Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Would there be photons located on Earth, at the eyes and on camera film or digital sensors, before the photons traveling from the Sun arrived on Earth? You have said yes a dozen times, shall I dig up the quotes for you?
Lessans didn't even take the mechanics of camera film and photoreceptors into account. That there must be photons physically located on camera film for a photograph to be taken didn't even occur to him...he never mentioned cameras. You have had to try to reconcile this, and it cannot be reconciled.
|
You don't know what you're talking about. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Sure I do. Because I know how cameras and digital photosensors work.
|
Quote:
|
So what? The fact that it's the same light, the same object, and the same size and brightness makes what is seen on film the exact same thing as would be seen in real time.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yes, and the light has to get to the film or photosensor, which is what you cannot explain in the efferent account. You can assert all you want, but until you explain, using a mechanism that is not magic, how that light is present on the surface of camera film without having traveled there, you have nothing but gobbeldy gook.
|
1. The light is at the retina and film already.
2. There is no travel time.
3. It is not magic;
4. it only appears that way if you don't understand why the brain using the eye as a window to the external world allows this phenomenon of real time vision to occur. |
1. How did it get there?
2. If not by traveling, how did the light become present on the surface of camera film?
3. Until you can answer 1 and 2, it is indeed magic
4. I certainly can't understand what the brain using the eyes as windows has to do with light photons coming to be located on the surface of camera film without any physically possible mechanism for coming to be at that location.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Photons have to be at the object, so we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes, but that does not mean we wouldn't be able to see the Sun when it was first ignited.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It does mean we wouldn't be able to photograph the Sun, though. Because photons must be in the same physical location as the camera film or digital sensor  |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Of course it's true, because of how cameras and digital photosensors work.
|
Quote:
|
Right, and the same exact conditions that allow light to be at the film are the same conditions that allow light (or a mirror image, so to speak) to be at the retina.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The only known mechanism for light being located somewhere is that it traveled there. "Conditions" are not a mechanism. "Conditions" are not an explanation of the physics involved in instant photography. It's just a weasely way to say magic.
|
You are still conceptualizing that light is the conveyer of the image. It is not. It is a condition only, which changes the function of light in terms of what it does. We do not interpret the light. Light reveals what exists out there.
|
I am not talking about images or even seeing.
I am asking only about the light itself being located somewhere, in this case "at the film". It had to get there somehow. How?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
The very belief that photons have to travel to Earth in order to be at the retina or film is exactly what is being disputed
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's not a belief nor have you disputed it at all, you've simply claimed magic and left it at that. You have to show that it is physically possible for something that is traveling to be somewhere where it hasn't reached yet. You have photons in two places at once, which is fine, if you can demonstrate that to be possible with physics
|
Again you don't even realize it but you are coming from the afferent perspective which means that you are still imaging that time is a factor. It is not in this account. That is why this model of sight does not violate the laws of physics.
|
It does violate physics though, because you cannot even begin to explain how light is located somewhere it has not traveled to while remaining within the laws of physics.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Light physics are what they are. You have been unable to reconcile efferent vision and physics.
|
Why are we into this debate again. I really don't want to get involved because there will be no reconciliation not because Lessans was wrong, but because people are misunderstanding how this model works and why it works.
|
Because you can't offer any mechanism that makes it possible to work
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There is, 8 minutes, just like Lessans said.
|
Quote:
|
Yes, but you're missing why light --- where efferent vision is concerned --- does not have to travel to Earth first.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And you're missing that what you are saying is not possible within the laws of physics.
|
Nope, it's your lack of understanding since traveling light cannot, in and of itself, bring an image to the eye or film through space/time (or distance). The object must be present.
|
Irrelevant.
I am asking about the light you have said is physically located on the surface of camera film before any light photons are on Earth. How did it get there?
Quote:
Quote:
|
If the object meets the requirements of size and brightness, the light is at the retina or film instantly; there is no delay. The fact that light travels has no bearing on this phenomenon.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The fact that light travels has bearing on this statement: "the light is at the retina or film". Lessans never stated anything about where light is located, which is where you are hitting the block wall of physics, that's all you.
|
It is not necessary to discuss where light is located if the role of light turns out to reveal the world to us, not bring the world to us.
|
It makes your account impossible ie: magic
|
You are missing an essential element that makes this model anything but magic. I will not fight you on this because it's like fighting a flat earther.
I am done discussing this topic. I have no idea how this conversation started up again, and I'm not going to add to it.