A revolution in thought - Page 736

davidm · #**18376** 06-08-2012, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The spinning toothed wheel was used to determine the speed

Once again, you don't understand the experiment at all do you?

I understand the experiment LadyShea, but what does measuring the speed of light have to do with determining whether we see an object in real time? Our eyes would never be able to determine this in such a short interval.

And yet, somehow, the experiment was able to determine that the velocity of light was c! Precisely because of the delay in seeing the light!

:derpoland:

naturalist.atheist · #**18377** 06-08-2012, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL as if you'll leave here. You realize it has been over a year now, don't you?

Most people don't consider a year of discussing a single book all that quick. You've had all the opportunity in the world to present and defend these ideas and have simply failed.

If you look back and count all of the posts that had nothing to say except to criticize, you will see that this thread would be half as long, or maybe even less. So don't go using your false testimony to discredit my efforts, or this work. It's all bullshit LadyShea, and you know it. And if you don't know it, you're just as bad as the fundies you criticize. The irony meter is exploding.

If you'd answer questions and make clear rational statements the first time(how many of your posts have been "What I meant to say was....") then we wouldn't need to repeat them and criticize you for weaseling

You weasel, I call you on it. Simple as that.

Also lol @ "False Testimony"...so histrionic.

I feel that your desire to be the one who right is very important to you. In my estimation, you are trying to prove your importance LadyShea as someone who is smart and can do no wrong. It is clear as day by the words you utter, that you are dependent on what other people tell you is true. You are not an independent thinker at all. Could it be that underneath the facade of being one of the science-minded people that are responsible for showing us the way, that you could be wrong? There are no sacred cows LadyShea, and you are holding out like someone who is protecting his property. Unfortunately, you don't hold the truth in hand. You are agreeing with people who you believe have the answers because they are the 'scientists.' That's exactly why Lessans had to write the introcution the way he did. I know you will never accept my take on what is going on, but it doesn't mean there is not an element of truth in what I'm saying. Think about it.

Anyone with a small ability to use hand tools, a Home Depot and an pocket astronomical laser can do this experiment. All except schizophrenics. Lucky for you peacegirl, your delusions are unassailable.

peacegirl · #**18378** 06-08-2012, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second; therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure. By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the remote mirror, and then back through the same gap. He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

Speed of Light Measurement

Why are you harping on this? I am not disputing the speed of light. I'm disputing that our eyes could adjust in such a short distance between the lamp and the spinning wheel to know whether we see the lamp in real time or delayed time. It would be impossible.

LadyShea · #**18379** 06-08-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second; therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure. By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the remote mirror, and then back through the same gap. He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

Speed of Light Measurement

Why are you harping on this? I am not disputing the speed of light. I'm disputing that our eyes could adjust in such a short distance between the lamp and the spinning wheel to know whether we see the lamp in real time or delayed time. It would be impossible.

You don't understand the experiment then.

The viewer could not see the light AT ALL if the wheel was rotating at a specific speed, even with an unobstructed line of sight at various intervals, because of the light travel time delay which caused the returning light to hit the teeth of the wheel instead of the gaps between the teeth

At slower rotation speeds the light could be seen
At faster rotation speeds the light could be seen

If real time seeing were true, then the viewer would be able to see the light all the time regardless of the speed of rotation of the wheel

peacegirl · #**18380** 06-08-2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL as if you'll leave here. You realize it has been over a year now, don't you?

Most people don't consider a year of discussing a single book all that quick. You've had all the opportunity in the world to present and defend these ideas and have simply failed.

If you look back and count all of the posts that had nothing to say except to criticize, you will see that this thread would be half as long, or maybe even less. So don't go using your false testimony to discredit my efforts, or this work. It's all bullshit LadyShea, and you know it. And if you don't know it, you're just as bad as the fundies you criticize. The irony meter is exploding.

If you'd answer questions and make clear rational statements the first time(how many of your posts have been "What I meant to say was....") then we wouldn't need to repeat them and criticize you for weaseling

You weasel, I call you on it. Simple as that.

Also lol @ "False Testimony"...so histrionic.

That's not the kind of criticizing I'm talking about. I'm talking about hundreds of mean spirited posts that are nothing more than a gang attack.

peacegirl · #**18381** 06-08-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second; therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure. By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the remote mirror, and then back through the same gap. He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

Speed of Light Measurement

Why are you harping on this? I am not disputing the speed of light. I'm disputing that our eyes could adjust in such a short distance between the lamp and the spinning wheel to know whether we see the lamp in real time or delayed time. It would be impossible.

You don't understand the experiment then.

