A revolution in thought - Page 1496

Spacemonkey · #**37376** 06-28-2014, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

Bump.

LadyShea · #**37377** 06-29-2014, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said there can be no light at the retina ON EARTH if the light hasn't gotten to Earth yet, but that doesn't mean the nonabsorbed light (the light that is revealing the object) is not at the retina

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

if the retina is on Earth, and the light is "at" the retina, then the light is on Earth. This is just simple fact.

The light is at the eye but it has not yet arrived on Earth.

Then it can't be at the eye. That is not possible.

Quote:

I see the moon instantly, but the light isn't here for another 2.5 seconds.

We are talking about Lessans Sun on at noon scenario. And we aren't talking about seeing, we are talking about the location of photons when we see and when we take a picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously that is the most blatantly illogical and contradictory statement, peacegirl. How does that makes sense even to you?

Quote:

Until you understand the box example, which shows that light travels to Earth in 81/2 minutes, but if the eyes are efferent we can see the Sun (or any faraway object) in real time, as time and distance have no bearing on this account, you will continue to tell me that it's a contradiction when it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The box example is just as nonsensical and illogical. You've simply taken the problem (that light can't be where it hasn't traveled to without violating laws of physics) and put it in a box, literally. You still have to explain how the light gets to all points in the box without traversing it.

You still don't understand that distance does not play a part in this model, which is why we are instantly in optical range.

Distance exists in physics and plays an integral role in the location of things like light photons. You can't say it has no role in optics nor dismiss it because it exists in reality. So, you are saying that you need to violate physics for your model to work.

Quote:

We are not focusing the light from light that has traveled. We are focusing the light from the object that is seen, which puts the light at the retina instantly.

That is magic. You have offered no physical mechanism to physically get light to camera film or retina on Earth. Light cannot be 'at' somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

So, either you admit your "extension" was wrong and go back to Lessans actual model, which is that we see things without needing light being located at the retina, or you keep babbling incoherently about your ideas, that Lessans didn't share and that violate the laws of physics and require a change to the properties of light.

Quote:

The light that reveals the object is not being reflected.

Then you absolutely require a change in the properties of light. Admit it and quit saying that you are not positing that. You obviously are. Light that is not absorbed or transmitted is reflected...it is an immutable property of light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, if you had stuck to Lessans argument, the one you used above about "seeing" exclusively, and never mentioned the location of light photons, then you would not have painted yourself into this corner. You didn't though. You fucked up and said light photons are "at" the retina and on the surface of camera film. You have to explain how they get there, or you are talking about magic.

What are you talking about LadyShea? Light has to be at the retina or film.

Yes, it does. And if it is there it had to travel there. Light cannot be somewhere it hasn't traveled to without changing the properties of light or the laws of physics.

Quote:

My father never said light doesn't have to be at the retina.

He never said it does either. He never specified the location of light at all...preferring weaselly terms like "light's presence" and "Light is a condition" and the object being illuminated. You used to stick to his arguments, until the photography thing came up and you had no physical mechanism to make it possible.

LadyShea · #**37378** 06-29-2014, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

No, that's the position of physics based on the immutable properties of light. You can't have photons physically located somewhere unless they traveled there. It doesn't matter what our eyes or brains do, light exists and has the same properties even in the absence of eyes.

Your model must be compatible with those properties, or it is impossible.

It IS compatible with these properties; the only thing that is being disputed is that the light brings information to the brain which is then turned into normal vision. There is nothing in this alternate model that violates these immutable laws.

You have disputed that light has to travel to camera film to be located at camera film, specifically in the Sun turned on at noon scenario. That is incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light. You have also disputed that light reflects if it is not absorbed, and disputed that light travels even if it's not full spectrum, That is also incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light

peacegirl · #**37379** 06-29-2014, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said there can be no light at the retina ON EARTH if the light hasn't gotten to Earth yet, but that doesn't mean the nonabsorbed light (the light that is revealing the object) is not at the retina

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

if the retina is on Earth, and the light is "at" the retina, then the light is on Earth. This is just simple fact.

The light is at the eye but it has not yet arrived on Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then it can't be at the eye. That is not possible.

You are absolutely wrong. You are not grasping this phenomenon whatsoever.

