Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Assuming that when the Sun is turned on it is bright enough to be seen, the photons would be at the retina due to the fact that this object is already in optical range.
|
Quote:
|
Lessans never implied that we can see without photons at the eye.
|
 And how do the photons get there?
Quote:
|
I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.
|
Do you know what you just said? You just said:
"I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye."
That's what you just said!
Yes, O peacegirl, this is VERY difficult for us lamebrains to understand! Do enlighten us, you nutter nonpareil! How can photons be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye?
Please do explain this!  |
I have explained this over and over and over and over again. |
You've "explained" nothing. You just said that you knew it was hard to understand how photons can be at the eye, when they haven't reached they eye. We are waiting for you to explain how photons can be at the eye when they haven't reached the eye. Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?
Quote:
|
We're not depending on light for the image. We're seeing the object directly.
|
How?
Quote:
|
In the efferent account, which is the exact opposite of the afferent account, light only has to be surrounding the object to be seen. Distance and time are not factors (which you can't seem to reconcile); only size and brightness.
|
So, again, dum-dum, do photons have to be at the eye or not?
The problem with your account, of course, is not just that it is mind-bendingly dumb and incoherent. It is also effortlessly refuted, and everyone watches as you refuse to respond to all the refutations.
How many times have we been over this one?
You say time and distance are not involved. Yet we know the distance to the moon. It takes light about 1.25 seconds to reach the moon from the earth.
As I have previously noted, if Lessans were right, and the light just had to "be at" the moon to be seen, then if we fired a laser from the earth to the moon, we should see the light on the moon 1.25 seconds after it leaves the earth. Please don't start your idiocy about how these time intervals are too short to measure accurately. They are measured by machines that can make accurate readings of intervals far shorter than this.
Instead, we have to wait 2.5 seconds to see the light. This proves without any doubt that we can't see the light until it has been reflected off the surface of the moon, and made the return trip to our eyes. This also means we are seeing the moon as it was 1.25 seconds in the past.
Therefore, Lessans was wrong. A simple experiment like this, which has been done for decades, proves that his whole work was utter rubbish.
Now let's watch you fail to deal with this yet again.  |
You still didn't answer me. Why are you back? Are you worried that without your interference, the world may fall apart and people will start believing wrong things? What is your rationale for being here if you are so positive he is a screwball? Don't you have better things to do than listen in on a two year discussion that just resets itself? If he's wrong, the test of time will dismiss his claims, so you really don't have to worry yourself into a frenzy.  |
I've been away for some six months, but I've dropped back in for the lulz.
The real question has always been, why are YOU here?
Anyway, see above. The cesium atomic clocks used to measure laser pulses off the moon are accurate down to picoseconds, far beyond the ability of a human to measure. So Lessans was wrong.