A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

This is all based on the idea that the eyes are a sense organ, therefore, according to this reasoning, it must be light that is going into our brain and being interpreted because that what sense organs do.

Here's the more accurate rewrite

This is all based on the empirical observations that the eyes are a sense organ, therefore, according to this experimentation and physical examination, it must be light is being detected by our retina, and our brain interprets it into an image because that what is observed to happen

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I've been trying to explain. If we see the actual Sun as it is turned on, we are seeing this because the brain, looking through the eyes, can see it due to the conditions that allow it to occur. The Sun is large enough to be seen, and bright enough, and that light that is emitted becomes the condition, not the cause. This doesn't contradict any thing else regarding how light works, if you carefully think about it.

This doesn't explain why you claim that a camera could take a picture of the Sun at noon, when according to Lessans himself there are NO PHOTONS (required to touch the surface of camera film) on Earth until 12:08

Originally Posted by LadyShea

bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Def of White Light: Apparently colorless light, such as ordinary daylight. It contains all the wavelengths of the visible spectrum at equal intensity.

Clarification needed, you mean some wavelengths are absorbed, correct?

Yes.

3. The part that is not, is continually being replaced by new photons

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where do the old, non-absorbed photons go? What do they do?

They get spread out the farther away they are from the object until there is no more (P) light, which means that white light is left to travel on indefinitely.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You say there are "new" photons replacing them, but the ones that have been replaced have to be somewhere, they have to have some location.

What is that location? Where do the "new" replacement photons come from, and where do they go?

They are somewhere, they get spread out until they no longer reveal the object at that distance. These photons do not bounce and travel, therefore when they fade out (which means they are not resolved on the film/retina), white light continues on. The new replacement of photons that get absorbed and (P) reflected continues as long as the object is in existence. At the point at which this light cannot be resolved, WHITE LIGHT IS ALL THAT REMAINS. This will never be understood if you don't understand how this phenomenon goes hand in hand with efferent vision, which works in the same way with any lens whether it's the eye or a camera.

4. so there's no such thing as teleportation

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You haven't established that yet, until we know where the "new" photons came from and where the old, replaced, non-absorbed photons are now and how they came to be in those locations.

The new photons are constantly being replaced as the Sun's light is being emitted. Nothing is stationary. But the farther away these photons become, the more dispersed they get until they are no longer a condition of sight. At that point, white light is all that remains.

5. but those (P) photons do not bounce and travel far and wide as if to say that this pattern of light can exist apart from the object which that light is revealing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is where you run into those pesky laws of physics. Light is energy. Photons are energy packets that are not in any way dependent on or attached to matter that has not absorbed them. If they aren't absorbed they are reflected or transmitted (with or without refraction). These are the only things that can happen when light wavelengths encounters matter....absorbed, reflected, transmitted

That's the theory but when efferent vision is tested for accuracy, you will see that when it comes to seeing in real time, light that is (P) reflected from objects does not go on forever. White light continues on when the (P) light is no longer resolved by the lens.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are multiple laws at work here, not theories. The Laws of Reflection, Snell's Laws, and the laws of thermodynamics in that light cannot be destroyed nor can it disappear or fade away.

Some of these laws will need to be rethought if it turns out that objects do not (N) reflect their image indefinitely. Light does not fade away, but the (P) reflection does. I never said light cannot be destroyed, therefore thermodynamics doesn't enter into it. Snell's law is not negated either since we would be seeing the effects of refraction, but just in real time.

6. In other words, this non-absorbed light is only present because of the object's absorptive properties.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, that breaks the laws of physics. Non absorbed light exists, and keeps existing until/unless it is absorbed. Try again

That is what is being disputed LadyShea, so you can't just repeat it and call it case closed.

7. The reason we can see the object is because of the brain's ability to look out, through the eyes, to see what exists and a camera works the same way since it's the same non-absorbed light that is at the film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did the non absorbed light get to the film? How did it change it's location from the surface of the object to the surface of the film, where it must be to be absorbed by the film and create a photographic image?

