Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I gave the explanation of how mirrors work as if this somehow disproves his claim. Light travels, so the reflection of light doesn't negate or disprove this phenomenon at all, yet you think it does. You said I should refer back to your definition. I cannot refer back to a definition that isn't useful, or doesn't even make sense in light of this new knowledge.
|
Dragar never said that you should refer back to his definition. He simply made the observation that you did refer back to the standard explanation, rather than offering an explanation that would make sense in terms of your model. We know, of course, why you can't offer an explanation that makes sense in terms of your model, because you don't have an actual model and what you do have doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I already explained this. Light travels from the object to the mirror which then bounces off and strikes the eye. This has caused much of the confusion because you cannot analyze it this way. That's why no one has figured this out in the field of physics. Although it's a logical conclusion, it's wrong.
|
Explain, if you can, how light can reflect off an object, bounce off a mirror and then strike the retina without involving traveling photons or elapsed time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
It sure sounds like magic, because you don't explain it more fully. You don't explain anything. You can't even explain how mirrors work - you explained it using light, which isn't (according to you) how we see. Why should reflected light from a mirror change what we see? Silence from you.
|
It is a pretty poor sort of magic that can't even produce the effects it claims it can produce.