A revolution in thought - Page 1134

The Lone Ranger · #**28326** 07-02-2013, 11:19 PM

So, does this mean you're going to stop lying and calling what Lessans did "scientific"?

thedoc · #**28327** 07-02-2013, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

If the object is far away, the dispersed light will make the object appear small. If the object is closer to us, the light will make the object appear large.

What an amazingly weird statement. How does the dispersion of light do that, and why is that the effect? Can you draw me a simple representation to explain what you mean by this?

Because in actual optics, dispersion does not cause perspective: it is the fact that the farther away an object is, the larger the area that is looked at, which means the object makes up less and less of that area.

That's what I meant. I just didn't say that the light takes up less room. But the truth is the object appears smaller than if there is more light on the retina.

No, that is not true, if you stand at a fixed distance from an object and turn down the light there will be less light (fewer photons) on the retina and the object will become dimmer but it will appear to be the same size. There is no direct relation between dispersion and perspective.

thedoc · #**28328** 07-02-2013, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just give me a straight answer.

Colored Shadows: Perception, Color & Light Science Project | Exploratorium Science Snacks

Peacegirl, did you read the article? Did you attempt the experiment? and did you have adult help, as recomended?

thedoc · #**28329** 07-02-2013, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, you did read the article didn't you? And do you understand that medical X-ray equipment that your son uses does not employ infrared light. Please try to get you information straight.

However the article was interesting and reminded me that photographers knew for years that some filters could make some fabrics used in clothing seem to disapear. You could photograph someone fully dressed and they would appear to be without clothing. Photographers had to be careful, and this also points up the fact that cameras respond to photons that have traveled from the person through the clothing to the camera. If cameras functioned efferently the photo would only show the clothing, the same as the eye can see. In some cases the eye can see a fully dressed person and the camera takes a photo of a nude person.

I have no idea why you keep saying that I wouldn't see the person nude when the same exact light is at the film regardless of the direction we see? We would still see the effect of the filters.

Are you useing filters over your eyes? The filters effect the light reaching the camera film but not the eyes. If this is an example of your thinking along with everything else you have posted on this thread, I seriously question your ability to think rationally and clearly. I also question the value of any book you may have authored, and would seriously question the validity of any claimed research you claim to have done. If Lessans book and research is any indication, you have done 'none at all' and your child safety book would be of little or no value in the real world. I intend to research any school that my grandchildren are attending and strongly recomend they closely examine the book if it is in the library. Your brain is not functioning properly.

thedoc · #**28330** 07-02-2013, 11:37 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

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

Bump.

Bump.

Bump.

BUMP.

I used to do that dance on my first dates with my wife, sort of a warm up.

The Lone Ranger · #**28331** 07-02-2013, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A scientist would look at this thread and laugh.

Or cry.

I vacillate between the two responses.

thedoc · #**28332** 07-02-2013, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Medical X-rays use light from a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum than infrared light.

If you didn't read the article, why did you post it? it didn't say what you thought it did.

Because LadyShea got off onto another tangent and I was trying to respond, but, you're right, I didn't read the whole article. Maybe I will later.

Is that another lie?

thedoc · #**28333** 07-02-2013, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what does it mean that photons travel, strike a light receptor, and bring the image of an object to the brain that is no longer in existence? Explain this your own words.

No-one says the light brings an image, light strikes the retina and the retina signals the brain which receptor recieved which color of light and how much. From these signals the brain can intrepret the image of the object. The light may have been reflected from an object that is far away, and after the light leaves the surface of the object it travels independent of the object, and the object can disapear and we can still see the image of the object.

So what you're saying is that if the Sun was turned off tomorrow, we would still have light because light travels independently of the Source? How long would this light last, 8 minutes, a year, a thousand years, forever?

On the Earth we would see Sunlight for another 8.5 minutes, the farther away you were the longer it would last. If you were 100 light years away you would see the Sun for another 100 years.

But what happens to the Sunlight? Does it peter out or does it travel forever even with no Sun emitting those photons?

Light travels until or unless it is absorbed. It cannot and does not "peter out".

Some light would interact with matter that absorbs it and cease being light, any light that this does not happen to will continue traveling.

There won't be any new light emitted since the Sun is off, however the light it had already emitted, and hadn't been absorbed by something, would still out there traveling.

This does not even make sense. If an object absorbs light, and the rest of the light travels until it strikes another object, how can that light be effective if it is not the full spectrum? What happens if the blue wavelength was absorbed by the last object? What happens to the next object if it absorbs all but blue? How will the light allow us to see blue if there is no blue wavelength in the light?

You are correct, we would not be able to see the blue object if there were no blue light to be reflected. This has been tested and demonstrated, but you will need to search the internet for a video of the demonstration, or perhaps someone can find one and post it.

You ask how the light can be effective as if some deficiency of photons makes light incapable of functioning as light.

