Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If I agreed I was confused as to what you were asking. How can there be an "arrival time" when there is no "departure time". You can't arrive unless you travel somewhere.
|
Here are your previous answers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light
2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.
3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The wavelengths.
4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
Yes.
5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
Of course not.
6. Can light travel faster than light?
No.
7. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.
8. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.
9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Objects reflect light.
10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.
11. What does light consist of?
Photons.
12. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?
Yes.
|
Please indicate which of these you would like to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's because you think the wavelength is traveling. In that case you would be right that the red would show up first.
|
Again, my questions have nothing to do with the order of the arriving light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's understanding what the lens is doing instead of what light is doing. That's why I think it's better to focus on the brain and the eyes in order to understand this concept rather than light.
|
I asked you in the very post you were here replying to, what you think lenses actually do beyond receiving incoming light. You still haven't answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not shifting the blame.
|
Yes, you are. You keep trying to blame your inconsistencies and contradictions on other people's assumptions about the afferent model instead of on your own assumptions made during your failed attempts to explain the efferent model.
You need to either revise your earlier answers to my questions (quoted above), or answer my further questions about how the light at the camera could have been blue before it arrived and before the object itself was blue.