[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is reflected, is that better? The light is believed to travel with the information. Stop playing these games with me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

These are not games. You are saying things about afferent vision that are completely wrong, and you keep reverting to these wrong statements no matter how many times you are corrected. Light travels, and traveling light has properties, such as intensity, direction, and wavelength, which ARE information that can be used to create an image.

That's exactly why optics works. It gives us information at the eye. But it doesn't take light to travel 93 million miles to give us this information when the object (the substance) is within our field of view, not just the light which will give us nothing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All photons are traveling photons.

I'm not arguing with this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are arguing with it every time you state that the photons at the film or retina did not have to travel to get there.

No I'm not, but it's not just photons that are necessary for sight. This is YOUR oversight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean you confused yourself by admitting that time is involved as it obviously must be.

Time is involved if we cannot see an object. That means there's no light. If there is enough light present, we will see the object because we will be in optical range. What is it you're not understanding?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not seeing how the light at the film or retina can be light that traveled to get there if no time is involved. All travel takes time. Light getting from the Sun to the film in zero time is not travel, but teleportation.

We're not talking about the distance from an object to the Earth. We're talking about the intensity of light that would allow us to see it in real time, which, as I said in the example of seeing the Sun, once we can see it, that object is already in optical range. If light is reflected from an object, and it arrives on Earth, according to you the light would have the information to allow us to see the object in delayed time. But if it shows up as the full spectrum, then what Spacemonkey? What happens to your theory then?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It traveled, but that's not the issue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is very much the issue. If the light at the film or retina previously traveled to get to where it now is, then that means time is involved, and it must have left its source some time ago. That means if these photons came from the Sun and traveled at light speed, then they left the Sun 8min before the Sun began emitting photons. Does that make any sense to you?

Of course it does. I'm not saying that it doesn't take time for light to get here on Earth. All I'm saying is that the photons that would allow us to see the external world don't come from traveling photons. We wouldn't get an image even though light itself has certain properties. Why? Because images don't get reflected. We use those properties to see the real thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The issue is whether the object is bright enough (which means there are traveling photons) and large enough, for then we will be able to see it. If the object was too far away, it wouldn't be bright enough to be seen because the light hasn't reached us. In the hypothetical example of the Sun, it would have taken less than a nanosecond for the brightness of the Sun to reveal itself, therefore putting the Sun as a mirror image on our photoreceptors as we gaze outward. This is what I mean by working the model backwards. This is not the same thing as light having to travel to Earth first, so this claim still stands whether you understand it or not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are here contradicting your previous answer. Light cannot travel from the Sun to the film or retina on Earth in less than a nanosecond. And you then flatly deny that the light traveled to Earth just a few sentences after having stated that it did travel to get to where it is.

Maybe I'm not explaining this clearly, so it needs more careful examination. I am still maintaining that if the object itself has enough luminosity, the nonabsorbed photons will be at the eye instantly since we will already be within optical range of the object without any travel time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

More semantic bullshit. You know what I mean, so stop it already!

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop saying things you don't mean and I'll stop correcting you on your strawman nonsense.

It's not strawman nonsense, that's just it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mirror image is there instantly. It reveals the object which does not require any travel time once it meets the requirements, SO THERE IS NO MAGIC, CONTRADICTION, OR TELEPORTATION IN THIS MODEL OF SIGHT!

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still have contradictions everywhere. Is this mirror image composed of light? Light cannot get from the Sun to the film or retina instantly with no travel time if it is traveling light. What you are describing is teleporting light, whether you admit to it or not. What you are saying meets all the conditions for the definition of teleportation.

No, I'm not describing teleporting light Spacemonkey. If you put the brightness of the object in combination with its size, that light will be revealing the object because the nonabsorbed photons are not traveling. They are being replaced by new photons which continue to travel but the image that allows us to see the object does not travel. We will be able to see the object as long as it remains within our optical range as it continues to absorb the partial spectrum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where your reasoning has gone south. If there is nothing in the light because the object that reflected it is gone (and therefore there is no image to be decoded), then this discredits the afferent model right there.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You misunderstand me. I am not agreeing that light has no information that can be used to create an image. We know light does contain such information, for this is exactly how photography works. My point is rather that your denial of this fact remains irrelevant to the matter at hand, for even if you were right about information, it wouldn't help you in the slightest in explaining how light could get to be where you need it in your model.

Because distance is not a factor, as I said many times. An object (real substance, not just light) could be so large that it could be in optical range. Maybe we would see a tiny dot because it's so far away, but we would see it in real time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, distance is not a factor. Time is not a factor either. Distance does matter when light is traveling from A to B...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So how did the light at the film on Earth (B) get there without having traveled there from the Sun (A)?

You're still believing that light brings the information to Earth. The light has to be reflected off of an object whether it's on Earth or in space, for us to be able to see. But again, the actual image is not being reflected. We can't see this by looking at mirrors. We can only come to this conclusion by the example he gave regarding the Sun. That's why you cannot talk about traveling photons as bringing the information. I already said that the full spectrum travels and is constantly being replaced. The issue here is that the nonabsorbed photons that allow us to see in real time do not travel from A to B.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but if the information is not traveling in the light, then it follows that we aren't looking to the light to bring us anything other than a reflection of what's out there. The mirror image shows up on the retina or film instantly because we're already in optical range when the object is in our field of view. We're not waiting for light to arrive. I know you don't get this, but it doesn't cause any violations of the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But it does cause violations of physics. That is why you cannot answer my questions. Suppose I accept that there is no information in the light, and that the light is at the film instantly with no time or distance involved. You will still need to explain where this light came from and how it got to be there without time and distance becoming factors. This is what you are failing to do.

Light does travel Spacemonkey but in the efferent model we get nothing from these photons in which to form an image if the object isn't present. Again, you are not looking at this backwards. You are focusing only on traveling photons which will bring us nothing, no image at all. At the very least, think about this instead of giving me the same knee jerk reaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean I'm weaseling Spacemonkey. And would you please stop calling me a liar?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is your complete refusal to even respond to my bumped post that makes you a weasel, and it is your denial of being a weasel that makes you a liar.

That's exactly why I will take my time answering you. Calling me names isn't helping the situation, so why don't you try a different strategy for a change. The one you're using obviously isn't working.