Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
A camera uses the same exact light as the eyes, therefore the light is at the film in the same way the light is at the retina. I already explained this.
|
You never explained how light is "at" the retina or camera film without requiring light to have different properties and follow different laws than are known, so this is just a faith based assertion on your part. Repeating it doesn't make it an explanation. You also keep going back to "the brain" which doesn't apply to cameras.
The problems you need to solve, in a nutshell:
1. If a brain is required for efferent vision to work, as Lessans claimed, then it can't work for cameras. If cameras can work the same way, then no brain is required at all, contrary to Lessans statements.
2. If you insist that light is located somewhere, you must explain how it is there and where it came from. |
Oh my goodness LadyShea, why can't you get this? A brain does not have to be involved with cameras. The knowledge regarding the brain and eyes (if it turns out to be true, which I believe it will) helps us to understand cameras and why the photograph always turns out to be exactly the same as what someone is seeing in real time. The lens of the camera is within the field of view of the object, just like the eyes. It's no different yet you are imagining us here on Earth waiting for light to arrive. That's why you are right back to asking me the same old question, "how it is there and where did it come from?" |
I can't "get" what you refuse to meaningfully explain.
If light is on the surface of camera film, regardless of how we see, it has to be there by some mechanism and had to have come from somewhere. |
Think of a "closed system". Object + lens = photograph. You are still thinking that the image comes from light. The image would not show up on film without the object. The only reason I am referring to distant objects is because it is assumed light travels so fast on Earth we wouldn't recognize the delay, but far away we would. Not so in the efferent account. I will be happy when you recognize the futility of discussing traveling photons.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Lessans discussion of the brain and eyes doesn't help us understand anything at all about cameras or light.
|
Yes it does. You just don't yet see how the two work exactly the same.
Quote:
|
It's no different yet you are imagining us here on Earth waiting for light to arrive
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yes, because a camera cannot utilize light that is not on Earth, specifically on the camera film or sensor
|
Wrong. A camera would not be able to snap a picture if there was no light around the subject but it could snap a picture of the moon at night since the moon is large enough in size and is reflecting light that is bright enough.