A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Neither is a rainbow or a sunset an object at all. Mirages don't exist either but they are seen because of what light does under certain circumstances.

It doesn't have to be an object to see it. This refraction causes a physical change in the atmosphere that causes this shimmering effect. This happens in all kinds of situations where light interacts with the atmosphere in some unusual way. We see what's out there whether it's an object or plain old light acting in different ways.

We see this shimmering because the light that has refracted is at the eye, allowing us to see this phenomenon. We don't just see objects. We see light too if it is interacting in an unusual way, which makes it visible. There really isn't a lot of difference between afferent sight and efferent except for this thing called time.

The fact that objects behind it are affected is because light refracts. I never said it didn't. All I said is that we cannot see objects if they aren't there in some form. And I also said that we can see light that is interacting with the atmosphere in ways that make it visible.

This example would be enough, for any reasonable person, to prove afferent vision over efferent vision. You and Lessans both claim that in efferent vision we see the object directly, distance is not a factor, there is no travel time for the photons to arrive at the retina, so nothing between the object and the eye could have an effect on vision. In efferent vision we would not see the shimmer, we would not see a mirage. We could see the rainbow because we are seeing the droplets of water in different colors. The only way to see the shimmer, or a mirage, is that the eye detects light focused on the retina and signals the brain to form an image. There is no reason for both means of vision to be in use in the optical system of the brain/eye. You claim that the light only signals the Brain to look out and see the object, and the Brain is seeing the object directly without any effect from the distance between the eye and the object. Therefore the shimmer, which only effects the light passing through the air, and not the object, cannot effect efferent vision. With the shimmer or a mirage there is no object, yet you and Lessans claim that an object must be present, in optical range, for vision to take place. Are you now admiting that we can see things when no object os present in optical range. If not, what object is present when we see the shimmer form warm air rising? Another physical impossibility that would be needed for efferent vision to be true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that objects behind it are affected is because light refracts. I never said it didn't.

Refraction is a function of light traveling, as is dispersion. So light travels from the object in efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

The fact that objects behind it are affected is because light refracts. I never said it didn't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Refraction is a function of light traveling, as is dispersion. So light travels from the object in efferent vision?

I never said light doesn't refract or disperse. What doesn't occur is seeing the image in the light beyond the point of resolution, which can only occur when the object is present in some form. We don't resolve light and get an image millions of years after the object/event is gone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the photons at the retina (B) came from somewhere else (A) and there was no travel time (in getting from A to B), then they either teleported or traveled infinitely fast, right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, they did not teleport. Our eyes are in optical range of that light because the light is already there if the object can be seen.

Originally Posted by Spacemokey

You've misread the question. I'm not asking if the photons teleport on your account. This question is a hypothetical. It is asking if there are photons at one point that got there from somewhere else, and if they covered this non-zero distance in zero time, then does it follow that those photons have either teleported or traveled infinitely fast? The correct answer is yes. What is your answer?

Again, you are talking about photons traveling a non-zero distance in zero time. That would violate the laws of physics, but that's not what I am saying.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So if they didn't either teleport or travel infinitely fast (in getting from A to B), then either there was a travel time or they never got from A to B, right?

Noooo Spacemonkey. You are, once again, thinking in terms of long distances. The eyes don't know how far away the object is. That is interpreted in the brain, but if the conditions are met, we will see the object instantly because the size and brightness of the object puts our eyes in range.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've again misread the question as if I'm asking you about efferent vision. I'm not. This was another hypothetical, and the correct answer is yes. What is your answer? (If you answer no, then you are saying that light can travel a finite non-zero distance at a finite speed and take zero time.)

That is not what I'm saying. Light travels at a finite speed and it takes a certain amount of time (not zero) to get to where it's going. But seeing an image is not in the light without the object. Do you get this even a little bit?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But the only way they could be at B without ever having gotten there from A (i.e. somewhere else) is if the photons were either always at B or if they came into existence there, right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooooo. There is no traversing any distance.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't ask if there was any traversing of distance. You've again misread the question. I'm asking if light is at one place but never got there from anywhere else, then does it follow that this light either came into existence there or was always there? The correct answer is yes. What is your answer?