Quote:

I see the moon instantly, but the light isn't here for another 2.5 seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are talking about Lessans Sun on at noon scenario. And we aren't talking about seeing, we are talking about the location of photons when we see and when we take a picture.

Doesn't matter. You are still believing the information is in the light as it travels through space/time, so when you ask me where the location of photons are, the location of photons has no bearing on this phenomenon because the image (or nonabsorbed photons) is not being reflected. You are stuck in your groove of "all light travels" regardless of whether it's nonabsorbed or full spectrum light. You say it doesn't matter but it does matter. Let me repeat: Light travels but the information that allows us to recognize an object (the nonabsorbed photons) does not get reflected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously that is the most blatantly illogical and contradictory statement, peacegirl. How does that makes sense even to you?

It's not illogical at all if you truly understand the difference between the afferent and efferent models of SIGHT.

Quote:

Until you understand the box example, which shows that light travels to Earth in 81/2 minutes, but if the eyes are efferent we can see the Sun (or any faraway object) in real time, as time and distance have no bearing on this account, you will continue to tell me that it's a contradiction when it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The box example is just as nonsensical and illogical. You've simply taken the problem (that light can't be where it hasn't traveled to without violating laws of physics) and put it in a box, literally. You still have to explain how the light gets to all points in the box without traversing it.

Quote:

You still don't understand that distance does not play a part in this model, which is why we are instantly in optical range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Distance exists in physics and plays an integral role in the location of things like light photons. You can't say it has no role in optics nor dismiss it because it exists in reality. So, you are saying that you need to violate physics for your model to work.

I didn't say it has no place in optics because we can observe and measure many things. What I am saying is that optics works very nicely with the efferent account of vision because it does not violate any laws of physics. Light still travels at a finite speed.

Quote:

We are not focusing the light from light that has traveled. We are focusing the light from the object that is seen, which puts the light at the retina instantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is magic. You have offered no physical mechanism to physically get light to camera film or retina on Earth. Light cannot be 'at' somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

You are still talking about the information being in the light whether the object is in range or not. Why don't you even acknowledge what I'm saying? It's like everything I say bounces right off of you without even digesting the words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, either you admit your "extension" was wrong and go back to Lessans actual model, which is that we see things without needing light being located at the retina, or you keep babbling incoherently about your ideas, that Lessans didn't share and that violate the laws of physics and require a change to the properties of light.

LadyShea, I'm sorry to inform you that this is not magic. In the efferent account, light IS AT THE RETINA BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE TIME OR DISTANCE AS IN THE AFFERENT ACCOUNT. There is nothing to go back to. Funny how you try to demean me by telling me I'm babbling. I hope people can see through this. I can't believe the extent to which you are trying to discredit this man only because you don't get it and you don't like that.

Quote:

The light that reveals the object is not being reflected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you absolutely require a change in the properties of light. Admit it and quit saying that you are not positing that. You obviously are. Light that is not absorbed or transmitted is reflected...it is an immutable property of light.

There are no changes in the properties of light. Light travels at a finite speed, but the image (or nonabsorbed photons) does not get reflected. We see the object when our eyes are looking at it. Why do you ignore everything I'm saying? You are judging the validity of his claim by your belief that the information is in the light itself. Yes, light allows us to SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE. I never denied that. Light has to be present; it's a necessary condition but you are missing the entire concept and you won't admit that you may not understand this like you think you do. You haven't analyzed this carefully at all. You just go right back to "you are changing the properties of light" which I'm not doing. Lessans used certain phrases that could have been more scientifically sounding, but the concept remains the same and is correct.

If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, if you had stuck to Lessans argument, the one you used above about "seeing" exclusively, and never mentioned the location of light photons, then you would not have painted yourself into this corner. You didn't though. You fucked up and said light photons are "at" the retina and on the surface of camera film. You have to explain how they get there, or you are talking about magic.

What are you talking about LadyShea? Light has to be at the retina or film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, it does. And if it is there it had to travel there. Light cannot be somewhere it hasn't traveled to without changing the properties of light or the laws of physics.

How many times did I say this light (the light that reveals the object) does NOT get reflected. He was right. How many more times am I going to have to say this?

