A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that I'm disputing in standard vision is that the light is representative of the object without the object being present. I don't get why people don't understand what I'm saying.

Probably because every so often you stamp your foot and say "And I'm not talking to anyone unless they can explain why we can't see something outside of visual range!"

And then you get all upset when we point out you're making some sort of fuss about why we can't see what we can't see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Haven't you been following this thread? Spacemonkey helped me there. The word "reflect" does not apply in efferent vision. Objects absorb and the remaining non-absorbed light extends (or P reflects which is not a true reflection) until the light fades out. LadyShea explained how dispersed light fades. LadyShea, could you find that post?

I'm quite familiar with inverse square laws. But I'm not talking about reflection. You put (P) in front of light. So is (P) light not true light? Does light exist in your world, or just P (light)? Does P(light) still obey the rules of optics? If so, how does that make it different to normal light? If not...well, you're disputing optics again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The visual range in efferent vision is not as important as the size of the object. Something that is huge such as the sun could be seen instantly because it meets the requirements. That's why we can see the moon in real time even though it's far away. Everyone thinks that the photons have to travel from that great distance before we would be able to detect the image from light. That's not true. There has to be light surrounding the object which then serves as a mirror image instantly due to the non-absorbed wavelength extending (or (P) reflecting) from the object. The light intersects with the eye or film as a result. Nothing is teleporting.

So there's no one visual range, it depends on the object, cool. But what if a star is smaller than the Sun, but much brighter. Wouldn't I be able to see that further away?

Also, if I have better than 20/20 vision, doesn't that mean I can see things outside my visual range?

And how far is TLR's visual range for a Boeing 747 aircraft? Roughly? He seemed to want to know, and you kept ignoring him.

[Vivisectus]

How about we approach efferent vision from a properly scientific perspective?

We start with an observation: what is it, exactly, that makes us wonder if efferent vision is a better model to explain what we can see?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am saying goodbye to my friend who is walking home, I will watch him until he's no longer within my visual range. That means that the smaller and smaller he gets, the more the (P) light gets dispersed until his image is no longer present on my retina. I really don't see what's so difficult.

Why in the world would light which, according to efferent vision, appears at the film/retina instantly be subject to dispersion? The dispersion of light from it's source is a function of the light having traveled away from it's source. Light which is traveling is subject to the limits imposed by the speed of light. Light that is not traveling (if such a thing were possible) would not be subject to the limits imposed by the speed of light and would not be subject to dispersion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

IN other words, the visual range is how far someone with 20/20 vision can see. You do know this is not an answer, right?

What is the visual range for seeing a mountain? A tree? A chipmunk? A dollar bill? Jupiter?

Lady Shea, don't you know that this question is nearly impossible to answer. There are so many different objects and each object, rather obviously, carries with it it's own unique field of vision, just like it carries it's own unique wavelength.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea explained how dispersed light fades.

I am pretty sure that is not correct. Lady Shea did explain how and why light disperses over distance, but she also told you that light does not fade. What was explained and what you understood of that explanation are two very different things, once again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that I'm disputing in standard vision is that the light is representative of the object without the object being present. I don't get why people don't understand what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Probably because every so often you stamp your foot and say "And I'm not talking to anyone unless they can explain why we can't see something outside of visual range!"

And then you get all upset when we point out you're making some sort of fuss about why we can't see what we can't see.

Dragar, all I'm saying is that light alone cannot enter one's visual range and produce an image. There must be an object that is seen by the naked eye (is that better?) or seen by a telescope. One way to prove that what we see is the actual entity, not the light, is to do testing on Earth. For some odd reason, you think that the observation that when an object gets so tiny that it is out of range, that it doesn't prove anything. I believe it does. It proves that when the physical object gets too small to be resolved, we do not get an image from light alone.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And why are you putting (P) in front of light now? Are you now talking about an entirely different light to the rest of us?

You're missing the complete explanation. That's why unless you think in terms of efferent vision (the brain looking out, through the eyes), you're not going to get it. The light from an object is not bouncing off of it and traveling through space and time. That's what this dispute is all about. According to Lessans, light does not do that. The non-absorbed light from the object is instantly at the film/retina if the object meets the requirements of size and brightness.