The viewer could not see the light AT ALL if the wheel was rotating at a specific speed, even with an unobstructed line of sight at various intervals, because of the the light travel time delay which caused the returning light to hit the teeth of the wheel instead of the gaps between the teeth

At slower rotation speeds the light could be seen
At faster rotation speeds the light could be seen

If real time seeing were true, then the viewer would be able to see the light all the time regardless of the speed of rotation of the wheel

To see light is not the same thing as the eyes being able to focus on an object. This is insane. We couldn't even do that within 1.3 seconds in the moon example. Get real.

naturalist.atheist · #**18382** 06-08-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL as if you'll leave here. You realize it has been over a year now, don't you?

Most people don't consider a year of discussing a single book all that quick. You've had all the opportunity in the world to present and defend these ideas and have simply failed.

If you look back and count all of the posts that had nothing to say except to criticize, you will see that this thread would be half as long, or maybe even less. So don't go using your false testimony to discredit my efforts, or this work. It's all bullshit LadyShea, and you know it. And if you don't know it, you're just as bad as the fundies you criticize. The irony meter is exploding.

If you'd answer questions and make clear rational statements the first time(how many of your posts have been "What I meant to say was....") then we wouldn't need to repeat them and criticize you for weaseling

You weasel, I call you on it. Simple as that.

Also lol @ "False Testimony"...so histrionic.

That's not the kind of criticizing I'm talking about. I'm talking about hundreds of mean spirited posts that are nothing more than a gang attack.

Mean spirited gang attacks are a way of life on FF and not specifically directed at you. If you don't like it then you're on the wrong forum. But I warned you about the pile-ons half a year ago. If you're still posting here it's because it caters to your schizophrenic persecution complex.

naturalist.atheist · #**18383** 06-08-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second; therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure. By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the remote mirror, and then back through the same gap. He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

Speed of Light Measurement

Why are you harping on this? I am not disputing the speed of light. I'm disputing that our eyes could adjust in such a short distance between the lamp and the spinning wheel to know whether we see the lamp in real time or delayed time. It would be impossible.

You don't understand the experiment then.

The viewer could not see the light AT ALL if the wheel was rotating at a specific speed, even with an unobstructed line of sight at various intervals, because of the the light travel time delay which caused the returning light to hit the teeth of the wheel instead of the gaps between the teeth

At slower rotation speeds the light could be seen
At faster rotation speeds the light could be seen

If real time seeing were true, then the viewer would be able to see the light all the time regardless of the speed of rotation of the wheel

To see light is not the same thing as the eyes being able to focus on an object. This is insane. We couldn't even do that within 1.3 seconds in the moon example. Get real.

A TV flashes the image 60 times a second. We have no problems focusing on it.

LadyShea · #**18384** 06-08-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To see light is not the same thing as the eyes being able to focus on an object.

Sure it is, to see a light through a spinning toothed wheel is just like watching TV or a movie or seeing people under a strobe light

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is insane. We couldn't even do that within 1.3 seconds in the moon example. Get real.

Silent movies were projected light images at a speed of 24-50 frames per second, which is why they were called "Flickers". You could see it as movement but it was flickery. Down at around 10 frames per second each frame would be perceived individually and at around 60 frames per second, like a TV, we see it fluidly

You, again, don't understand anything at all.

Here are instructions for making a stroboscope disk out of poster board to experiment with seeing through a spinning wheel

Here are some fun effects from spinning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benham%27s_top If we see "what is really there" and those colors aren't "really there" what do you suppose we are seeing? BTW I see purple and lime green

Spacemonkey · #**18385** 06-08-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

I'm still after an answer to these questions. Answer them once, honestly, and they will go away.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**18386** 06-08-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To see light is not the same thing as the eyes being able to focus on an object. This is insane. We couldn't even do that within 1.3 seconds in the moon example. Get real.

So when it comes to evidence against Lessans, you will only accept Earth-based rather than space-based experiments, but they must involve distances greater than the distance from the Earth to the moon? Do I have that right?

Spacemonkey · #**18387** 06-08-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The role of light is different than what science claims, if efferent vision is true. You are trying to get me to admit that light travels and therefore if the non-absorbed light is red, we will get a red image on the film/retina before blue. That is the afferent position, and I don't agree that this is how it works.

Light does not travel independently of the object in efferent vision, which is what you are trying to get me to admit by thinking in terms of your logic. I do not subscribe to your logic.

Has nothing to do with the efferent account. Sorry about your frustration, but I can't answer you in a way that you want because it doesn't apply.

Answering your questions will continue to confound you as long as you keep thinking that the light travels to the film or eyes bringing the image through space/time (even though there is space between the eye and object; the inverse square law). This doesn't occur in the efferent account because there is no time involved when the eyes are a window to the world.

