A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

If efferent vision is correct, then there must be a reason why all our observations lead to tjha same conclusiom: delay in sight. This reason must explain why the factor involved in this delay is always the speed of light and the distance said object is away from us.. and that this mysterious force seems to be there to make all observantions on earth, and only earth, skewed in a highly specific way!

If efferent vision were true and there is some force moving all these objects to make it look from an observation point on earth like there is a delay determined by lightspeed, then the results of the same observations from a different star would be wildly different, and would seem to be completely random! It is alsmost like there is a galactic conspiracy with near-infinite power, just to make it seem like there is a delay in sight.

Against such overwhelming evidence, how could anyone rational call efferent sight rational or plausible? It makes Russells Teapot seem quite likely by comparison. Again - ten minutes with a physics 101 course, and all this embarrassment would have been avoided. How did our erudite reader of important tomes manage to miss such common knowledge? How come he felt competent to supply examples from physics ( the sun turning on, the observer on Alpha Cetauri, the hillarious "molecules of light") when he clearly did not even understand highschool-level basics about the subject?

The only reason he never spotted how foolish he was being was because he was too ingorant to be able to notice. He simply did not know what he was talking about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it is not impossible that objects do not reflect light (or patterns beyond the optical range), but rather light reflects objects when they are in the field of view.

Unless you are claiming that objects hit and bounce off light, you are simply misusing the word 'reflect' here. Objects reflect light. Light does not reflect objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This model is actually very plausible when understood.

You still do not have a model, and you don't understand your own claims, as evidenced by your inability to answer simple questions about them without contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes it extremely difficult for a genuine discovery to be authenticated.

You don't have one. Your problem is your own barrier of well-maintained and completely unlearned ignorance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why these forums are a waste of time...

And yet you keep coming back. Wasting more time for Lessans, instead of actually doing anything even remotely productive on his behalf.

[koan]

The premise here is that people are so hung up on their afferent theory that it is preventing them from investigating the efferent theory. But that's demonstrably false. People were hung up on their efferent theory at the time of Plato until they started using experiments and found the evidence did not support efferent vision. They already believed it. They were pretty sure of it. They didn't like the idea of being told they were wrong but, ultimately, the facts couldn't be made to support efferent vision. It had its day. It's not waiting for its day. Efferent vision had love and support and its moment of fame. Then science came and took that all away.

You can't argue that people aren't open to the idea and haven't given it a chance. It was the prime and favoured theory around 400 BC and it lived a happy life until the 11th century AD. That's a long life. Be happy for it and let it rest in peace, peacegirl.

You can't help that Plato was your father's only scientific source. It's not your fault. Just look in a mirror and say that until you come to terms with it "It's not my fault. It's not my fault... It's not my fault." You might feel like crying. Just let it happen.

[But]

Okay, so light reflects objects. How does that work?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Okay, so light reflects objects. How does that work?

The same way Efferent vision works, good luck getting an answer on that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Okay, so light reflects objects. How does that work?

Light is a bridge which allows the world to be seen; it is a necessary condition, but it does not bring the world to us through space/time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a bridge which allows the world to be seen; it is a necessary condition, but it does not bring the world to us through space/time.

Do you have anything other than vague metaphor which doesn't even answer the question? What does this have to do with light reflecting objects? What does 'reflect' mean in this context?

[LadyShea]

So how does light allow it to be seen. What is its role

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So how does light allow it to be seen. What is its role

As a conduit.

[Dragar]

Quickly, open the conduit!

The bridge of vision must be established!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quickly, open the conduit!

The bridge of vision must be established!

I don't see what's so funny unless you aren't sure of your own position. This is not a laughing matter at all Dragar.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's been mentioned before, but it really is remarkable how the entire frakkin' Universe is conspiring to trick us into thinking that we see in delayed time.

What's so special about Earth?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see what's so funny unless you aren't sure of your own position. This is not a laughing matter at all Dragar.

It is funny if you read it from a 'Not Peacegril' perspective. Funny sad, funny strange, Funny "I can't believe she said that", Sometimes funny Ha Ha.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As a conduit.

Then we cannot see the sun when it is switched on but have to wait 8 minutes: the other end of the "conduit" (which transports what, exactly?) has not arrived on earth yet.

A conduit is a channel or pipe. Something is transported through a conduit.

I am sorry: there simply is no possible way to shoe-horn efferent sight into reality. The longer you look at it, the more obvious it becomes that it is utterly ludicrous.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's been mentioned before, but it really is remarkable how the entire frakkin' Universe is conspiring to trick us into thinking that we see in delayed time.

What's so special about Earth?

Nothing Lone Ranger, light does not change properties. You keep bringing this up as if this claim violates physics when this has more to do with the function of the eyes than light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then we cannot see the sun when it is switched on but have to wait 8 minutes: the other end of the "conduit" (which transports what, exactly?) has not arrived on earth yet.