Haven't you been following this thread? Spacemonkey helped me there. The word "reflect" does not apply in efferent vision. Objects absorb and the remaining non-absorbed light extends (or P reflects which is not a true reflection) until the light fades out. LadyShea explained how dispersed light fades. LadyShea, could you find that post?

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm quite familiar with inverse square laws. But I'm not talking about reflection. You put (P) in front of light. So is (P) light not true light? Does light exist in your world, or just P (light)? Does P(light) still obey the rules of optics? If so, how does that make it different to normal light? If not...well, you're disputing optics again.

P light is the light that allows the object to be seen. This light is there because of the object's ability to absorb the other wavelengths. This allows the object to reveal itself when we're looking at it. It obeys the rules of optics in that the further away the object is from the lens, the inverse square law comes into play. It is different than (N) light in that (N) light is just photons that are traveling through space and time from the Sun. It does exactly what scientists say it does except bounce off of objects taking the object's wavelength (or information) with it. That's why Lessans said:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-120

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. 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.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Anyway, back on topic. Tell me, peacegirl: how far is my visual range? Roughly. Metres? Kilometres? Lightyears?

You can also answer TLR at the same time: how far away can he see a Boeing 747 aircraft?

The visual range in efferent vision is not as important as the size of the object. Something that is huge such as the sun could be seen instantly because it meets the requirements. That's why we can see the moon in real time even though it's far away. Everyone thinks that the photons have to travel from that great distance before we would be able to detect the image from light. That's not true. There has to be light surrounding the object which then serves as a mirror image instantly due to the non-absorbed wavelength extending (or (P) reflecting) from the object. The light intersects with the eye or film as a result. Nothing is teleporting.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So there's no one visual range, it depends on the object, cool. But what if a star is smaller than the Sun, but much brighter. Wouldn't I be able to see that further away?

It could probably be seen if it was bright enough. In general, the brightness of a star, its size, and how far away it is all play a role in whether we are able to see it with the naked eye or with a telescope.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Also, if I have better than 20/20 vision, doesn't that mean I can see things outside my visual range?

No, it just means you can resolve very small objects due to the shape of your eyeball and where the lens focuses the light on the retina.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And how far is TLR's visual range for a Boeing 747 aircraft? Roughly? He seemed to want to know, and you kept ignoring him.

It depends if the plane is ascending or not. It a Boeing 747 was flying at 60,000 feet, you probably couldn't see it.

Where did all the planes go? » Contrail Science


I'm not purposely ignoring anyone; it's just a lot of posts to answer.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, all I'm saying is that light alone cannot enter one's visual range and produce an image. There must be an object that is seen by the naked eye (is that better?) or seen by a telescope. One way to prove that what we see is the actual entity, not the light, is to do testing on Earth. For some odd reason, you think that the observation that when an object gets so tiny that it is out of range, that it doesn't prove anything. I believe it does. It proves that when the physical object gets too small to be resolved, we do not get an image from light alone.

For starters, when you say "light enters our visual range", that's nonsense. We don't see light, we see objects because light from the object lands on our retinas. If light from that object isn't landing on our retinas, we're not seeing it. And just because light is 'within our visual range', doesn't mean we can see an object that the light bounced off. Most importantly, 'within our visual range' doesn't even make sense when talking about light - what's the 'visual range' for a photon? You can't see the light itself, because light doesn't reflect other light.

If something an object is 'too small to be resolved', that means that the pattern of light landing on our retinas is too small for our retinas to discern it. That's what resolved means: it refers to the size of the image on a focal plane. So afferent vision explains this perfectly, because of how light works, and can even predict when we will or won't be able to resolve something. As we've said before, your counter example is useless. All you are saying is that when something is too small, or too far away, we can't see it. Well duh. Standard vision says that too. Because a pattern of light that is too small landing on our retinas is useless. We can even test that: if we could make the image bigger, by manipulating the light, we'd be able to see that thing too far away. And lo-and-behold, it works.

