Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because that's not my interest. My only interest is in showing you and others the concept that Lessans proposed. If he turns out to be right, then that will change the landscape of how we view the world. It does not alter successful technologies. The adjustment that science made to get their rockets to land on a planet is obviously correct, but you are assuming that this light correction proves conclusively that we see in delayed time. I'm not so sure about that.
|
Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive? |
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time. |
So we're back to mysterious unknown factors again. Are you starting to notice yet how many things efferent vision has absolutely no answer for, but which afferent vision explains without trouble?
Do you think you could answer my other questions now? |
I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina. How many times do I have to repeat that the (P) reflection is a mirror image, not blue before red. It doesn't work that way in efferent vision. It works that way coming from an afferent position.
This is about circumstantial evidence which could be wrong. What appears to be a calculation from one thing might be correcting a miscalculation from somewhere else. I really don't know. What I do know is that Lessans had a solid basis for his claim, and it deserves further investigation.