A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding me? All I've done for the last year is answer you.

Simply posting responses that do not actually address the questions being asked is not the same thing as answering those questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you kidding me? All I've done for the last year is not answer you.

Fixed that for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. I thought you knew that by now.

You are talking about distance. When the object is bright enough to be seen, that light reveals the object. Like I said, the distance between the object and viewer is not what matters in this account. You keep thinking photons are traveling millions of miles. You are forgetting the requirements that distinguish this model from the afferent model. What is the point of continuing this discussion when we're going to be at odds no matter what I say.

Light energy

Light travels, yes, but the light that we're discussing is already at the eye if the object can be seen. And the only way it can be seen is if it meets the requirements of efferent vision. The requirements are different than what is required in the afferent model. As long as we are within optical range of the object, the light will be at the retina. Remember we're not talking about photons traveling across millions of miles. If the light has dispersed, there will be no resolution and the object will be out of range. The light that is traveling through space/time beyond the point at which the image can be resolved will not carry (you know what I mean) the pattern of the object within it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no image that is reflected in the light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Strawman takes another pummeling.

The light that is traveling through space/time is not a partial spectrum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...when you're talking about non-absorbed photons (images or patterns)...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We're not talking about non-absorbed photons, for his Sun example involves only light emission, and not reflection. And images or patterns are not photons. These words are not synonyms.

It really doesn't matter whether it involves emission or reflection. The principle is the same. I thought that images or patterns that are at the retina are photons. What else can they be?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed photons will be instantly at the film/retina because the object is within our field of view...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where did they come from, and how do they get there?

Once again, you are trying to separate photons from the object. You are assuming they, as separate entities, travel with the image across millions of miles, so if the image was blue, that is what we will see when the light strikes our eyes, even though the object has now turned red.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that no one can see how an object that absorbs photons doesn't reflect the non-absorbed photons. That appears logical, but I don't believe it's correct.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just agreed only a few pages ago that it was correct. You keep claiming to be disputing this, but whenever pressed you end up agreeing with it again and saying that you were disputing something else.

Reflection means that the image in the light bounces and travels ad infinitum until that light strikes another object. That is what he's disputing. The light that is at the eye in the efferent account does not travel through space/time indefinitely. If the object is no longer there, there will be no image at all no matter how much light is present. If the object is too small or not bright enough, there will be no resolution at the retina and no object will be seen no matter how much light is present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They didn't get there, they are already there.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Already being there doesn't mean they didn't previously have to get there. When you open your fridge door, lo and behold, the food is already there (and doesn't have to sneak in after you open the door). But that food still had to get there previously by you going shopping and then returning to stock the fridge.

It's not that the photons are sneaking in. They are there because when you look out at the world in real time, light allows us to see the object if the object is bright enough. This is the opposite of the afferent account; that light is traveling to the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you see the object, the photons are instantly at the retina. Remember, you have to work this backwards...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm trying to do just that, but you keep refusing to do so. The photons are at the retina. Great, let's work backwards. Where were they 5 seconds before?

Traveling. Light is constantly being replaced, but that isn't what matters. What matters is that this light is only present because of the object. It has no life of its own whereby images can be seen beyond the resolution point. This is getting insane.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not weaseling away from explaining why light is at the retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong word, and wrong question. We're not asking you why. We're asking you HOW the light gets to be at the retina. Where did it come from, and how did it get there?

It gets to be at the retina solely due to the efferent model. If you think about it, it is the exact opposite of light bouncing and traveling to a destination apart from the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think I'm being contradictory, and am trying to weasel my way out of a claim that is implausible in your eyes, I'm very sorry, but that's not what I'm doing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's exactly what you're doing, and you've been doing it for years.

If that's what you think I'm doing, I have no idea why you're here and wasting so much time. I'm dumbfounded.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because it isn't.

Are you kidding me? The Lone Ranger saying he wants to vomit. And what about David? He is so threatened he doesn't know whether he's coming or going. There is a backlash against Lessans because he wasn't a "scientist" and because science is very invested in this theory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At this point though I'm tired of discussing the eyes because it's exhausting to repeat the same thing over and over and get nowhere.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then take a break and come back when you're ready to actually answer questions instead of just weaseling and repeating your claims.

I'm not gonna come back and start this again. Whether you think about this ever again is up to you. I have done my part by trying to share with people what I believe is correct. Maybe this will be a seed that is planted. Only God knows how this is going to play out.

[The Lone Ranger]

Once again, you fail at basic reading comprehension.

What is vomit-inducing is your dishonesty and hypocrisy.

Like the fact that you keep talking about how "science says" that images are traveling through space -- despite being corrected on this fundamental misconception many, many times.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought there were certain properties that give us clues as to the age of a star that don't have anything to do with the delay in light. Why can't the stars we see be their real age, not as they were, but as they are now?

If you started with that assumption, you would find that galaxies steadily became younger the further away from us they are, with the Earth at the center of the universe, at its oldest point.