Those are two different locations. They are not the same location. You understand this, correct? You have here, and you have there, to borrow some terminology from Lessans. Photons must get from here to there somehow. Travel, teleport, pop into existence, there must be some mechanism to get from there to here or here to there...what is that mechanism?

The mechanism is efferent vision which can be generalized to any lens. You will never understand this without understanding the requirements of this phenomenon; that is, the real object (or substance) must be in view and it must be large enough and bright enough to be seen, which then gives us a mirror image. What has been believed is that only the light is necessary for sight since the pattern of the object goes on without the object, and therefore there will always be a time delay, which is inaccurate, according to this model.

8. The light itself does nothing without the object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Breaking the laws of physics. Light has inherent, known, measurable, physical properties, one of them is that it travels unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. So it has to do SOMETHING. Try again

I am not contesting that. I am just saying that the non-absorbed light is being used as a condition to allow the external world to be seen. It does not bounce and travel. Light reveals the material world as the eyes focus on the OBJECT, NOT LIGHT.

9. In addition, if the object is no longer absorbing light, then there is no non-absorbed light present at the film/retina, nor is it traveling where thousands of years later we will detect that pattern of light on film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would the object or matter stop absorbing light? If the light is not traveling, is it stationary? If it's neither traveling nor stationary WHERE IS IT AND HOW DID IT GET THERE?

I told you that (P) light are those photons that allow the object to be seen, therefore when the object can no longer be resolved on film/retina --- and therefore we can no longer see the object or take a photograph in real time --- all that exists is white light which continues on and never gets destroyed.

10. How does light get to location x? It travels. I am not disputing that LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You disputed it multiple times in your own explanation! See above points

You're not understanding what I'm trying to get across which makes it appear as if I'm giving multiple explanations and being inconsistent, but I'm really not.

[davidm]

Hey, asshat, where did I say the following?

Originally Posted by asshat

I told David that his explanation that we don't see an image because light is traveling too fast, doesn't add up.

That's YOUR claim, asshat, that the correct model of light and sight is impossible because "we don't see an image because light is traveling too fast." And it's already been explained to you, asshat, why the correct theory of light does not say that light carries an image.

Understand, asshat? Undoubtedly no!

[LadyShea]

Where are the actual photons with the specific wavelengths that weren't absorbed now?

When you say they spread out "until there is no more (P) light", do you mean they cease existing at that time? They cease traveling at that time? They cease to have their specific wavelength? They rejoin the other wavelengths that do travel? Where are they and what are they doing now?

Where?

These photons do not bounce and travel, therefore when they fade out (which means they are not resolved on the film/retina), white light continues on.

That makes no sense.

Why would non-absorbed wavelengths have different properties than the wavelengths traveling together as white light? Why are non absorbed photons different from other photons?

Where are the photons that were not absorbed? If they don't travel, and they weren't absorbed, what is their location?

The new replacement of photons that get absorbed and (P) reflected continues as long as the object is in existence.

So traveling photons cease to exist of some object they once interacted with ceases to exist? That breaks the laws of physics, energy cannot be destroyed, light doesn't cease to exist unless it is transformed into some other kind of energy.

So, you are positing brand new laws of physics. Just admit it. This is why you sound like a lunatic, you say one minute that the laws of physics remain unchanged, then you happily break them into pieces.

You are avoiding the question, weasel. Where are the non absorbed photons?

No, that's laws not theory

Then quit saying efferent vision is consistent with the laws of physics because it clearly is not, at all.

Then quit saying efferent vision is consistent with the laws of physics because it clearly is not, at all.

Efferent vision is not a mechanism, it's a title. And, if it's lenses that are the key, then why does the "brain's ability to look out" even matter? The mechanism is, according to you, in the lens, a transparent curved surface made of plastic or glass on a camera, not the brain at all.
Why are you talking about the brain ever?

Then, in your model, light isn't light at all, it is something else.

Avoiding the question, weasel.