Alright. Let's start again, and I won't assume anything you don't agree to, okay? We'll discuss ONLY your account and how you say it works.

First questions:

1) On YOUR account, do photons exist?

2) On YOUR account, is (or was) there such a thing as the past?

3) On YOUR account, do cameras take photographs in real time?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**18388** 06-08-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, in real-time photography, in a scenario involving only an object, a camera, and light (and no eyes, brains, or vision)...

1) You agree that some of the light which hits the object is not absorbed, still exists 0.0001sec after hitting the object, and must have a location at that time. So what is the location of these nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? Are they about 30 meters from the object and traveling away from it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then where are they located at this time?

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**18389** 06-08-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see any inconsistencies because the speed of light doesn't change one iota. Optics doesn't change one iota. The only thing that changes is the direction in which we see.

How about the location and behavior of photons? Does that change by a few iotas?

Nope, not at all.

Ah, it doesn't change at all! So on your model, the photons at the film which determine the color of the photograph traveled to get there, did they? And they were 0.0001sec previously at a position 30m from the film and traveling towards it, were they?

What is wrong with your comprehension? In efferent vision, there is no time involved? Do you even understand what that means Spacemonkey? THERE IS NO TRAVEL TIME INVOLVED WHICH IS WHY WE ARE ABLE TO SEE IN REAL TIME. :doh:

What's wrong with your comprehension? You said that on your model the location and behavior of photons doesn't change from the afferent account. That's what YOU said. Did you again say something you didn't actually mean? Does the location and behavior of photons change on your account or not?

Bump.

naturalist.atheist · #**18390** 06-08-2012, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To see light is not the same thing as the eyes being able to focus on an object. This is insane. We couldn't even do that within 1.3 seconds in the moon example. Get real.

So when it comes to evidence against Lessans, you will only accept Earth-based rather than space-based experiments, but they must involve distances greater than the distance from the Earth to the moon? Do I have that right?

So are you asking this because you do not know by now that she will not accept any evidence that conflicts with Lessans? Or is it because you can't accept that her illness would never let her admit it?

peacegirl · #**18391** 06-09-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second; therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure. By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the remote mirror, and then back through the same gap. He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

Speed of Light Measurement

Why are you harping on this? I am not disputing the speed of light. I'm disputing that our eyes could adjust in such a short distance between the lamp and the spinning wheel to know whether we see the lamp in real time or delayed time. It would be impossible.

You don't understand the experiment then.

The viewer could not see the light AT ALL if the wheel was rotating at a specific speed, even with an unobstructed line of sight at various intervals, because of the light travel time delay which caused the returning light to hit the teeth of the wheel instead of the gaps between the teeth

At slower rotation speeds the light could be seen
At faster rotation speeds the light could be seen

If real time seeing were true, then the viewer would be able to see the light all the time regardless of the speed of rotation of the wheel

But I'm not arguing with this. It is a fact that there is a light time delay when we're measuring the speed of light, but this does not negate efferent vision whatsoever. You're losing track of the difference between light revealing the material world because of its properties, and measuring the speed of light which this experiment helps to prove. These two things are not contradictory.

peacegirl · #**18392** 06-09-2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see any inconsistencies because the speed of light doesn't change one iota. Optics doesn't change one iota. The only thing that changes is the direction in which we see.

How about the location and behavior of photons? Does that change by a few iotas?

Nope, not at all.

Ah, it doesn't change at all! So on your model, the photons at the film which determine the color of the photograph traveled to get there, did they? And they were 0.0001sec previously at a position 30m from the film and traveling towards it, were they?

What is wrong with your comprehension? In efferent vision, there is no time involved? Do you even understand what that means Spacemonkey? THERE IS NO TRAVEL TIME INVOLVED WHICH IS WHY WE ARE ABLE TO SEE IN REAL TIME. :doh:

What's wrong with your comprehension? You said that on your model the location and behavior of photons doesn't change from the afferent account. That's what YOU said. Did you again say something you didn't actually mean? Does the location and behavior of photons change on your account or not?

For the umpteenth time, I said that light travels, but if it's true that we see efferently, then the light is not reflecting the image. We are seeing the real object in real time, which changes the role of light completely when it comes to sight. We can no longer look at light as traveling through space/time and bringing the image to us. The object must be in our field of view. You are still stuck on the afferent model because you believe that the photons are able to do what they are incapable of doing.

peacegirl · #**18393** 06-09-2012, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To see light is not the same thing as the eyes being able to focus on an object. This is insane. We couldn't even do that within 1.3 seconds in the moon example. Get real.

