Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If efferent vision is plausible, then why is it that you can't answer a single damn question I ask you about it?
|
Because you're stuck thinking that objects reflect images. |
Nope. I've never said that, and it's certainly not what I think. I haven't been asking you anything about images at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I know that there is a discrepancy in your idea of image because light doesn't carry images, it is the image.
|
Nope. Light is not the image, and my questions don't concern images at all. Stop weaseling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Discussing traveling photons and where they started off, and where their location is which obviously involves time, is not going to adequately solve this problem or show that efferent vision violates any laws of physics.
|
Where the photons started and how they got to where you need them to be is the problem you need to solve. |
I give up. There is no meeting of the minds because you are ignoring the entire claim that distance is not a factor in this account. If distance is not a factor, can you at least admit that maybe what a person sees has nothing to do with the time it takes for photons to arrive?  |
You can't just twitch your nose and magic away distance. Distance must be a factor in any model because it physically exists in reality. |
No LadyShea, that's where you have absolutely no understanding of efferent vision and why distance is not a factor. But of course you think you are right, because you are LadyShea.  |
I don't understand it because you've never explained it without contradicting Lessans, or yourself, or the laws of physics. You've simply asserted that distance is not a factor, as if that is enough. Distance exists in physical reality, you can't wish it away or magic it away, you must account for it.
If you can't account for it, what you are positing is
impossible...not just implausible.