If by resolved you actually just mean 'can't be seen', well afferent vision explain perfectly why we can't see things at a distance: because of the rules of light.

So you are not proving anything at all, and once again showed a complete misunderstanding of how everyone else thinks vision works. Standard vision explains why we can't see distant objects, including when something is too far away to be resolved.

How do you explain why we can't see distant things? I don't think you can - because you have no model. You will just say something like "we can't see distant things because the conditions for seeing them haven't been met", which is completely useless. You don't even know what those conditions are (how bright is bright enough? how big is big enough?) and have no explanation for why. Except, maybe, by using the rules of light. Funny, that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(P)light is different than (N) light in that (N) light is just photons that are traveling through space and time from the Sun. It does exactly what scientists say it does except bounce off of objects taking the object's wavelength (or information) with it.

Then it doesn't obey the rules of optics. Because according to you, if the objects suddenly changes while the light is en route, then the light instantly changes too. That's not optics. So you are disputing how light behaves, not just vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it just means you can resolve very small objects due to the shape of your eyeball and where the lens focuses the light on the retina.

But you said visual range (for a given object) was as far as I could see that object with 20/20 vision. But someone with better than 20/20 vision can resolve the same object further than someone with 20/20 vision. That's what it means. So someone with better than 20/20 vision can see further than their visual range, can't they?

Maybe you need a better definition for 'visual range'.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Maybe you need a better definition for 'visual range'.

How very droll.

[LadyShea]

Divergence over distance, resolution, etc. only relates to traveling light with its properties interacting with a sensor.

None of that should have any application in instant mirror images on the retina or whatever.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that I'm disputing in standard vision is that the light is representative of the object without the object being present.

This is simply not true. It may be the principle claim that you want to dispute, but in the course of disputing that claim you have managed to challenge any number of other claims that are part of the standard model. Likewise, in your defense of efferent vision you have made any number of claims that directly contradict the standard model. You have made claims about the absorption and reflection of light, about the behavior of individual photons, about the necessity of lenses, etc. Every one of your claims conflicts with the standard models for light and vision.

Efferent vison is like a wall built of bricks. Each of your claims regarding how light, vision and photography work is a brick in that wall. Each time that one of your claims, such as your claim that lenses are necessary to take a photograph of an object, is shown to be in error it is like removing a brick from the wall. Remove enough bricks and there is no wall. When you are shown to be wrong, beyond even your ability to ignore the fact, you respond by saying that it doesn't matter because your being wrong about that particular fact does not disprove efferent vision. What you fail to recognise is that every time you are shown to be in error that error weakens your whole argument for efferent vision just as surely as the removal of each brick weakens the whole wall.

In short, peacegirl, you have no wall and you are quite a few bricks short of a full load.

[LadyShea]

Some unanswered questions from the other thread. Note these are different people, so respond accordingly

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What dispersed light? Dispersion is a property of traveling light. Are you saying there will not be any instantaneous image showing up anywhere where travelling light has yet to reach? Or if there rather will be an instantaneous image even where travelling light has not reached, then what does the dispersion of such travelling light have to do with it? What is being dispersed? And what do you mean by "dispersed"? Do you even know, or are we now dealing with a new and undefined (P)dispersion now as well?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, to get a picture of my family I would need my family to stand there and reflect light, so that reflected light could strike the sensor or film in a pattern representing my family.

Where did anyone say anything different?

Originally Posted by But

That's fine, but will you admit you were wrong about lenses? You claimed that lenses were necessary, and they aren't. So will you admit you were wrong about that, so we can move on and discuss the other stuff?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not purposely ignoring anyone; it's just a lot of posts to answer.

Bullshit. You've been purposefully ignoring my questions for weeks now. I know this because you keep replying to them only to tell me you're not going to answer them.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat that when all is said and done, there will be an explanation that is satisfactory to scientists using the efferent model.

Fewer times than you need to tell people you are sane.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How about we approach efferent vision from a properly scientific perspective?

We start with an observation: what is it, exactly, that makes us wonder if efferent vision is a better model to explain what we can see?

