Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're obviously still thinking about light bringing the information or image to the eye.
|
No, I'm not. Even if light brought no information at all to the eyes or film, you still need that light to get from the Sun to the retina or film, and it still cannot do this in less than 8 minutes. Also, you have messed up your quote tags again, addressing all your responses to Artemis when it was me you were replying to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If the object is seen instantly due to light revealing it not reflecting it...
|
No-one says that light reflects anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...then we are not talking about traveling photons at all.
|
All photons are traveling photons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I may have confused you talking about nanoseconds because this still is referring to time.
|
You mean you confused
yourself by admitting that time is involved as it obviously must be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It absolutely does, but in the efferent account you have to work it backwards. If we see the object, this means the light is already at the eye.
|
And as I've explained to you several times, the next step in working it backwards is to try to work out how that light at the eye could have gotten there. Why won't you do this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The image doesn't get reflected and travel through space/time...
|
No shit. No-one thinks this. No-one. Not a single person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Oh my goodness. I don't know how many times I have explained that light does not have to travel to Earth in the efferent account, as we look out at the external world.
|
Then light will not be at the retina or film, because the retina and film are on Earth and light cannot be anywhere it has not traveled to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have also said that light alone would not bring an image to us, so the 81/2 minutes that you believe is necessary, is not necessary since there is no information in the light that could be decoded in the brain as normal sight.
|
Again, that is not relevant at all.
8 minutes is necessary for the light to be at the film or retina, regardless of whether or not the light brings an image, information, or anything else to be decoded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's really not magic when you understand that efferent vision is the exact opposite of what science claims. The object that we see is due light being at the retina as a mirror image. Distance is also irrelevant as long as we can see the object due to size and brightness...
|
The distance remains relevant so long as you maintain that the photons at the film or retina came from the Sun which is 93 million miles away. There is no possible way for these photons to get from the Sun to the film or retina in less than 8 minutes. You know this, and that is why you keep weaseling, lying, and trying to change the subject.