Quote:
|
I am trying to tell you that the film or sensor, just like the eyes, will already be within the field of view of the OBJECT, which is not required in the afferent account.
|
How does being in the "field of view" explain the location of light photons and how light photons came to be at that location? It doesn't, peacegirl. You are not explaining anything at all. You are just asserting that "field of view" has explanatory power, when all it is really is a way of saying "it can be seen".
The object in Lessans scenario is the newly ignited Sun at noon. Explain how the light photons are on the surface of camera film at noon, rather than 8 1/2 minutes later when they've traveled the distance.
Quote:
|
That is what creates the closed system I have been referring to. Although the distance between the faraway object and the sensor traverses a large expanse of distance, the efferent model causes the light from the object to be at the sensor or film without travel time
|
This violates the laws of physics and requires changes to the properties of light.
Quote:
|
as long as the lens is aimed at the object and as long as the object is shining bright enough (it extends to the other side of the box, so to speak, where the sensor is located).
|
Neither lenses nor field of view can explain
how light is located on the surface of camera film or a sensor unless you are changing the properties of light. Are you? How does the light "extend" from one end of the box to the other in your scenario? Does it come into spontaneous existence at all locations within the box? How?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This puts the sensor within the object's field of view thereby failing to violate any laws of physics or optics.
|
LOL, you haven't said anything that conforms with the laws of physics or optics at all. You've just stated that light is somewhere with no viable physical mechanism for it being there.