Light has to travel but the wavelength/frequency that is at the film/retina is only there because of the physical substance or event that is there. Nothing is in the light because the wavelength/frequency is not in the light. All it does is reveals the object when we are looking in that direction. It reveals whatever is there; it does not carry or bring or travel with the partial spectrum. I know you will fight me on this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So here are the only conceivable options:

i) The photons at the retina came into existence there.

Definitely not an option

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

ii) The photons at the retina were always there. [Definitely not an option / Possibly an option]

If the object was seen, the photons were there.

Yes, but they are different photons that are at the retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

iii) The photons teleported from somewhere else.

Definitely not an option.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

iv) The photons traveled infinitely fast.

Definitely not an option.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

v) The photons had a travel time. [Definitely not an option / Possibly an option]

Photons travel, the image does not. A big ughhhh!

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't follow my instructions. You've ruled out options (i), (iii), & (iv), which is fine. But you haven't indicated whether or not (ii) and (v) are possible options for you, and critically you've failed to select any of the above as possible options for efferent vision even though it is flatly contradictory for you to reject all of them.

Point (ii) is not asking you whether or not photons will always be at the retina when something is seen. It is asking whether it is an option for you to have the very same photons which are at the retina when something is seen, always there, i.e. before the object is seen.

It is not an option for me to have the very same photons which are at the retina when something is seen, always there. But that does not change the fact that these photons (this wavelength/frequency) are there because the object is there. You are still thinking of photons as copies of the object that are reflected and then travel through space/time, therefore, in science's view, all it takes is a telescope to collect this light and we would see something that no longer exists (e.g., as in the time of Socrates).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Point (v) says nothing at all about images, and isn't asking you if the photons travel. It is asking whether it is a possible option for efferent vision for the photons at the retina to have had a travel time.

Yes, but that's not what the eyes are seeing. If you don't stop thinking in terms of travel time, you will never get this. It doesn't matter that the photons are being replaced every second. What is seen is the object because there is no wavelength/frequency at the retina without its presence. If the object suddenly turns blue, you believe we would still see a red object because that's what is traveling toward our eyes. But that's not true because no image (or wavelength) is in the light other than the full light spectrum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Flawed how? Please analyze a specific piece of research related to light physics or vision you think is flawed and describe the flaws in methodology in your own words.

I don't see any flaws in light physics methodology per se. We have space observatories which is an instrument that allows scientists to observe distant planets. But in this particular instance, the assumption that the non-absorbed photons (the image or pattern) bounce and travel forever is a logical (theoretical) conclusion, not a factual one.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't refract or disperse. What doesn't occur is seeing the image in the light beyond the point of resolution, which can only occur when the object is present in some form. We don't resolve light and get an image millions of years after the object/event is gone.

Peacegirl, your words are meaningless word salad.

Here are some meaningful words that you should take to heart.

"All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgement old
Your answer had not been inscroll'd
Fare you well, your suit is cold."


Lessans book glisters with many claims that do not bear up under scrutiny. Inside his "Golden Age" is but basemetal wth no value or substance.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't refract or disperse.

You've said it doesn't travel away from the object. Refraction and dispersion both happen to traveling light, only.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This refraction causes a physical change in the atmosphere

No, it doesn't. The atmosphere is not changed at all. The traveling light changes direction slightly.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your entire premise is off Spacemonkey, and you are basing your conclusions on this. This is dumb, do you hear me?

What premise? There is no premise here, Peacegirl. This is simply me asking you whether certain things are possibly an option or definitely not an option for your own account of vision. There are no assumptions. You can answer either Yes or No. So stop weaseling and answer.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I'm saying. Light travels at a finite speed and it takes a certain amount of time (not zero) to get to where it's going. But seeing an image is not in the light without the object. Do you get this even a little bit?

