true, light must have completely different properties than it is known and observed to have.
|
Quote:
|
No, I won't admit that because light does not have to have completely different properties. None whatsoever.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This statement contradicts previous statements. So you are contradicting yourself.
|
The only difference is that non-absorbed light, as opposed to absorbed light, does not get reflected and travel through space time. |
So you were totally mistaken when you said "light does not have to have completely different properties. None whatsoever." because it obviously does.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The physics of light remains the same.
|
Um no. Because in light physics all light travels through space and time and light does get reflected if it is not absorbed or transmitted.
Your statements are completely contrary to the properties of light
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Light travels through space and time unless/until it is absorbed by matter it encounters. The emitting or reflecting object has nothing to do with this property of light.
|
Yes it does. |
Not unless you are requiring light have different properties than it is known to have.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Also, you ignored the question:
Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time.
|
Quote:
|
Just like seeing a Supernova, if the Sun is large enough and bright enough when it first turned on (again, if it is not bright enough it will take time for us to see it; but this is not the same thing as seeing the Sun after the photons reach Earth) we will see it in real time because the conditions that are required for sight have been met, although the light being emitted from the Sun won't reach Earth for 8 minutes during which time we will be able to see each other.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You ignored the question again.
Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time
|
I already answered this. The photons would be at the eye when the Sun is just turned on at noon if there was a strong ignition. If it was ignited but grew in size, then we would not see it instantly. Lessans was trying to make a distinction between seeing the sun according to the requirements of efferent vision, and seeing the Sun only after the photons traveled for 8 minutes and reached Earth. |
Lessans said nothing about "strong ignition" or growing in size.
Lessans scenario stated if the Sun, as we know it to be, was newly turned on at noon by God, we would see the Sun at noon. Quit mealy mouthing and weasling.
Is your answer that at noon, light photons are located at the newly turned on Sun and at the retina? If yes, that is two places at the same time.