Yet another absurdity Lessans' silly claims result in.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not gonna come back and start this again. Whether you think about this ever again is up to you. I have done my part by trying to share with people what I believe is correct. Maybe this will be a seed that is planted. Only God knows how this is going to play out.

To continue the analogy, this is a bad seed that will not germinate, it's sterile with no fertile ground to support it.

[LadyShea]

What does it take for you to get this? Gathered light from light years in that past to produce an exact image that is not there does not exist, therefore no image will show up.

Right, but the equipment can gather light from the distant past, but not enough light to ever see a past event, EVERRRRR. Don't you think by now we would get a glimmer of this somewhere? We have never received light that has been gathers to give us an image of an event (take your pick) that doesn't exist in the present.

Hubble Deep Field Images disprove these claims. What does it take for you to get that? I've shown them to you dozens of times. They are available as a video online. You can see them for yourself.

[LadyShea]

Again, it doesn't matter to me whether we see in delayed time or real time except for the fact that by knowing the truth, an injustice can be corrected.

injustice to whom??

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where I'm shoehorning efferent vision into holes. I don't have to; it goes in quite easily.

Have you ever thought that there may be an explanation that does not require any force to push and pull planets, satellites, and space probes to create the illusion of delayed sight? Couldn't there be an explanation that no one has considered, which is where Lessans comes in?

[Angakuk]

You know, the injustice of calling someone beautiful. Are you sure you read the book?

[But]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If you started with that assumption, you would find that galaxies steadily became younger the further away from us they are, with the Earth at the center of the universe, at its oldest point.

Yet another absurdity Lessans' silly claims result in.

Explain the absurdity. Use math if you like. I want to be entertained.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. I thought you knew that by now.

Read past the ellipsis. I was pointing out your contradiction in saying: "...light is at the retina...there is no traveling photon...Those photons travel..."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep thinking photons are traveling millions of miles.

If the photons at the eye came from the Sun, then yes, they have traveled 93 million miles. Because that is how far away the Sun is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels, yes, but the light that we're discussing is already at the eye if the object can be seen. [...] the light will be at the retina. Remember we're not talking about photons traveling across millions of miles.

So where did this light at the retina/eye come from and how did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that is traveling through space/time is not a partial spectrum.

As long as objects absorb some but not all of the frequencies of light hitting them, the non-absorbed light bouncing off them will be traveling through space and will represent only a part of the visible spectrum. The only way for this not to be the case is if objects absorb all or none of the frequencies of light that hits them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are trying to separate photons from the object. You are assuming they, as separate entities, travel with the image across millions of miles, so if the image was blue, that is what we will see when the light strikes our eyes, even though the object has now turned red.

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. You've said there will be photons at the retina. I'm asking you where they came from and how they got there, and yet again you have weaseled instead of answering the question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflection means that the image in the light bounces and travels ad infinitum until that light strikes another object.

No, that is not what 'reflection' means. There is no image in the light. There is only light, which if it hits an object and is not absorbed by it, will bounce off that object and travel away from it. That is what reflection means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that the photons are sneaking in. They are there because when you look out at the world in real time, light allows us to see the object if the object is bright enough. This is the opposite of the afferent account; that light is traveling to the eye.

My point was the bit in bold. I asked how the photons at the retina got there. You replied that they are already there, so they didn't get there. I'm pointing out that this doesn't follow. The food in your fridge is already there when you open the door, but it still had to get there previously in order to be there now. So even if the light is already there at the retina when you see something, you still have to explain how it previously got there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Traveling.

As we've explained before, traveling is an action and not a location. I asked you where the photons were 5 seconds beforehand. But anyway, given our newly ignited Sun example, you now have light traveling to the eye 5 seconds before the Sun is even switched on. Obviously this traveling light can't have come from a Sun which has yet to start emitting any photons, so where did it come from?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It gets to be at the retina solely due to the efferent model.

Light can't get to be anywhere due to a model. It can only get somewhere due to the mechanisms posited by a model. And your non-model still hasn't posited any.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a backlash against Lessans because he wasn't a "scientist" and because science is very invested in this theory.

No, there is a backlash against you because of how you continually lie, evade, and weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not gonna come back and start this again.

Of course you will. You've done so several times already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only God knows how this is going to play out.

Peacegirl, everyone but you knows exactly how this is going to play out.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course there is. If light of one frequency is hitting one part of the retina (real or artificial) while light of a different frequency is hitting another part of the retina, then this is a pattern of light detection whose information can be sent to the brain. This is also exactly how a camera and film works. Different frequency light hits different parts of the film after coming from different parts of an object, resulting in an image with parts of differing colors. And this will happen so long as different frequencies of light are hitting different parts of the retina or film, regardless of whether or not the object the light came from is still in existence.

You mean you're back to square one, and again back to making unsupported assertions that contradict observable reality.