He isn't asking about seeing images, he isn't talking about seeing at all. He is asking about the photons you have located at the retina. Where did they come from and how did they get there?

Are there photons located at the retina of a blind person?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still thinking of photons as copies of the object that are reflected and then travel through space/time

What are you talking about? Nobody thinks that. That is your stupid misconception of the standard model. This is a strawman

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in this particular instance, the assumption that the non-absorbed photons (the image or pattern) bounce and travel forever is a logical (theoretical) conclusion, not a factual one.

There is no such assumption and no such theory at all. This is your stupid misconception of the standard model. This is a strawman.

What is known, for a fact, is that light that travels until or unless it is absorbed. Light that is reflected or refracted or transmitted still travels because it is still light and retains the immutable properties of light. This can be empirically observed and measured. It is also known that light has a wavelength or frequency. All light has this, also an immutable property of light...so this statement below is nonsensical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the wavelength/frequency is not in the light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This example would be enough, for any reasonable person, to prove afferent vision over efferent vision. You and Lessans both claim that in efferent vision we see the object directly, distance is not a factor, there is no travel time for the photons to arrive at the retina, so nothing between the object and the eye could have an effect on vision.

No, now you're going off onto a tangent. Whatever is between the eye and the object that can be seen will be seen, even if it's light.

Originally Posted by thedoc

In efferent vision we would not see the shimmer, we would not see a mirage. We could see the rainbow because we are seeing the droplets of water in different colors.

What's the difference? They are both phenomena that, through a physical interaction with light, produce a visible image.

Originally Posted by thedoc

The only way to see the shimmer, or a mirage, is that the eye detects light focused on the retina and signals the brain to form an image.

Of course, no one is arguing with that thedoc.

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is no reason for both means of vision to be in use in the optical system of the brain/eye. You claim that the light only signals the Brain to look out and see the object, and the Brain is seeing the object directly without any effect from the distance between the eye and the object.

I brought up distance in relation to seeing objects in outer space because this seems to be the big issue.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Therefore the shimmer, which only effects the light passing through the air, and not the object, cannot effect efferent vision.

You're wrong. Anything that interacts with light in a certain way will produce a specific reaction. In this case light is interacting with hot air molecules as it travels into cooler air, which creates this shimmering effect. There is no reason why we couldn't see it in the efferent model.

Originally Posted by thedoc

With the shimmer or a mirage there is no object, yet you and Lessans claim that an object must be present, in optical range, for vision to take place. Are you now admiting that we can see things when no object os present in optical range.

We are not looking at the object. We are looking at the shimmering which is happening right now, not yesterday. This shimmering effect is in our optical range. I wouldn't be able to see it otherwise.

Originally Posted by thedoc

If not, what object is present when we see the shimmer form warm air rising? Another physical impossibility that would be needed for efferent vision to be true.

We are looking directly at this visible phenomenon, which is happening now. As it cools down, this shimmering will be gone and we will not see it. It's as simple as that. It doesn't have any effect on this model of sight. But I do feel bad that people are fighting me so hard, as if there is so much to lose if Lessans wins. This is the exact opposite of what I think because there's so much to be gained. Nevertheless, everything I come up with is compared to a flat earther, and it's really upsetting to me. That's why this has turned into a total fiasco, and it can't continue on like this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in this particular instance, the assumption that the non-absorbed photons (the image or pattern) bounce and travel forever is a logical (theoretical) conclusion, not a factual one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no such assumption and no such theory at all. This is your stupid misconception of the standard model. This is a strawman.

Isn't it true that the eye, camera or telescope are considered light detectors and that, according to scientists, all that is needed to produce an image is to collect enough light and the image will be seen, regardless of whether the event or object no longer exist? Where is this a strawman? Isn't this what science believes?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is known, for a fact, is that light that travels until or unless it is absorbed. Light that is reflected or refracted or transmitted still travels because it is still light and retains the immutable properties of light. This can be empirically observed and measured. It is also known that light has a wavelength or frequency. All light has this, also an immutable property of light...so this statement below is nonsensical.