Quote:

My father never said light doesn't have to be at the retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He never said it does either. He never specified the location of light at all...preferring weaselly terms like "light's presence" and "Light is a condition" and the object being illuminated. You used to stick to his arguments, until the photography thing came up and you had no physical mechanism to make it possible.

I have told you countless times that if he is right about efferent vision, it would extend into photography because it's the same principle. But you are determined to find something about his finding that is wrong, which actually keeps you from understanding this claim because you already made your mind up. That is not the characteristics of a true scientist, or even someone who is searching for truth.

LadyShea · #**37380** 06-29-2014, 01:09 PM

You are not offering any explanations that address the physical realities of light. If it doesn't line up with observed reality then it is not a workable model and cannot be taken seriously . How you move on is up to you, but what you're saying now is just wishful thinking and fantasy.

LadyShea · #**37381** 06-29-2014, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected.

Agreed, images are not reflected. Who is arguing about this? Nobody.

LadyShea · #**37382** 06-29-2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no changes in the properties of light. Light travels at a finite speed

Traveling at speed is not the only property of light, you go right on to change a property of light when you say

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but the image (or nonabsorbed photons) does not get reflected.

While I agree that "the image" does not get reflected, you say image is synonymous with "nonabsorbed photons", which is a synonym for light. Light gets reflected if it is not absorbed. That's another property of light.

You say it again here

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say this light (the light that reveals the object) does NOT get reflected.

So that's a change in the properties of light. If it is neither absorbed or transmitted, yet also does not get reflected, it is either not light at all, or it is light with very different properties than it is known to have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are stuck in your groove of "all light travels" regardless of whether it's nonabsorbed or full spectrum light.

Yes, I am "stuck" on that because it is a fact. That light travels is an immutable property of light, one you claim to not be changing. If the properties of light maintain in your model, why is my talking about those unchanged properties derided as "being stuck in a groove"? You should agree with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegir

You just go right back to "you are changing the properties of light" which I'm not doing.

You very demonstrably are doing so.

LadyShea · #**37383** 06-29-2014, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is magic. You have offered no physical mechanism to physically get light to camera film or retina on Earth. Light cannot be 'at' somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

You are still talking about the information being in the light whether the object is in range or not. Why don't you even acknowledge what I'm saying? It's like everything I say bounces right off of you without even digesting the words.

I didn't say a single word about information, I am talking only about the physical location of physically existing light that has physical properties that your model is not explaining and is incompatible with.

You are very obviously the one who is not reading what I am writing, since you are responding to points I haven't even made, and utterly failing to address the points I have made.

Dragar · #**37384** 06-29-2014, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has everything to do with it. In fact, it actually supports Lessans' claim of light and sight. If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film.

Unless you wait with a long exposure.

Why does that happen, peacegirl? Is it like mirrors again, where you can't explain?

Why are your ideas about vision so bad at explaining things about vision?

LadyShea · #**37385** 06-29-2014, 02:11 PM

She doesn't see how long exposure "relates".

peacegirl · #**37386** 06-29-2014, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

No, that's the position of physics based on the immutable properties of light. You can't have photons physically located somewhere unless they traveled there. It doesn't matter what our eyes or brains do, light exists and has the same properties even in the absence of eyes.

Your model must be compatible with those properties, or it is impossible.

It IS compatible with these properties; the only thing that is being disputed is that the light brings information to the brain which is then turned into normal vision. There is nothing in this alternate model that violates these immutable laws.

You have disputed that light has to travel to camera film to be located at camera film, specifically in the Sun turned on at noon scenario. That is incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light. You have also disputed that light reflects if it is not absorbed, and disputed that light travels even if it's not full spectrum, That is also incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light

Light travels LadyShea, but what we see is not from photons that travel. This is in complete opposition to the standard belief, which is why you are getting confused. All light travels, but this does not change optics. We are instantly in optical range when we look at the object. You still have not gotten a grasp on the difference between interpreting information from the light, and seeing the real world due to light. I cannot de-confuse your mind. I suggest you think about this account more thoroughly because you haven't done that, and you will continue to argue with me that this model is incompatible with the properties of light. There's nothing more I can say. You will try to catch me in a lie or a contradiction, which is why I want to end this discussion. I am not a liar and there is no contradiction if you grasp why this phenomenon works.

peacegirl · #**37387** 06-29-2014, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She doesn't see how long exposure "relates".