What you are trying to get across makes no sense, whatsoever and is very inconsistent both internally (brain's ability or the ability of lenses?) and within reality (light isn't reflected). You can't even answer questions about it. Can you draw a diagram or something?

[Vivisectus]

- How do you account for the observations of the moons of jupiter, and the fact that we can accurately predict its physical position using calculations that take a time delay into account?

I told you that once this claim is proved true, scientists will have to adjust their theory as to what they are seeing, and what is actually going on. This is not up to me to do. All I am required to do is try to describe this model of sight in the hope that people will take it seriously and do more testing.[/QUOTE]

Then your theory does not describe reality. If it does, it needs to include an explanation for these observations.

This is the first piece of evidence that suggests your father was wrong: his idea does not have an explanation for a well-known phenomenon.

- How come lab tests show dogs can recognize human faces on photographs?

These are not reliable tests, that's why. Show me how many have been done and what the controls were.

U disregard test results without even knowing the test then? And you call other people biased? Pretty clear indication that you believe in this idea no matter what reality says.

It was done by first rewarding dogs every time he picked a picture of his master, training the dog to actually execute the test.

Then, using a different picture of their handlers that they had not seen before and some pictures of strangers, they were asked to pick them out again. 50 dogs were tested, mostly collies because they are bright and easy to train.

All pictures were handled by the same person to avoid scent-marking. All people in them wore similar clothing.

The dogs could do it in about 88% of cases. They did the same thing with cats. The result - unsurprising to any cat owner! - was that they were far less good at it, scoring only 55% or so.

Later tests confirmed this, and also taught us that dogs can also pick out pictures of familiar scenes from unfamiliar ones. Funnily enough they are actually LESS good at picking out familiar dogs than they are at picking out familiar humans, scoring only 82% on that test. Cats are more than 90% accurate at picking out familiar cats. Self-centered bastards that they are!

So as you can see, there is VERY strong evidence that dogs can indeed recognize photographs.

This is the second piece of evidence suggesting your father was wrong, as his opinion about dog-sight was one of the (few!) pieces of actual support for his idea that he offered. As it turns out, this support was actually a misconception.

That is beside the point. The point is that the CAN see, contradicting what your father said.

This is the third piece of evidence against your fathers idea about how human sight works: infant sight was the only other piece of real evidence he offered. As it turns out, infants do not need to be conditioned to see, they can do so from day one. They just cannot change focus yet.

- How come neutrinos and the image of a supernova always show up in the same timeframe, while we know that they travel at just below the speed of light?

I'm just guessing but maybe we are seeing actual particles that have been traveling along with the neutrinos, and we are actually seeing remnants of the actual event. Maybe the neutrinos are coming in advance of these other particles.

But we do not see particles that have been travelling along: what we see is an exploding star. One minute we see a star, then we see an explosion beginning. If these were "travelling particles that are remnants from an actual event", then how come we saw a star first, and then watched it explode? Was the star "particles that were travelling"?

This makes no sense, and does not explain the neutrinos. This is another very strong piece of evidence that show that efferent vision is incorrect: we should not be seeing these things happen. We should detect streams of neutrinos LONG after the supernova has dissipated.

-How do the photons interact with film at a distance in the scenario where the sun has just been turned on? This is commonly thought to be impossible and a breach of the laws of physics. How do the eyes manage it anyway? Please actually demonstrate.

That's what I've been trying to explain. If we see the actual Sun as it is turned on, we are seeing this because the brain, looking through the eyes, can see it due to the conditions that allow it to occur. The Sun is large enough to be seen, and bright enough, and that light that is emitted becomes the condition, not the cause. This doesn't contradict any thing else regarding how light works, if you carefully think about it.

That is not an explanation at all. You are saying "If efferent vision is correct, then we see things the way they are explained by efferent vision." Nothing else. You do not explain how photons interact with film at a distance, but merely claim THAT it happens. That this is impossible is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that shows that efferent vision is not correct.