It's a better model for the simple reason that it is actually what is happening in reality. Light is a reflection of the external world, the external world does not reflect light, and that's what I'm setting out to prove [hopefully].

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Divergence over distance, resolution, etc. only relates to traveling light with its properties interacting with a sensor.

That's what you keep saying but you're coming from the very premise that is being disputed, so it's a moot point.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of that should have any application in instant mirror images on the retina or whatever.

That's because you don't understand this model yet, and why it works.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a better model for the simple reason that it is actually what is happening in reality. Light is a reflection of the external world, the external world does not reflect light, and that's what I'm setting out to prove [hopefully].

So you have no example of something that we can observe and that leads us to believe that the afferent model needs re-working?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you keep saying but you're coming from the very premise that is being disputed, so it's a moot point.
.

That you are disputing this premise does not make it false, that all the observations and tests support the existing premise make it true, and that there is no supporting evidence (only an unsupported assertion) for the dispute means the dispute has failed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why in the world would light which, according to efferent vision, appears at the film/retina instantly be subject to dispersion? The dispersion of light from it's source is a function of the light having traveled away from it's source. Light which is traveling is subject to the limits imposed by the speed of light. Light that is not traveling (if such a thing were possible) would not be subject to the limits imposed by the speed of light and would not be subject to dispersion.

This is the crux of the problem, and why people aren't getting it. Light is traveling. I said this all along. Photons from the Sun are in constant motion, but that has nothing to do with the object. The object is not reflecting light such that light only contains the information as it travels through space/time. Scientists had no way of understanding this because they assumed the eyes were a sense organ, which follows the same logic as the other sense organs. But in reality this is not what is occurring. As light is constantly bouncing, being reflected, diffracted, dispersed, refracted, and interrupted by atmospheric conditions, WE are able to see all forms of matter through this interaction. Light becomes a condition, not a cause (which I have repeated many times). The only requirement is for matter to be large enough or bright enough to be seen, for this allows this mirror image or interaction between photons and film/retina to take place. The only way this is possible is due to efferent vision, otherwise, what I'm describing would be impossible.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

IN other words, the visual range is how far someone with 20/20 vision can see. You do know this is not an answer, right?

What is the visual range for seeing a mountain? A tree? A chipmunk? A dollar bill? Jupiter?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lady Shea, don't you know that this question is nearly impossible to answer. There are so many different objects and each object, rather obviously, carries with it it's own unique field of vision, just like it carries it's own unique wavelength.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea explained how dispersed light fades.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am pretty sure that is not correct. Lady Shea did explain how and why light disperses over distance, but she also told you that light does not fade. What was explained and what you understood of that explanation are two very different things, once again.

When I say fade, I mean the object gets dimmer in reference to the observer as the light is dispersed. I don't mean photons actually fade.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you have no example of something that we can observe and that leads us to believe that the afferent model needs re-working?

Vivisectus, I'm offering this alternate model, which I'm trying to refine so it not only seems plausible to everyone, but actually appears to be the more appropriate model than what is presently being posited because it makes more sense. But the only way to prove that this is the correct model is to prove that efferent vision is absolutely correct, and this will take further empirical testing. This will be the final nail in the coffin that afferent vision is a fallacy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you keep saying but you're coming from the very premise that is being disputed, so it's a moot point.

It has nothing to do with seeing. That's physics, right there. Non traveling things can't diverge over distance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has nothing to do with seeing. That's physics, right there. Non traveling things can't diverge over distance.

Who is saying this LadyShea? Not me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is saying this LadyShea? Not me.

First you say that you are disputing the premise, and then you say your are not. You are contradicting yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Correct.

If light from that object isn't landing on our retinas, we're not seeing it.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And just because light is 'within our visual range', doesn't mean we can see an object that the light bounced off.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Most importantly, 'within our visual range' doesn't even make sense when talking about light - what's the 'visual range' for a photon? You can't see the light itself, because light doesn't reflect other light.