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

I think we can all agree that in order for efferent sight to work, photons must be able to be in 2 places at the same time.

[Dragar]

That observation is spot on and undeniable as a two sided equation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Einstein won a Nobel prize for showing the opposite, you know?

But go on, tell us more about how light isn't photons.

I don't see where there is any conflict.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where there is any conflict.

Light is the same as photons. Meanwhile you said the opposite. That's your conflict. Are you trolling now?

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1137869]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'd like to take a moment to remind you of how mind-numbingly retarded this suggestion is. Brains can't look. They don't have eyes. Only people - i.e. systems including a brain and eyes - can look. People can look using their eyes, and they can look through a window. But brains cannot look out through the eyes like a person looking out through two little windows. And if all this phrase of yours is supposed to mean is that the brain and eyes work together to see things, then the afferent account completely agrees. Such looking isn't an alternative to afferent vision, but is instead exactly what the afferent account explains.

The brain and the eyes are one, in a sense, because they are so closely connected. I happen to like this analogy of the brain looking through the eyes, as a window, because it allows someone to visualize what is going on, even though it may not be a perfect analogy. There are very few perfect analogies, but they can still serve a purpose. If you don't like this analogy, don't use it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. I've never said that, and it's certainly not what I think. I haven't been asking you anything about images at all.

Nope. Light is not the image, and my questions don't concern images at all. Stop weaseling.

Where the photons started and how they got to where you need them to be is the problem you need to solve.

I give up. There is no meeting of the minds because you are ignoring the entire claim that distance is not a factor in this account. If distance is not a factor, can you at least admit that maybe what a person sees has nothing to do with the time it takes for photons to arrive?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Science isn't saying that, at all. That was Lessans strawman, and flat out lie that he said encyclopedias stated that,

Theoretically, if the right equipment were invented, I think that would be possible to create an image (as the Hubble does with stars and galaxies). However, no optical devices we have developed can gather enough light from the small amount of dispersed light that would be reflected off an "event" on Earth like that.

And it is not at all possible with our eyes.

It's not possible right now at all. We have not invented any equipment capable of that.

Due to dispersion, the "straight line" to our eyes may only include a few photons, not light intense enough to resolve on our puny retinas. The straight lines diverge from each other over distance, remember? Like the spokes on a bike wheel, they are close together at the source, and become further apart as they travel in straight lines away from the source.

No, as you've been told hundreds of times.

Because our eyes are very small, and cannot collect light over long periods of time, and light disperses over distance and the light that reaches our retina is not intense enough to resolve.

Seriously LadyShea, if light keeps dispersing, there would be no telescope large enough that could capture an image coming from that light. This is more absurd than any fundie idea I've ever heard. Can you not see why this absurd, or are you so trapped in your way of thinking that you can't even entertain the idea?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously LadyShea, if a spoke of a wheel went on forever and it kept dispersing, there would be no retina or telescope large enough to capture an image from that light.

Indeed peacegirl, at an infinite distance, light is too dispersed to ever become visible. You finally did the calculation we discussed many pages ago!

Is this the distance that you had in mind when you described objects being too far away to see? I don't think it is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Factually incorrect. I'm willing to bet your eyesight that there are lasers you cannot see, yet produce tremendous amounts of light. Once again, your explanation is at odds with reality.

All I said is that it's organized light. The requirements of efferent vision would still have to be in place to be able to see it.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I said is that it's organized light. The requirements of efferent vision would still have to be in place to be able to see it.

You liar. You said "laser light is visible because it's organized light". Look, it's right there in the quote you just made.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She read something on the Internet and is adding terms she found there. Now it's about organized light.

Don't you do that LadyShea? You are the queen of cutting and pasting large portions of text which you think will discredit Lessans. I am trying to find a way to explain this version of sight that will satisfy scientists, and I'll look for help in my effort to do just that. Organized light is different than photons, even though it's all light. That's why we can see light coming from a laser, or we can see words on a computer screen, but we can't see photons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It's really quite a simple relationship, really, anyone can understand it, and I believe that all here do, except one. Light from a distant object reaches our eye and we can see an image of that object, the distance can be expressed in light years or any other unit you might like. For example the Moon is aproximately 1.25 light seconds from the earth, and we see the Moon as it was 1.25 seconds ago. The Sun is 8.5 light minutes away so we see it as it was 8.5 minutes ago. Other celestial objects are desctibed as being light years away and an object 10 light years away is seen as it was 10 years ago. The Big Dipper constelation is about 75 light years away and is moving slowly so that if you get to be 75 years old you can see it exactly as it would have looked on the day you were born. Other more distant objects are thousands of light years away and some are millions and billions of light years away so we see them as they were millions or billions of years ago. Many of these objects are no longer in existance so we see what was there billions of years ago. It's all simple really, just find out how far away an object is in light years and that is how old the image is that we are seeing of that object.

Thanks for repeating the standard theory, but we all know what the standard theory is, so why repeat it?