The criticism is not well founded; that's why I'm not listening to it. I am not stubborn, I am not a believer, I am not a fundamentalist, and this is not faith based. It is your presupposition about me that I am these things that is wrong.

If it is not well founded then you should be able to deal with it, which you have not done.

On top of that, you should be able to find evidence in favour of efferent vision as well.

So far we have many strong pieces of evidence that suggest efferent vision is wrong, and not a single piece of evidence that suggests it is right. The only reasonable position to take is to say that it is false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I told you that once this claim is proved true, scientists will have to adjust their theory as to what they are seeing, and what is actually going on. This is not up to me to do. All I am required to do is try to describe this model of sight in the hope that people will take it seriously and do more testing.

Then your theory does not describe reality. If it does, it needs to include an explanation for these observations.

This is the first piece of evidence that suggests your father was wrong: his idea does not have an explanation for a well-known phenomenon.

- How come lab tests show dogs can recognize human faces on photographs?

These are not reliable tests, that's why. Show me how many have been done and what the controls were.

U disregard test results without even knowing the test then? And you call other people biased? Pretty clear indication that you believe in this idea no matter what reality says.

It was done by first rewarding dogs every time he picked a picture of his master, training the dog to actually execute the test.

Then, using a different picture of their handlers that they had not seen before and some pictures of strangers, they were asked to pick them out again. 50 dogs were tested, mostly collies because they are bright and easy to train.

All pictures were handled by the same person to avoid scent-marking. All people in them wore similar clothing.

The dogs could do it in about 88% of cases. They did the same thing with cats. The result - unsurprising to any cat owner! - was that they were far less good at it, scoring only 55% or so.

Later tests confirmed this, and also taught us that dogs can also pick out pictures of familiar scenes from unfamiliar ones. Funnily enough they are actually LESS good at picking out familiar dogs than they are at picking out familiar humans, scoring only 82% on that test. Cats are more than 90% accurate at picking out familiar cats. Self-centered bastards that they are!

So as you can see, there is VERY strong evidence that dogs can indeed recognize photographs.

This is the second piece of evidence suggesting your father was wrong, as his opinion about dog-sight was one of the (few!) pieces of actual support for his idea that he offered. As it turns out, this support was actually a misconception.

That is beside the point. The point is that the CAN see, contradicting what your father said.

This is the third piece of evidence against your fathers idea about how human sight works: infant sight was the only other piece of real evidence he offered. As it turns out, infants do not need to be conditioned to see, they can do so from day one. They just cannot change focus yet.

- How come neutrinos and the image of a supernova always show up in the same timeframe, while we know that they travel at just below the speed of light?

I'm just guessing but maybe we are seeing actual particles that have been traveling along with the neutrinos, and we are actually seeing remnants of the actual event. Maybe the neutrinos are coming in advance of these other particles.

But we do not see particles that have been travelling along: what we see is an exploding star. One minute we see a star, then we see an explosion beginning. If these were "travelling particles that are remnants from an actual event", then how come we saw a star first, and then watched it explode? Was the star "particles that were travelling"?

This makes no sense, and does not explain the neutrinos. This is another very strong piece of evidence that show that efferent vision is incorrect: we should not be seeing these things happen. We should detect streams of neutrinos LONG after the supernova has dissipated.

-How do the photons interact with film at a distance in the scenario where the sun has just been turned on? This is commonly thought to be impossible and a breach of the laws of physics. How do the eyes manage it anyway? Please actually demonstrate.

That's what I've been trying to explain. If we see the actual Sun as it is turned on, we are seeing this because the brain, looking through the eyes, can see it due to the conditions that allow it to occur. The Sun is large enough to be seen, and bright enough, and that light that is emitted becomes the condition, not the cause. This doesn't contradict any thing else regarding how light works, if you carefully think about it.

That is not an explanation at all. You are saying "If efferent vision is correct, then we see things the way they are explained by efferent vision." Nothing else. You do not explain how photons interact with film at a distance, but merely claim THAT it happens. That this is impossible is perhaps the strongest piece of evidence that shows that efferent vision is not correct.