I'm not sure what long exposure has to do with this concept. You bring things into the discussion that are not even related. I wonder why you do that. :rolleyes:

Show me where this negates efferent vision.

long exposure
Web definitions
Long-exposure photography or time-exposure photography involves using a long-duration shutter speed to sharply capture the stationary elements of images while blurring, smearing, or obscuring the moving elements. The paths of moving light sources become clearly visible.

Long-exposure photography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

peacegirl · #**37388** 06-29-2014, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has everything to do with it. In fact, it actually supports Lessans' claim of light and sight. If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film.

Unless you wait with a long exposure.

Why does that happen, peacegirl? Is it like mirrors again, where you can't explain?

Why are your ideas about vision so bad at explaining things about vision?

I did explain mirrors and why the reflection of light where you can see yourself has nothing to do with efferent vision. So why are you holding this against me, when I explained this? You are not saying anything new. I have said that light travels so if we catch light in motion with a long exposure, how does that negate what I'm talking about? Do you even know?

LadyShea · #**37389** 06-29-2014, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what long exposure has to do with this concept.

Long exposure refutes your statement- that both Dragar and I quoted and I quote again below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film.

My response was

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can be resolved on a sensor or film if the equipment is such that it can gather light for a long period of time.

Dragar's was

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Unless you wait with a long exposure

peacegirl · #**37390** 06-29-2014, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is magic. You have offered no physical mechanism to physically get light to camera film or retina on Earth. Light cannot be 'at' somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

You are still talking about the information being in the light whether the object is in range or not. Why don't you even acknowledge what I'm saying? It's like everything I say bounces right off of you without even digesting the words.

I didn't say a single word about information, I am talking only about the physical location of physically existing light that has physical properties that your model is not explaining and is incompatible with.

I give up. You have ignored this entire concept without realizing it. You have determinedly tried to prove Lessans wrong with knowledge about physics that is not being challenged or in violation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are very obviously the one who is not reading what I am writing, since you are responding to points I haven't even made, and utterly failing to address the points I have made.

I know the points you've made. I've heard them for 3 years, and nothing you are saying negates the truth of efferent vision. All you are doing is talking about traveling photons. You are missing the entire concept that there is no information (no image) that can be found in a photon that travels to Earth, therefore we would never see any past image because that's not what light does. It brings nothing through space/time. It only reveals. I cannot explain this any better. You may be one of those people who will never understand this. Your lack of understanding does not make his claim wrong.

LadyShea · #**37391** 06-29-2014, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

No, that's the position of physics based on the immutable properties of light. You can't have photons physically located somewhere unless they traveled there. It doesn't matter what our eyes or brains do, light exists and has the same properties even in the absence of eyes.

Your model must be compatible with those properties, or it is impossible.

It IS compatible with these properties; the only thing that is being disputed is that the light brings information to the brain which is then turned into normal vision. There is nothing in this alternate model that violates these immutable laws.

You have disputed that light has to travel to camera film to be located at camera film, specifically in the Sun turned on at noon scenario. That is incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light. You have also disputed that light reflects if it is not absorbed, and disputed that light travels even if it's not full spectrum, That is also incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light

Light travels LadyShea, but what we see is not from photons that travel.

You are failing to address my points. I am not talking about vision at all, I am only asking you about the physical properties of light.

You have stated that light only full spectrum light travels. Do you maintain that claim?

You have stated that light that encounters matter, but is neither absorbed nor transmitted, is also not reflected. Do you maintain that claim?

peacegirl · #**37392** 06-29-2014, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what long exposure has to do with this concept.

Long exposure refutes your statement- that both Dragar and I quoted and I quote again below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film.

My response was

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can be resolved on a sensor or film if the equipment is such that it can gather light for a long period of time.

Dragar's was

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Unless you wait with a long exposure

How many more times do I have to say that I never said light doesn't travel and that it can't be resolved, but all you will get is the full spectrum? I am speaking to deaf ears.

peacegirl · #**37393** 06-29-2014, 02:39 PM

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:

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

No, that's the position of physics based on the immutable properties of light. You can't have photons physically located somewhere unless they traveled there. It doesn't matter what our eyes or brains do, light exists and has the same properties even in the absence of eyes.