Wavelength/frequency is an immutable property of light but it's particular wavelength/frequency does make a difference for the purposes of this discussion, since white light (the full spectrum which has a different wavelength/frequency) shows up differently than a partial spectrum. There is no way to observe a light wave directly to see if it's a partial spectrum or a the full spectrum. The only way we can see what wavelength/frequency the light has is by what it reveals as we look outside our windows.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to travel but the wavelength/frequency that is at the film/retina is only there because of the physical substance or event that is there. Nothing is in the light because the wavelength/frequency is not in the light. All it does is reveals the object when we are looking in that direction. It reveals whatever is there; it does not carry or bring or travel with the partial spectrum. I know you will fight me on this.

It is not an option for me to have the very same photons which are at the retina when something is seen, always there. But that does not change the fact that these photons (this wavelength/frequency) are there because the object is there. You are still thinking of photons as copies of the object that are reflected and then travel through space/time, therefore, in science's view, all it takes is a telescope to collect this light and we would see something that no longer exists (e.g., as in the time of Socrates).
Yes, but that's not what the eyes are seeing. If you don't stop thinking in terms of travel time, you will never get this. It doesn't matter that the photons are being replaced every second. What is seen is the object because there is no wavelength/frequency at the retina without its presence. If the object suddenly turns blue, you believe we would still see a red object because that's what is traveling toward our eyes. But that's not true because no image (or wavelength) is in the light other than the full light spectrum.

It has been tested and observed, and verified by experiment, that each photon is of a frequency that corosponds to the color of the object that it was reflected from. If light is reflected from an object of a particular color it will be a partial spectrum that is reflected and travels independently of the object. Full spectrum light can only come from a white light source or be reflected from a white object, any other object of another color will reflect a partial spectrum, and that light will travel till it strikes another object and is absorbed or reflected again, even if that distance is across the universe. Every photon that exists is of a particular frequency and there is no such thing as a photon of a frequency that corosponds to white.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I do feel bad that people are fighting me so hard, as if there is so much to lose if Lessans wins. This is the exact opposite of what I think because there's so much to be gained. Nevertheless, everything I come up with is compared to a flat earther, and it's really upsetting to me. That's why this has turned into a total fiasco, and it can't continue on like this.

There is nothing to gain because Lessans book is a total fiction and probably intended as a joke, that Peacegirl just doesn't get.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you are talking about photons traveling a non-zero distance in zero time. That would violate the laws of physics, but that's not what I am saying.

I'm not asking about what you are saying. This is not a question about efferent vision. It is a hypothetical question about the meanings of words. Forget about whether or not this describes your account, and just answer the question:-

If the photons at the retina (B) came from somewhere else (A) and there was no travel time (in getting from A to B), then they either teleported or traveled infinitely fast, right?

Analogy: If you are sitting on your living room sofa, and you got there from the kitchen, but did so in zero travel time, then you must either have traveled infinitely fast or teleported from the one place to the other, right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I'm saying. Light travels at a finite speed and it takes a certain amount of time (not zero) to get to where it's going. But seeing an image is not in the light without the object. Do you get this even a little bit?

Again, this isn't about what you are saying. This is not a question about efferent vision. This is a hypothetical question about what is actually possible given the meanings of words. Forget about whether or not this matches your account and just answer the question:-

So if they didn't either teleport or travel infinitely fast (in getting from A to B), then either there was a travel time or they never got from A to B, right?

Analogy: If you didn't teleport or travel infinitely fast from the kitchen to get to your sofa, then you must either have taken time to get there, or not have come from anywhere else, right?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to travel but the wavelength/frequency that is at the film/retina is only there because of the physical substance or event that is there. Nothing is in the light because the wavelength/frequency is not in the light. All it does is reveals the object when we are looking in that direction. It reveals whatever is there; it does not carry or bring or travel with the partial spectrum. I know you will fight me on this.