The criticism is not well founded; that's why I'm not listening to it. I am not stubborn, I am not a believer, I am not a fundamentalist, and this is not faith based. It is your presupposition about me that I am these things that is wrong.

If it is not well founded then you should be able to deal with it, which you have not done.

On top of that, you should be able to find evidence in favour of efferent vision as well.

So far we have many strong pieces of evidence that suggest efferent vision is wrong, and not a single piece of evidence that suggests it is right. The only reasonable position to take is to say that it is false.[/QUOTE]

You're wrong, and I have. I am not going to answer your long posts anymore. One or two questions tops.

[Vivisectus]

You're wrong, and I have. I am not going to answer your long posts anymore. One or two questions tops.

If you have evidence in favour, then kindly produce it. I am not aware of any having been presented in the two mammoth-threads devoted to the subject.

Your refusal to answer implies that you have no answers, but are nevertheless not willing to change your mind about these ideas. We have all been long aware of this fact, but it is nice to see you do it so clearly and obviously. Your belief in this book is irrational, and you know it. You are just not willing to own up to it because you are too emotionally invested in it.

[davidm]

Asshat isn't going to answer your long posts anymore, Vivisectus. Oh me, oh my, I wonder why?

Given that she has made more than 4,000 (!) posts in this idiotic thread and has never yet answered a single question put to her, I guess no one should be surprised.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This doesn't explain why you claim that a camera could take a picture of the Sun at noon, when according to Lessans himself there are NO PHOTONS (required to touch the surface of camera film) on Earth until 12:08

It doesn't matter; it's how the light is being used. In efferent vision, because we have a brain, although the light is at the retina, we don't develop a picture from that light; we use that light to see the real world. Cameras cannot see the real world because they don't have brains that look through eyes, but they can develop pictures from those same photons that are present at the film as a mirror image.

[LadyShea]

You're wrong, and I have. I am not going to answer your long posts anymore. One or two questions tops.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you have evidence in favour, then kindly produce it. I am not aware of any having been presented in the two mammoth-threads devoted to the subject.

Your refusal to answer implies that you have no answers, but are nevertheless not willing to change your mind about these ideas. We have all been long aware of this fact, but it is nice to see you do it so clearly and obviously. Your belief in this book is irrational, and you know it. You are just not willing to own up to it because you are too emotionally invested in it.

I have painstakingly answered your questions, but I'm not going to answer to remarks that get us nowhere. You say I'm wrong; I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong; I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong; I say I'm right. I have explained why your reasoning is inadequate, but what do you do? You say I'm wrong without considering my reply.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter; it's how the light is being used. In efferent vision, because we have a brain, although the light is at the retina, we don't develop a picture from that light; we use that light to see the real world. Cameras cannot see the real world because they don't have brains that look through eyes, but they can develop pictures from those same photons that are present at the film as a mirror image.

According to Lessans himself there are NO PHOTONS (required to touch the surface of camera film) on Earth until 12:08

How did the photons come to be instantly (at noon) "at the film as a mirror image" on Earth, 93 million miles from the Sun, when Lessans clearly stated photons would not be present on Earth until 8.5 minutes later?

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just posted it, plus all the many links to it, a few posts up. Here it is again, in red and broken down in case a paragraph is too much to read. "Too far" depends on the sensor/detector. What may be too far for human eyes, isn't too far for an Eagle's eyes, or what is too far for a telephoto lens isn't too far for a super telephoto lens, etc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It took me almost an hour to answer one post. I told people I don't like long long posts, so what do they do? Ignore me. I don't have this kind of time, especially when the person who is posting thinks he has proved Lessans wrong, when he has done no such thing. Furthermore, even when I have told Vivisectus that his portrayal of Lessans was completely fabricated, he continues to talk about his arrogance and self-glorification, which makes me very upset, because he did not know this man, and I did.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Too far does have to do with the sensor LadyShea, but it also has to do with the object. I can't believe how little you have understood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to Lessans himself there are NO PHOTONS (required to touch the surface of camera film) on Earth until 12:08

How did the photons come to be instantly (at noon) "at the film as a mirror image" on Earth, 93 million miles from the Sun, when Lessans clearly stated photons would not be present on Earth until 8.5 minutes later?