A conduit is a channel or pipe. Something is transported through a conduit.

I am sorry: there simply is no possible way to shoe-horn efferent sight into reality. The longer you look at it, the more obvious it becomes that it is utterly ludicrous.

Conduit may not be the best word, but it doesn't negate the claim Vivisectus. I originally said light was a necessary condition of sight. We cannot see without light, which is true.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Horseshit. Efferent vision itself still has no mechanism to explain how light from the object can get to be at the distant retina without traveling there and without teleporting there. You are evading again.

That's right. Discussing the insuperable problems with your ideas won't work for you, so you seek to instead evade the questions you cannot address. Again, how does light get from one place to another in no time and without teleporting?

For your conception of a 'mirror image', that is exactly what it is. Your incoherent notion of a mirror image entails light from a distant object getting from that object to the retina in zero time and without traveling the intervening distance. That is teleportation. By definition.

This is not the case for what the rest of the world means by 'mirror image', because for the rest of us a mirror image is composed of traveling light that takes time to get to any place that it ever gets to be.

So again, the question is this: With respect to the specific photons comprising the mirror image at the retina at the very moment the Sun first ignites, where were these photons at the immediately preceding moment, say 0.0001sec beforehand?

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Conduit may not be the best word, but it doesn't negate the claim Vivisectus. I originally said light was a necessary condition of sight. We cannot see without light, which is true.

It does negate the claim unless you explain how light makes sight possible. How does light make things visible? You said " as a conduit". I pointed out that is gobbledygook.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing Lone Ranger, light does not change properties. You keep bringing this up as if this claim violates physics when this has more to do with the function of the eyes than light.

You have no idea at all what you're talking about.


Why is it that all those celestial objects out there coordinate their movements by exactly the right amount to create the impression that we here on Earth -- and only here on Earth -- are seeing in delayed time? The behavior of everything from the moons of Jupiter to distant supernovae is carefully coordinated in this fashion, if Lessans is right.

If Lessans is right, then the moons of distant planets must speed up and slow down in a manner that is precisely coordinated so as to create the illusion that we here on Earth are seeing in delayed time.


Incidentally, we know that this doesn't happen because we've actually sent probes to those planets to observe the movements of their moons. And they don't do this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have no idea at all what you're talking about.


Why is it that all those celestial objects out there coordinate their movements by exactly the right amount to create the impression that we here on Earth -- and only here on Earth -- are seeing in delayed time? The behavior of everything from the moons of Jupiter to distant supernovae is carefully coordinated in this fashion, if Lessans is right.

If Lessans is right, then the moons of distant planets must speed up and slow down in a manner that is precisely coordinated so as to create the illusion that we here on Earth are seeing in delayed time.


Incidentally, we know that this doesn't happen because we've actually sent probes to those planets to observe the movements of their moons. And they don't do this.

I have no idea how celestial objects out there coordinate their movements such that the circumstantial evidence that we see in delayed time appears foolproof. All I know is that Lessans' observations are just as poignant. If you would keep an open mind and try to understand the circumstances under which he came to these conclusions, you might take a second look instead of mocking him because you think his claims sound ridiculous. Sounds can be deceiving. Unfortunately, I cannot give you what you want. That's why there's no point in continuing the discussion. Only more empirical testing which takes into consideration his claims, will it prove him right or wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It does negate the claim unless you explain how light makes sight possible. How does light make things visible? You said " as a conduit". I pointed out that is gobbledygook.

If you use the term "conduit" as a bridge or condition, then it is not gobbledygook. 'A condition of' is not the same thing as 'a cause of.'

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea how celestial objects out there coordinate their movements such that the circumstantial evidence that we see in delayed time appears foolproof. All I know is that Lessans' observations are just as poignant.

Wow. Just ... wow.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. Just ... wow.

Indeed. She thinks her father's completely unsupported assertions about vision are just as poignant as evidence which could only be wrong if there is a universe-wide conspiracy to make it appear only on Earth as if vision is afferent and delayed by the speed of light. What an idiot.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you use the term "conduit" as a bridge or condition, then it is not gobbledygook. 'A condition of' is not the same thing as 'a cause of.'

The same applies. I can say that pressure waves in the air are merely a catalyst for hearing but do not cause it. Unless I explain a) what IS the cause and B) how pressure waves act as a catalyst, I have spoken only goblledygook.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a bridge which allows the world to be seen; it is a necessary condition, but it does not bring the world to us through space/time.

I agree that it is a necessary condition (mostly. It could be other things that act as a conduit, but light is the most efficient because it's massless and neutral.) but it does bring the world to us just as it brings us to the world. Can you elaborate on how objects are reflected?