So when it comes to evidence against Lessans, you will only accept Earth-based rather than space-based experiments, but they must involve distances greater than the distance from the Earth to the moon? Do I have that right?

It depends on the experiment Spacemonkey. This experiment does not prove anything, even though you want to prove Lessans wrong in the worst way. Sorry, but your wish will not be fulfilled. :sadcheer:

Spacemonkey · #**18394** 06-09-2012, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What's wrong with your comprehension? You said that on your model the location and behavior of photons doesn't change from the afferent account. That's what YOU said. Did you again say something you didn't actually mean? Does the location and behavior of photons change on your account or not?

For the umpteenth time, I said that light travels, but if it's true that we see efferently, then the light is not reflecting the image. We are seeing the real object in real time, which changes the role of light completely when it comes to sight. We can no longer look at light as traveling through space/time and bringing the image to us. The object must be in our field of view. You are still stuck on the afferent model because you believe that the photons are able to do what they are incapable of doing.

So which is it? Is the only thing that changes in efferent vision the direction in which we see, such that nothing else changes one iota? Or does it also require changes to the behavior and location of photons? You cna't consistently claim both.

Spacemonkey · #**18395** 06-09-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To see light is not the same thing as the eyes being able to focus on an object. This is insane. We couldn't even do that within 1.3 seconds in the moon example. Get real.

So when it comes to evidence against Lessans, you will only accept Earth-based rather than space-based experiments, but they must involve distances greater than the distance from the Earth to the moon? Do I have that right?

It depends on the experiment Spacemonkey. This experiment does not prove anything, even though you want to prove Lessans wrong in the worst way. Sorry, but your wish will not be fulfilled. :sadcheer:

It does indeed depend upon the experiment. If the experiment involves large enough distances then you reject it for not being Earth-bound. And if it is Earth-bound then you reject it for not involving large enough distances. And the only distances you will consider large enough are those that are too large to be performed on Earth.

Spacemonkey · #**18396** 06-09-2012, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

I'm still after an answer to these questions. Answer them once, honestly, and they will go away.

Bump.

peacegirl · #**18397** 06-09-2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What's wrong with your comprehension? You said that on your model the location and behavior of photons doesn't change from the afferent account. That's what YOU said. Did you again say something you didn't actually mean? Does the location and behavior of photons change on your account or not?

For the umpteenth time, I said that light travels, but if it's true that we see efferently, then the light is not reflecting the image. We are seeing the real object in real time, which changes the role of light completely when it comes to sight. We can no longer look at light as traveling through space/time and bringing the image to us. The object must be in our field of view. You are still stuck on the afferent model because you believe that the photons are able to do what they are incapable of doing.

So which is it? Is the only thing that changes in efferent vision the direction in which we see, such that nothing else changes one iota? Or does it also require changes to the behavior and location of photons? You cna't consistently claim both.

It can be both depending on where the eyes are focused Spacemonkey.

peacegirl · #**18398** 06-09-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

I'm still after an answer to these questions. Answer them once, honestly, and they will go away.

Bump.

IF YOU DON'T SHUT UP RIGHT NOW, I WILL NEVER TALK TO YOU AGAIN. TRUST ME SPACMEONKEY. YOU ARE WAY TO BIG FOR YOUR BRITCHES, AND I WILL NOT CONVERSE WITH SOMEONE WHO IS SO STUCK ON HIMSELF THAT HE DOESN'T TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN, NOT EVEN FOR A SECOND. :fuming:

Spacemonkey · #**18399** 06-09-2012, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IF YOU DON'T SHUT UP RIGHT NOW, I WILL NEVER TALK TO YOU AGAIN. TRUST ME SPACMEONKEY. YOU ARE WAY TO BIG FOR YOUR BRITCHES, AND I WILL NOT CONVERSE WITH SOMEONE WHO IS SO STUCK ON HIMSELF THAT HE DOESN'T TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN, NOT EVEN FOR A SECOND. :fuming:

I am listening, I'm just not getting any answers.

Spacemonkey · #**18400** 06-09-2012, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So which is it? Is the only thing that changes in efferent vision the direction in which we see, such that nothing else changes one iota? Or does it also require changes to the behavior and location of photons? You can't consistently claim both.

It can be both depending on where the eyes are focused Spacemonkey.

The focussing of eyes cannot make contradictions true. It can't make it true both that your account ONLY changes the direction in which we see, and that it ALSO changes the behavior and location of photons. If your account changes both, then it doesn't change only the first. And if it only changes the first, then it can't also change the second.

Is the behavior and position of photons on your account the same or different to that on the afferent account?