It has nothing to do with how far light has to travel to reach Earth. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE EYES WORK. IF THEY CAN SEE AN OBJECT, THEY WILL GET A MIRROR IMAGE, REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL DISTANCE. I'M SHOCKED AT THE COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.

[LadyShea]

I can't believe how little you have understood in all this time.

You are a True Believer, period, peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has nothing to do with how far light has to travel to reach Earth. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HOW THE EYES WORK. IF THEY CAN SEE AN OBJECT, THEY WILL GET A MIRROR IMAGE, REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL DISTANCE. I'M SHOCKED AT THE COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING.

THIS QUESTION WAS NOT ABOUT THE EYES,

Your model is disproven by a simple photograph

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It took me almost an hour to answer one post. I told people I don't like long long posts, so what do they do? Ignore me. I don't have this kind of time, especially when the person who is posting thinks he has proved Lessans wrong, when he has done no such thing. Furthermore, even when I have told Vivisectus that his portrayal of Lessans was completely fabricated, he continues to talk about his arrogance and self-glorification, which makes me very upset, because he did not know this man, and I did.

Wah wah wah. You don't have this kind of time, huh? What's an hour in the year you've been here weaseling?

If you don't want Lessans viewed as arrogant and self glorifying, I suggest you remove the arrogant and self glorifying language from your next edition of the book.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wah wah wah. You don't have this kind of time, huh? What's an hour in the year you've been here weaseling?

If you don't want Lessans viewed as arrogant and self glorifying, I suggest you remove the arrogant and self glorifying language from your next edition of the book.

She will have to remove ALL the language from the next edition of the book, because every single fucking line of it is not only dead wrong, but it makes Lessans look like history's biggest clown.

Nice hatchet job you've done on your Father, peacegirl, exposing him to unending public ridicule!

[peacegirl]

3. The part that is not, is continually being replaced by new photons

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where do the old, non-absorbed photons go? What do they do?

They get spread out the farther away they are from the object until there is no more (P) light, which means that white light is left to travel on indefinitely.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where are the actual photons with the specific wavelengths that weren't absorbed now?

When you say they spread out "until there is no more (P) light", do you mean they cease existing at that time? They cease traveling at that time? They cease to have their specific wavelength? They rejoin the other wavelengths that do travel? Where are they and what are they doing now?

You are still confused. These photons are not traveling. White light is traveling. The object is revealing, therefore these photons do not continue. The light fades out when the object cannot be seen. Do you see what you're doing LadyShea? You are saying that this light cannot fade out because light continues on. That is true, but it's white light that continues on, not P light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You say there are "new" photons replacing them, but the ones that have been replaced have to be somewhere, they have to have some location.

What is that location? Where do the "new" replacement photons come from, and where do they go?

They are somewhere, they get spread out until they no longer reveal the object at that distance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where?

They don't spread out beyond the visual range because this (P) light is revealing the object, it is not bringing the pattern of the light to the eye over long distances. That's where science got it wrong.

These photons do not bounce and travel, therefore when they fade out (which means they are not resolved on the film/retina), white light continues on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That makes no sense.

To you it doesn't, because you believe these photons bounce and travel. But they don't. You're never going to understand this model because you refuse to budge off of your position.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would non-absorbed wavelengths have different properties than the wavelengths traveling together as white light? Why are non absorbed photons different from other photons?

They are replaced by Sunlight in a constant procession, but they do not travel far and wide because they do not get reflected. You're having a very hard time with this concept because you are wondering where the photons go. They go back to white light when the object is too far away to be resolved.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where are the photons that were not absorbed? If they don't travel, and they weren't absorbed, what is their location?