Your model must be compatible with those properties, or it is impossible.

It IS compatible with these properties; the only thing that is being disputed is that the light brings information to the brain which is then turned into normal vision. There is nothing in this alternate model that violates these immutable laws.

You have disputed that light has to travel to camera film to be located at camera film, specifically in the Sun turned on at noon scenario. That is incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light. You have also disputed that light reflects if it is not absorbed, and disputed that light travels even if it's not full spectrum, That is also incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light

Light travels LadyShea, but what we see is not from photons that travel.

You are failing to address my points. I am not talking about vision at all, I am only asking you about the physical properties of light.

But it doesn't work that way LadyShea. His claim was found specifically by understanding how the brain and eyes work, so you can't conveniently leave this out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have stated that light only full spectrum light travels. Do you maintain that claim?

Yes I do. We will never be able to get an image on film if the object is not in sight because we are not getting any information from photons unless we are looking at the object which is being revealed by light at the photoreceptors or at the sensor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have stated that light that encounters matter, but is neither absorbed nor transmitted, is also not reflected. Do you maintain that claim?

Yes. This does not violate physics because I said all along that all light travels but when you think in terms of efferent VISION, if we see the OBJECT or physical landscape, it puts us in optical range instantly. There is absolutely no travel time which means there is no delay in what we see or photograph.

LadyShea · #**37394** 06-29-2014, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is magic. You have offered no physical mechanism to physically get light to camera film or retina on Earth. Light cannot be 'at' somewhere it hasn't traveled to.

You are still talking about the information being in the light whether the object is in range or not. Why don't you even acknowledge what I'm saying? It's like everything I say bounces right off of you without even digesting the words.

I didn't say a single word about information, I am talking only about the physical location of physically existing light that has physical properties that your model is not explaining and is incompatible with.

I give up. You have ignored this entire concept without realizing it. You have determinedly tried to prove Lessans wrong with knowledge about physics that is not being challenged or in violation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are very obviously the one who is not reading what I am writing, since you are responding to points I haven't even made, and utterly failing to address the points I have made.

I know the points you've made. I've heard them for 3 years, and nothing you are saying negates the truth of efferent vision. All you are doing is talking about traveling photons. You are missing the entire concept that there is no information (no image) that can be found in a photon that travels to Earth, therefore we would never see any past image because that's not what light does. It brings nothing through space/time. It only reveals. I cannot explain this any better. You may be one of those people who will never understand this. Your lack of understanding does not make his claim wrong.

Your dishonest weaseling, strawman fallacious arguments, and ignoring of facts are noted for posterity.

Dragar · #**37395** 06-29-2014, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has everything to do with it. In fact, it actually supports Lessans' claim of light and sight. If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film.

Unless you wait with a long exposure.

Why does that happen, peacegirl? Is it like mirrors again, where you can't explain?

Why are your ideas about vision so bad at explaining things about vision?

I did explain mirrors and why the reflection of light where you can see yourself has nothing to do with efferent vision. So why are you holding this against me, when I explained this?

You didn't explain this at all! You told me light reflects off a mirror - which is my explanation for how mirrors work. But according to you, that makes no bit of difference to vision. What matters, as you keep telling us, are your nonsense terms like 'big enough to be seen' and 'bright enough' and 'field of view'.

So explain how mirrors work with your own daft explanation for vision, not with ours.

LadyShea · #**37396** 06-29-2014, 02:49 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

No, that's the position of physics based on the immutable properties of light. You can't have photons physically located somewhere unless they traveled there. It doesn't matter what our eyes or brains do, light exists and has the same properties even in the absence of eyes.

Your model must be compatible with those properties, or it is impossible.

It IS compatible with these properties; the only thing that is being disputed is that the light brings information to the brain which is then turned into normal vision. There is nothing in this alternate model that violates these immutable laws.

You have disputed that light has to travel to camera film to be located at camera film, specifically in the Sun turned on at noon scenario. That is incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light. You have also disputed that light reflects if it is not absorbed, and disputed that light travels even if it's not full spectrum, That is also incompatible with the laws of physics and properties of light

Light travels LadyShea, but what we see is not from photons that travel.

You are failing to address my points. I am not talking about vision at all, I am only asking you about the physical properties of light.

