Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I've already been through this. Light can be resolved on a telescope, but not an image that comes from matter. In other words, if the Sun was just turned on, light would be resolved on our eyes 81/2 minutes later, but it would be full spectrum light; nothing that could be used to decode an image.
|
So it kinda seems like what you're saying here is; for 8.5 minutes after the sun is turned on we will see the sun as an object and after 8.5 minutes, when light strikes the eye we will just see light. Right now (assuming you're in a place on earth were the sun is shining) if you look up at the sun you can't see an object, you'll only see an intense light source. You must use filters to look at the sun and see anything substantial.
However, this continues to contradict what you've said about light being at the eye in order to see.
This is the big hole I was referring to earlier; By what mechanism is the light instantly at the eye?
If I look up into the sky on a sunny day the light from the sun might seem like it is "instantly on my eye." But this is only from the perspective of my eye, from the light's perspective it is ending a 8.5 minute long journey from the sun to my eye. It would have to make that same journey whether the sun was just turned on.
To say that the eye could see the sun turned on instantly at noon is to say that the eye can see without light striking the eye. Which really does sound like what Lessans was saying. It seems like he thought that the only conditions for light were; light at the object, the object is big enough to be seen, and the observer is looking in the object's direction... the same things you keep saying, but then you add in "the light is instantly at the eye." |
It is instantly at the eye because of the mirror image it forms on the eye, which does not take 81/2 minutes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
The first part violates what we know about the eyes; that they function by means of photoreceptors which absorb light.
Your additional condition "the light is instantly on the eye" violates the laws of physics by having light move from an object to the eye instantly. It doesn't matter if this instant movement is across 93 million miles or 93 feet, it is still a violation of the properties of light. in fact it doesn't even make light travel faster than the speed of light... in case you haven't noticed the light would have to be in two places at once!
|
Artemis, this ability to see in real time has nothing to do with traveling faster than the speed of light.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
In order for vision to truly be instant then the light from the object would have to be at the eye at the same instant in time.
|
I think the statement about seeing the Sun instantly has confused people. Let's suppose we didn't see the Sun the instant it was turned on. Let's suppose it took a nanosecond for light to reach the other side of the box where I'm standing. You have to envision this closed system which is the the Sun, the viewer, and the light, or you won't understand what I'm talking about. Now that the light has traveled to the other side of this so-called box (my visual landscape), when I look OUT in the direction of the Sun, the light will be at my eye instantly because the light has already traveled to the other side of the enclosure which has nothing to do with the actual distance from the object to the viewer. Furthermore, all that is necessary is for light to be at the object. This doesn't mean light doesn't have to be at the eye for us to see. The mechanism as to how this occurs isn't easy to grasp since people have not fully understood efferent vision. They are still thinking in terms of light traveling over long distances. In the meantime, this same light is still traveling to Earth but it will be full spectrum light 81/2 minutes later. When it strikes an object, the nonabsorbed photons will, once again, be at the eye which appears instantaneous because light is traveling so fast.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
Now if you really want to try to find some validation for that idea you will have to crawl down the quantum mechanics bunny hole but I really think it might melt your brain.
|
I don't think I have to go into that rabbit hole to prove that the change in vision alters what we see and also the function of light which is to reveal the world through its properties. I don't think there is anything more I can say that will convince you that this model is more than plausible.