Thank youuuuuuuuuuuu. Light does not reflect light. That's key to understanding this. So what is visual range? It is seeing the object as a mirror image because the object is within visual range. There is no time involved in efferent vision because mirror images do not travel. All they do is reveal a snapshot of what the lens is focused on. That should make sense to you.

Originally Posted by Dragar

If something an object is 'too small to be resolved', that means that the pattern of light landing on our retinas is too small for our retinas to discern it. That's what resolved means: it refers to the size of the image on a focal plane. So afferent vision explains this perfectly, because of how light works, and can even predict when we will or won't be able to resolve something. As we've said before, your counter example is useless.

My counter example is far from useless. The problem with the afferent model continues to exist because of the belief that the eyes are a sense organ. Therefore, the light is bringing the image instead of the object revealing the image. It's almost impossible for me to break through this learned ignorance (and I don't mean this to put anyone down).

Originally Posted by Dragar

All you are saying is that when something is too small, or too far away, we can't see it. Well duh. Standard vision says that too. Because a pattern of light that is too small landing on our retinas is useless. We can even test that: if we could make the image bigger, by manipulating the light, we'd be able to see that thing too far away. And lo-and-behold, it works.

The difference here is that when we do see something, scientists are saying it's from the light ONLY. That is the disputation. It works every time, but that's because the object is magnified or seen by the naked eye. We never get an image from light apart from the object.

Originally Posted by Dragar

If by resolved you actually just mean 'can't be seen', well afferent vision explain perfectly why we can't see things at a distance: because of the rules of light.

No, we can't see an image because the object is not in the field of view whether you're talking about a camera's lens, or the eye's lens.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So you are not proving anything at all, and once again showed a complete misunderstanding of how everyone else thinks vision works. Standard vision explains why we can't see distant objects, including when something is too far away to be resolved.

You're right, science says one thing and Lessans says another. Does that mean just because the majority believe science that Lessans automatically is wrong? This goes against everything science stands for.

Originally Posted by Dragar

How do you explain why we can't see distant things? I don't think you can - because you have no model. You will just say something like "we can't see distant things because the conditions for seeing them haven't been met", which is completely useless. You don't even know what those conditions are (how bright is bright enough? how big is big enough?) and have no explanation for why. Except, maybe, by using the rules of light. Funny, that.

How bright something is or how large something is, is not required for me to explain the model. Of course we can delve into what makes something large or bright enough to be seen, but for the purposes of this discussion all that is necessary is to prove that the substance has to be present, which would automatically disprove delayed seeing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(P)light is different than (N) light in that (N) light is just photons that are traveling through space and time from the Sun. It does exactly what scientists say it does except bounce off of objects taking the object's wavelength (or information) with it.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then it doesn't obey the rules of optics. Because according to you, if the objects suddenly changes while the light is en route, then the light instantly changes too. That's not optics. So you are disputing how light behaves, not just vision.

Optics does support efferent vision but there's more to it. The dispute arises due to the way the brain works, not light. I've said this all along. So in order for anyone to understand that the visual spectrum of light is different from (N) light (or the non-visible spectrum), I have to show why. This is where efferent vision comes into play.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Also, if I have better than 20/20 vision, doesn't that mean I can see things outside my visual range?

No, it just means you can resolve very small objects due to the shape of your eyeball and where the lens focuses the light on the retina.

Originally Posted by Dragar

But you said visual range (for a given object) was as far as I could see that object with 20/20 vision. But someone with better than 20/20 vision can resolve the same object further than someone with 20/20 vision. That's what it means. So someone with better than 20/20 vision can see further than their visual range, can't they?

No, sharpness of vision has nothing to do with our specie's ability to see at a certain distance or visual range. What falls into our visual range is what counts regardless of how sharp we see that image, which has to do with visual acuity.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Maybe you need a better definition for 'visual range'.

It's the depth that one can see. Anything that falls into that periphery will be seen if it is large enough or bright enough. How's that?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Incorrect.

Wuh? We're talking about standard vision, here, peacegirl. Do you think standard vision says that we can see an object just because light that bounced off it enters our 'visual range'? Because it doesn't.