But it doesn't work that way LadyShea. His claim was found specifically by understanding how the brain and eyes work, so you can't conveniently leave this out.

In order to be possibly right, his claims needs to conform with the reality of light physics, regardless of how he formulated his ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have stated that only full spectrum light travels. Do you maintain that claim?

Yes I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have stated that light that encounters matter, but is neither absorbed nor transmitted, is also not reflected. Do you maintain that claim?

Yes.

Then you do in fact dispute two immutable properties of light. You just admitted it.

Why do you keep asserting that your model does not require a change to the properties of light, when it very clearly, and now admittedly, does require significant changes?

LadyShea · #**37397** 06-29-2014, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what long exposure has to do with this concept.

Long exposure refutes your statement- that both Dragar and I quoted and I quote again below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film.

My response was

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can be resolved on a sensor or film if the equipment is such that it can gather light for a long period of time.

Dragar's was

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Unless you wait with a long exposure

How many more times do I have to say that I never said light doesn't travel and that it can't be resolved, but all you will get is the full spectrum? I am speaking to deaf ears.

How does that address the point at all? You said If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film...our responses refute that claim.

LadyShea · #**37398** 06-29-2014, 02:59 PM

Bumping

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When did I ever say light both is and is not at the retina?

You've said it dozens and dozens of times, every time you say light is at the retina without having traveled to Earth first in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon.

If the light is at the retina on Earth
And the light is not on Earth yet because it hasn't reached there
Then light is both at the retina and not at the retina

Relative physical locations represent an actual mathematical relation, peacegirl

Quote:

The light that lands on the retina in the efferent account, which reveals the object, is not being reflected (although the full spectrum of light travels) so we will never get an image without the object in view.

Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon has no reflection involved at all, as it posits only newly emitted sunlight (ie full spectrum).

LadyShea · #**37399** 06-29-2014, 03:24 PM

You should read this guys thread, peacegirl

Debunking the Big Bang Theory - Freethought Forum

He was arguing against gravity rather than optics, but his arguments sounded so much like yours it is spooky (and hilarious). Like you, he didn't understand a basic mathematical concept (in his case he couldn't differentiate between 0 and net 0, in your case you don't seem to understand physical locations). He even linked to an article that you once linked to! Maybe you can approach him, he might buy what you're selling.

Here's my favorites from him:

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepthoughtsdeepwonders

Gravity is not detectable; it is only a concept. It is false because by the logic of gravity (that there are two opposing forces against each other), that would mean that there is no motion and no energy, which is false because there is motion and energy in everything. Also, the concept has been modified many times in the Standard Model whenever something new is discovered that challenges it, which is why it should be scrapped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepthoughtsdeepwonders

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

1. pick up a pencil
2. drop it
3. congratulations, you just detected gravity! :annoyingclapguy:

Not as simple as you think. A pencil drops because it is inanimate and doesn't have the properties to propel, unless if you were to launch a rocket with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepthoughtsdeepwonders

In the case of dropping the pencil, you are not really accelerating it, you are just simply letting it fall which is technically called deceleration. If you were to propel a pencil, you would need a great amount of force; however, a falling pencil does not prove gravity when gravity is defined as being absolute and thus mysteriously weighs down all objects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepthoughtsdeepwonders

It would not mean though that some mysterious force called gravity could've been behind the acceleration. It could just mean that the pencil itself is inanimate and is thus subjected to falling because of being inanimate. I know what gravity means, and that is why I am questioning it because the description of what it is does not seem to make sense to me.

"Subject to falling because of being inanimate" reminded of your "Subject to being seen because it is bright enough and big enough to be seen"

Unfortunately he didn't have your staying power, and stopped posting within days

peacegirl · #**37400** 06-29-2014, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are not offering any explanations that address the physical realities of light. If it doesn't line up with observed reality then it is not a workable model and cannot be taken seriously . How you move on is up to you, but what you're saying now is just wishful thinking and fantasy.

It lines up with reality but it's difficult to grasp because you don't understand why efferent vision changes how light functions in relation to sight without disrupting the properties of light. It is not wishful thinking and fantasy. It is a workable model and it in no way violates the laws of physics but because you think it does, you think it is the problem with the claim rather than your lack of investigative ability.