You're not even addressing the question. I'm not asking you if light has to travel. I'm not asking if anything is in the light. Again, this is not a question about efferent vision. It is a hypothetical question about possibilities. Answer the question:-

But the only way they could be at B without ever having gotten there from A (i.e. somewhere else) is if the photons were either always at B or if they came into existence there, right?

Analogy: If you're on the sofa but never got there from anywhere else, does it follow that you were either always on the sofa or were born there? Is there any other possibility if you are there, but never got there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but they are different photons that are at the retina.

No-one is asking you about different photons. Stick to the question. Is it a possible option for you, for the photons at the retina when something is seen to have ALWAYS BEEN THERE? Yes or No?

iii) The photons teleported from somewhere else.
Definitely not an option.

iv) The photons traveled infinitely fast.
Definitely not an option.

v) The photons had a travel time. [Definitely not an option / Possibly an option]
Photons travel, the image does not. A big ughhhh!

Where is your answer? Is (v) a possible option for you or not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not an option for me to have the very same photons which are at the retina when something is seen, always there.

Right, so (ii) is definitely not an option? That is (i) through (iv) definitely ruled out, leaving only one possible option - the photons at the retina MUST have had a travel time. It is the only remaining possibility. Denying this - as you have done until now - flatly contradicts your above answers.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes...

Right, then the photons at the retina have a travel time, and I get to ask questions about this travel time without you saying moronic things such as "You do not grasp why there is no travel time in efferent vision..."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you don't stop thinking in terms of travel time, you will never get this.

You've just agreed that there is a travel time for the photons at the retina, so I get to ask questions that refer to this travel time, and you don't get to reply that there is no travel time. Got it?

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is because I think their research is flawed. Scientific experiments are limited by the variables that they know of, which can give them a false understanding of what is actually going on. There are so many unknown factors that come into play, that it's no wonder they are wrong a lot of the time. They just don't have enough information, therefore their conclusions are not conclusive at all. So where does that leave us. Remember the egg fiasco? No one ate egg yokes for years until they said that eggs aren't the culprit. Now they are saying that egg yokes have important health benefits. Go figure. Now these reports that come out every so often are taken with a grain of salt, which they should be.

Excellent! So stop calling the book scientific.

That's because you don't trust his observations, which is very unfortunate. But if you took the time you would understand why his demonstration is so accurate. But that would cause you to admit that he is right, and you can't do that.

No, it is because the claim is obviously a false one. This book has nothing to do with science.

Whatever. I refuse to defend this knowledge over and over again.

They are not flawed Vivisectus. Man moves in the direction of greater satisfaction. He cannot choose what is dissatisfying to him when a better alternative is available. It cannot be done. Man must justify hurting others. We are not born evil. Our experiences, along with the present environment, allow us to justify doing all kinds of things in order to satisfy a desire at the cost of innocent lives, but, once, again, this desire to hurt is the result of previous experiences in one's life. Each person is different to a degree so we cannot know who will strike out in this savage way, and who won't. That's why prevention is key.

You could use the same method of reasoning and say that a person can only do what he is destined to do. That is because that whatever a person ends up doing is what that person was destined to do.

Actually, I am sending it in tomorrow after a delay due to a correction that needed to be fixed. Why are you interested? Do you want to read it with the intent to truly learn instead of criticize?

Sending it in? Where?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It has been tested and observed, and verified by experiment, that each photon is of a frequency that corosponds to the color of the object that it was reflected from. If light is reflected from an object of a particular color it will be a partial spectrum that is reflected and travels independently of the object. Full spectrum light can only come from a white light source or be reflected from a white object, any other object of another color will reflect a partial spectrum, and that light will travel till it strikes another object and is absorbed or reflected again, even if that distance is across the universe. Every photon that exists is of a particular frequency and there is no such thing as a photon of a frequency that corosponds to white.