The location is exactly where they are WHEN THEY ARE AT THE FILM/RETINA. If they are no longer at the film/retina, they do not continue traveling. It is a belief only. This is what separates efferent vision from afferent. This does not violate physics because white light does travel on, just not light that is reflected off of objects consisting of non-absorbed wavelength light.

The new replacement of photons that get absorbed and (P) reflected continues as long as the object is in existence.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So traveling photons cease to exist of some object they once interacted with ceases to exist? That breaks the laws of physics, energy cannot be destroyed, light doesn't cease to exist unless it is transformed into some other kind of energy.

So, you are positing brand new laws of physics. Just admit it. This is why you sound like a lunatic, you say one minute that the laws of physics remain unchanged, then you happily break them into pieces.

I'm sorry about that; but it's YOU that is not getting it.

4. so there's no such thing as teleportation

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You haven't established that yet, until we know where the "new" photons came from and where the old, replaced, non-absorbed photons are now and how they came to be in those locations.

The new photons are constantly being replaced as the Sun's light is being emitted. Nothing is stationary. But the farther away these photons become, the more dispersed they get until they are no longer a condition of sight. At that point, white light is all there is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are avoiding the question, weasel. Where are the non absorbed photons?

Because you have science on your side you believe you're entitled to call me a weasel, but I'm not weaseling. I'm trying to explain where physics still works, even though the light from objects do not travel away from the object beyond the inverse square law. White light continues where the last photons on the sensor can not be resolved.

5. but those (P) photons do not bounce and travel far and wide as if to say that this pattern of light can exist apart from the object which that light is revealing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is where you run into those pesky laws of physics. Light is energy. Photons are energy packets that are not in any way dependent on or attached to matter that has not absorbed them. If they aren't absorbed they are reflected or transmitted (with or without refraction). These are the only things that can happen when light wavelengths encounters matter....absorbed, reflected, transmitted

That's the theory but when efferent vision is tested for accuracy, you will see that when it comes to seeing in real time, light that is (P) reflected from objects does not go on forever. White light continues on when the (P) light is no longer resolved by the lens.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that's laws not theory

You're right, laws are not theory, but afferent vision is a theory. P light does not travel so it can't go further than the inverse square law allows.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are multiple laws at work here, not theories. The Laws of Reflection, Snell's Laws, and the laws of thermodynamics in that light cannot be destroyed nor can it disappear or fade away.

Some of these laws will need to be rethought if it turns out that objects do not (N) reflect their image indefinitely. Light does not fade away, but the (P) reflection does. I never said light cannot be destroyed, therefore thermodynamics doesn't enter into it. Snell's law is not negated either since we would be seeing the effects of refraction, but just in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then quit saying efferent vision is consistent with the laws of physics because it clearly is not, at all.

It is very much consistent except for the part that is inaccurate, which is being contested.

6. In other words, this non-absorbed light is only present because of the object's absorptive properties.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, that breaks the laws of physics. Non absorbed light exists, and keeps existing until/unless it is absorbed. Try again

That is what is being disputed LadyShea, so you can't just repeat the very thing that is being contested.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then quit saying efferent vision is consistent with the laws of physics because it clearly is not, at all.

Okay. Efferent vision does not change how light works, and it doesn't change the laws of physics, although it does change what science believes is occurring.

7. The reason we can see the object is because of the brain's ability to look out, through the eyes, to see what exists and a camera works the same way since it's the same non-absorbed light that is at the film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How did the non absorbed light get to the film? How did it change it's location from the surface of the object to the surface of the film, where it must be to be absorbed by the film and create a photographic image?

Those are two different locations. They are not the same location. You understand this, correct? You have here, and you have there, to borrow some terminology from Lessans. Photons must get from here to there somehow. Travel, teleport, pop into existence, there must be some mechanism to get from there to here or here to there...what is that mechanism?

