Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
peacegirl This link talks about the laws of geometric optics. If you believe optics to be a better model of efferent vision than it is for afferent vision, you need to explain how these support efferent vision
Phy 254 Laws of Geometrical Optics
These pages talk about the Beer-Lambert law regarding light absorption and atmospheric absorption as well (The full specrum from the sun does not reach Earth). Once again, (P) absorption MUST be compatible with these known laws of physics and empirically measurable observations
CHP - Beer-Lambert Law
Photon Absorption
This NASA publication (.pdf) discusses the problem with studying the "full spectrum" from Earth, because the full spectrum does not reach Earth. So, you need to explain precisely what you mean by full spectrum in the way you are using it, because it is not the entire spectrum
Quote:
Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to the ground. That limited amount of radiation has given astronomers enough information to estimate the general shape and size of the universe and categorize its basic components, but there is much left to learn. It is essential to study the entire spectrum rather than just limited regions of it.
Relying on the radiation that reaches Earth's surface is like listening to a piano recital with only a few of the piano's keys working.
|
Now, I am pretty sure you have not studied enough optics for your claim that "optics supports efferent vision" to be remotely credible. Here's your chance to show that you have an even possible, let alone plausible model. |
You wrote: "Only visible light, some radio waves, and limited amounts of infrared and ultraviolet light survive the passage from space to ground. So isn't that which we see part of visible light? And beyond that, I already told you that, according to EFFERENT vision, light does not have to reach Earth for us to see the Sun and moon in real time. |
Yes, peacegirl, you already TOLD us this a thousand times; but now, here, even after nearly a thousand pages across two threads, you still have not provided a PHYSICAL MECHANISM OR COHERENT EXPLANATION FOR HOW THIS MIRACLE OCCURS; i.e. you have not yet learned the difference between
assert and
explain; between
tell and
show. You feebly tried by talking incomprehensible nonsense about mirror images that you yourself do not even understand.
But it's moot. Lessans is wrong. The discussion which I see you are now avoiding of how we send spacecraft to other worlds proves that we do not see in real time. It is about the hundredth different proof you have been given. If you read my last post I gave you good advice, which I'm srue you will not follow.