This is where there's a complete breakdown of what is believed to be happening. These models contradict each other in every respect, which is why Spacemonkey and others are having such a hard time. It's a matter of figuring out what is actually going on that will determine which model is right. I realize I am the underdog here. I'm sure people are thinking that if I never brought this subject up, they wouldn't be worse for the wear.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where there's a complete breakdown of what is believed to be happening. These models contradict each other in every respect, which is why Spacemonkey and others are having such a hard time.

No, the problem is that your non-model contradicts itself in every respect. There is a complete breakdown in your understanding of what you think is happening.

[peacegirl]

Excellent! So stop calling the book scientific.

No, it is because the claim is obviously a false one. This book has nothing to do with science.

That's true. After the fact it was their destiny.

Actually, I am sending it in tomorrow after a delay due to a correction that needed to be fixed. Why are you interested? Do you want to read it with the intent to truly learn instead of criticize?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sending it in? Where?

The publisher.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Liar!

"Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon."

And you said that because you said something even more stupid moments before, and were trying to weasel out of it:

"The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina."

The light is at the wall! The photons are at the retina!

Bump. Any apologies for the deliberate lies and weaseling yet?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where there's a complete breakdown of what is believed to be happening. These models contradict each other in every respect, which is why Spacemonkey and others are having such a hard time. It's a matter of figuring out what is actually going on that will determine which model is right. I realize I am the underdog here. I'm sure people are thinking that if I never brought this subject up, they wouldn't be worse for the wear.

There is no breakdown in what science has learned about what is happening. Science has already figured out what is going on, and has tested, re-tested, conducted tightly controlled experiments to verify how light and the eyes work. There is even a great deal of knowledge about how the brain receives impulses from the eye and intrepretes them as images. It is only you who refuses to look at the evidence, educate yourself on what science knows and how scientists know it. You just hand wave it away because it disproves Lessand claims. Since much of what Lessans claims, depends on this knowledge his whole discovery falls appart.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't it true that the eye, camera or telescope are considered light detectors and that, according to scientists, all that is needed to produce an image is to collect enough light and the image will be seen, regardless of whether the event or object no longer exist? Where is this a strawman? Isn't this what science believes?

Wavelength/frequency is an immutable property of light but it's particular wavelength/frequency does make a difference for the purposes of this discussion, since white light (the full spectrum which has a different wavelength/frequency) shows up differently than a partial spectrum. There is no way to observe a light wave directly to see if it's a partial spectrum or a the full spectrum. The only way we can see what wavelength/frequency the light has is by what it reveals as we look outside our windows.

The 'strawman' is your claim that scientists believe that there is an image carried by the light, science does not state this at all, only Lessans in his ignorance of science makes such a claim. Science claims that each photon arrives at the eye at a particular angle and location, with a particular frequency that corosponds to the color of the spot on the object that reflected that photon. Each spot on the object reflects photons in all directions and some of these are in the direction of the eye where the lens focuses the light onto the retina, that sends a signal to the brain, that then intreprets those signals as an image of the object.

There is no such thing as light that has a frequency of white light. White light is a mixing of all the colors together that produces white light. A full spectrum includes all the frequencies that corospond to the colors of the rainbow, and that does not include white or black. your statments are wrong.

There are ways to detect what frequencies are in a given beam of light, its called a prisim, and it will devide the light into different colors, and it can be easily seen what colors are included. A full spectrum or a partial spectrum can be easily determined with this simple device.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't refract or disperse. What doesn't occur is seeing the image in the light beyond the point of resolution, which can only occur when the object is present in some form. We don't resolve light and get an image millions of years after the object/event is gone.

Peacegirl, you claim that photons from an object are instantly at the retina and therefore do not travel. refraction and dispertion are functions of photons that are traveling and therefore not part of the efferent account. It has been observed that photons travel, are refracted, are dispersed, therefore Your agrument is faulty and efferent vision is not valid.