Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are implying that light can't be there if it hasn't arrived there. It doesn't work that way.
|
Light absolutely works that way.
So does efferent vision require a change to the properties of light and the principles of optics? |
How many times do I have to say no? |
So can light be somewhere if it hasn't arrived there? |
Light HAS arrived at the lens because we're in optical range instantly since distance in this account is irrelevant (it's the size of the object in relation to the viewer that counts). You keep talking about the arrival of light. Yes, light has to arrive to interact with matter that's on Earth. But we're talking about a distant object that is not on Earth. Why do you think I said the photosensitive paper with a lens would reveal an image, but the paper without a lens would not (except for pinhole camera that acts like a lens). The lens is gathering the light which is providing the image at 12:00, or as fast as it takes us to see a lighted candle. The image would show up instantly on the retina or sensor. A plant or a solar panel would only interact with the light at 12:08. |
Light that has arrived must have been traveling. Lenses gather light that has traveled to the lens. If it was traveling it had to cover a distance at a finite speed so cannot be instantaneous.
Brightness and size are not physical mechanisms for negating actual space and distance |
There actually are physical mechanisms in place. It is the proportion of the object to the viewer. That's why we were unable to see a laser reflected from a small reflective surface. But if the object is large, like the Sun, then the intensity of light is in proportion to the viewer which puts the viewer within optical range if the viewer or lens is pointed in this direction. The only difference is we're not waiting for this light to arrive. We're using this light that has traveled across this space in a nanosecond or less (like the candle) to see the real world in real time. Oh my gosh, how many more times will I have to repeat this? I don't think I can do it anymore. I think I'm going to call it quits. I'm surprised no one is interested in his other discovery probably because people think it's just another theory. That's why David kept referring to Norman Schwartz, as if this proves Lessans wrong.
This is not a modal fallacy. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions. Yes, we move in the direction of greater satisfaction so whatever we choose is in this direction, but this does not reveal a deeper truth. Tautologies don't automatically mean that what you're trying to prove is null and void.