And if you are talking about your crazy ideas about vision, it's pretty trivial to notice that just because 'light' has travelled in front of us, doesn't mean we can see the thing that the light bounced off. That's why you can't see around corners. Good grief.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank youuuuuuuuuuuu. Light does not reflect light. That's key to understanding this. So what is visual range? It is seeing the object as a mirror image because the object is within visual range. There is no time involved in efferent vision because mirror images do not travel. All they do is reveal a snapshot of what the lens is focused on. That should make sense to you.

You defined 'visual range' of a thing as 'the distance someone with 20/20 vision can' can see the thing. The visual range for a photon makes no sense; we can't see light. Please address this, and less word salad.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The difference here is that when we do see something, scientists are saying it's from the light ONLY. That is the disputation. It works every time, but that's because the object is magnified or seen by the naked eye. We never get an image from light apart from the object.

I guess a way to test this would be to remove the object while the light was en route, right? If the thing instantly vanishes, Lessans is right. If it takes time, everyone else is right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we can't see an image because the object is not in the field of view whether you're talking about a camera's lens, or the eye's lens.

Do you even read what you write? You say we can't see something because the object is not in the field of view. What does field of view mean? It means we can't see something! Why not? Because it's not in our field of view! And round and round we go with your useless empty sentences. As I thought, you have no explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, science says one thing and Lessans says another. Does that mean just because the majority believe science that Lessans automatically is wrong? This goes against everything science stands for.

No, but it means your counterexample does not show anything. All it shows is that you believe Lessans is right. So are you going to stop stamping your foot and demanding people explain why we can't see distant objects now?

We have plenty of other reasons to believe Lessans wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, sharpness of vision has nothing to do with our specie's ability to see at a certain distance or visual range.

You don't know what 20/20 vision means, do you? Or did you mean (P)20/20 vision?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you keep saying but you're coming from the very premise that is being disputed, so it's a moot point.

What Lady Shea is saying is standard optics. If you dispute what she is saying then you are disputing the rules of optics. You keep claiming that optics supports efferent vision. You can't reasonably dispute optics and appeal to it's authority. Or, to put in terms you are likely to understand. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only requirement is for matter to be large enough or bright enough to be seen, for this allows this mirror image or interaction between photons and film/retina to take place. The only way this is possible is due to efferent vision, otherwise, what I'm describing would be impossible.

If the only requirements are that the object be large enough and bright to be seen and vision does not depend upon the movement of light across distance then, according to efferent vision, the distance between the observer and the object should not matter and the dispersion of light over distance should not matter,. No matter how far away an object it is it should still be visible if the object itself is large enough and bright enough to be seen. Regardless of the distance we should not only see the object in real time, we should also see it in it's true dimensions, always.

You appear to want distance to matter when it comes to understanding the apparent size of an object but you don't want it to matter when it comes to seeing objects in real time. Just like you want to dispute the principles of optics and appeal to them at the same time. Like I said above, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say fade, I mean the object gets dimmer in reference to the observer as the light is dispersed. I don't mean photons actually fade.

If the light does not have to travel across the space between the object and the film/retina why should dispersion be a factor and why should the object get dimmer in reference to the observer?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, I'm offering this alternate model, which I'm trying to refine so it not only seems plausible to everyone, but actually appears to be the more appropriate model than what is presently being posited because it makes more sense. But the only way to prove that this is the correct model is to prove that efferent vision is absolutely correct, and this will take further empirical testing. This will be the final nail in the coffin that afferent vision is a fallacy.

You could just say "That is right, I do not have such an example." you know. What do you propose we test for, and how?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Divergence over distance, resolution, etc. only relates to traveling light with its properties interacting with a sensor.

None of that should have any application in instant mirror images on the retina or whatever.

I'm asking you to please think in terms of efferent vision when you're trying to understand this model. You cannot fit a square into a circle, so it's impossible to understand efferent vision in terms of the afferent model. It doesn't matter that the photons are continually being replaced. They are still being absorbed by the object which means that the (P) wavelength will produce a mirror image. Beyond our ability to see the object because it's too small or far away to resolve on film/retina, all we get is white light.