If efferent vision is true, it does what you believe is impossible because you don't get the concept. There is no teleportation, or stationary photons. You believe that because objects absorb light, white light cannot continue once the non-absorbed light is not longer at the film/retina, but that's a falsehood.

The mechanism is efferent vision which can be generalized to any lens.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Efferent vision is not a mechanism, it's a title. And, if it's lenses that are the key, then why does the "brain's ability to look out" even matter? The mechanism is, according to you, in the lens, a transparent curved surface made of plastic or glass on a camera, not the brain at all.
Why are you talking about the brain ever?

Because that is how Lessans knew the eyes are not a sense organ. That IS THE CLAIM. It wasn't cameras that revealed this truth. Brains allow us to see in real time, according to efferent vision, which easily extends to cameras and telescopes because they work in a similar fashion, although they don't see the actual object since they don't have brains; instead, they photograph and develop the light that is instantly at the film.

8. The light itself does nothing without the object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Breaking the laws of physics. Light has inherent, known, measurable, physical properties, one of them is that it travels unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. So it has to do SOMETHING. Try again

I am not contesting that. I am just saying that the non-absorbed light is being used as a condition to allow the external world to be seen. It does not bounce and travel. It reveals. White light passes over the object, which allows P light to reveal matter, and continues on.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then, in your model, light isn't light at all, it is something else.

You're off base entirely. I don't know if there's hope because you will not accept that (P) light does not get (N) reflected.

9. In addition, if the object is no longer absorbing light, then there is no non-absorbed light present at the film/retina, nor is it traveling where thousands of years later we will detect that pattern of light on film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would the object or matter stop absorbing light? If the light is not traveling, is it stationary? If it's neither traveling nor stationary WHERE IS IT AND HOW DID IT GET THERE?

I told you that nothing is stationary. Those photons are present as long as the object is present and absorbing light, but those non-absorbed photons do not get reflected.

I told you that (P) light are those photons which allows the object to be seen, therefore when the object can no longer be resolved on film/retina, and therefore we can no longer see or take a photograph in real time, all that exists is white light which continues on and never gets destroyed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Avoiding the question, weasel.

Keep calling me names won't get you brownie points. You'll be put at the end of the line.

10. How does light get to location x? It travels. I am not disputing that LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You disputed it multiple times in your own explanation! See above points

You're not understanding what I'm trying to get across. That's why I will, for now, discuss light as passing over objects, not bouncing off of objects.

You're making it appear as if I'm giving multiple explanations and being inconsistent, but I'm really not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are trying to get across makes no sense, whatsoever and is very inconsistent both internally (brain's ability or the ability of lenses?) and within reality (light isn't reflected). You can't even answer questions about it. Can you draw a diagram or something?

I don't have the software to do this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Nice hatchet job you've done on your Father, peacegirl, exposing him to unending public ridicule!

I'm sure Peacegirl had a very special relationship with ol'e 'Pinwheel Lessans'

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have painstakingly answered your questions, but I'm not going to answer to remarks that get us nowhere. You say I'm wrong; I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong; I say I'm right, you say I'm wrong; I say I'm right. I have explained why your reasoning is inadequate, but what do you do? You say I'm wrong without considering my reply.

I provide compelling evidence for my point of view, which you avoid. I replied to your explanation, showing why you were wrong with - again - compelling support and evidence. You are just avoiding the glaringly obvious fact that 1: there is strong evidence that suggests efferent sight is wrong and 2: no evidence that suggests it is right.

The only reasonable conclusion is that efferent sight is wrong. If this is not so: please present your evidence in favour, and explain why we observe phenomena that should be impossible if efferent sight were true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wah wah wah. You don't have this kind of time, huh? What's an hour in the year you've been here weaseling?

If you don't want Lessans viewed as arrogant and self glorifying, I suggest you remove the arrogant and self glorifying language from your next edition of the book.

That's how you interpreted his words, but if you began to hear that people were taking this book very seriously, you would look at the introduction differently. I had to write the introduction this way to preclude the possibility that people would use their capabilities as a standard to judge the veracity of this knowledge.