I didn't say light doesn't function as light, but it wouldn't allow us to see the true color of the next object it strikes if light bounces off of one object with a deficiency of the full light spectrum.

That is correct, and that is what afferent vision states, and that is what has been observed in reality.

Your confusion is from the situation that you almost always see an object in full sunlight or some other source of full spectrum light. If you were to view an object in partial spectrum light you would see the effects of not seeing an object in it's proper color. Has anyone here had any experience in a photographic dark room with the only illumination from a red 'safe light'? Can you see objects in their true colors?

thedoc · #**28334** 07-02-2013, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am just trying to understand.

Is that another lie?

Spacemonkey · #**28335** 07-03-2013, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I'm not getting into this again. If you think the efferent account is magic and cannot possibly be plausible because light travels, and therefore we can't see an object when the light has to get to our eyes which are millions of miles away, then so be it. Stick with your account. It's really okay. :yup:

I'm not asking for your permission to reject efferent vision. I don't need it. And I don't think it is doing you or anyone else any favor to allow you to ignore this gaping hole in your supposedly 'plausible' account. So I'm going to keep asking the questions you need to address until you stop weaseling and actually face up to them.

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

Are you going to give up one of these three inconsistent claims? Or are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously?

Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either?

thedoc · #**28336** 07-03-2013, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I'm not getting into this again. If you think the efferent account is magic and cannot possibly be plausible because light travels, and therefore we can't see an object when the light has to get to our eyes which are millions of miles away, then so be it. Stick with your account. It's really okay. :yup:

I'm not asking for your permission to reject efferent vision. I don't need it. And I don't think it is doing you or anyone else any favor to allow you to ignore this gaping hole in your supposedly 'plausible' account. So I'm going to keep asking the questions you need to address until you stop weaseling and actually face up to them.

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

Are you going to give up one of these three inconsistent claims? Or are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously?

Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either?

If I may offer a few thoughts on this. According to Lessans, (something Peacegirl hasn't the foggiest understanding of) the brain looks out through the eyes and somehow projects (something I don't have the foggiest idea of how it's done) to the object, and is in direct contact with it. Therefore the brain/retina are in direct contact with the photons surrounding the object negating travel time and distance. This does then pose the problem of how the brain/eye can instantly transit the distance between the eye and the object, violating relativity, but according to Lessans efferent vision, this is what is happening. Actually it is this instant transmission of data from the object to the brain/eye that is the difficulty. If it were just efferent vision that transpired at the speed of light there would be less to object to and more difficulty in disproving it. Instant vision can be easily disproven, but efferent vision (if it were claimed to occure at the speed of light) would be more difficult to disprove.

Peacegirl, that was a hint.

LadyShea · #**28337** 07-03-2013, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are there photons located at the retina of a blind person?

Of course they are, but there is a problem with the eye. What's your point and how does this change anything I've said?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did the photons come from and how did they get there?

I'm not discussing traveling photons anymore. It's getting ridiculous.

You should stop making claims about the location of photons then and retract your previous statements, since you are unable to answer the most basic and fundamental questions about them.

peacegirl · #**28338** 07-03-2013, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, does this mean you're going to stop lying and calling what Lessans did "scientific"?

His work is undeniable. If you think I'm going to take out the word scientific just for your sake, I'm not. I'm leaving the book as is, and if someone doesn't want to read it for that reason, I agree that they shouldn't read it.

peacegirl · #**28339** 07-03-2013, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.

Why would it be unrecognizable? When you are looking at someone face to face, can you see the back of their head? Does not being able to see the back half of their body render them unrecognizable?

We can only ever see one section of the moon, does our inability to see the dark side render it unrecognizable?

You are gibbering, seriously.

I'm gibbering? :glare:

Spacemonkey · #**28340** 07-03-2013, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I'm not getting into this again. If you think the efferent account is magic and cannot possibly be plausible because light travels, and therefore we can't see an object when the light has to get to our eyes which are millions of miles away, then so be it. Stick with your account. It's really okay. :yup:

I'm not asking for your permission to reject efferent vision. I don't need it. And I don't think it is doing you or anyone else any favor to allow you to ignore this gaping hole in your supposedly 'plausible' account. So I'm going to keep asking the questions you need to address until you stop weaseling and actually face up to them.

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

Are you going to give up one of these three inconsistent claims? Or are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously?

Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**28341** 07-03-2013, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think we can all agree that there are a few major stumbling blocks here:

1: You do not understand enough about optics to understand what it actually is you are disagreeing with. Because of this, you regularly argue against positions that no-one actually holds: your famous recurring travelling images are a good example of this.

2: Efferent vision is not really a theory: it is a conclusion. No-one, including you, knows how it works! Based on some (undisclosed) other ideas, the conclusion that sight must be efferent has been reached by you and your father, but as far as I can tell neither of you ever knew, or spent any time finding out, how it is supposed to work.

3: The reasons why this conclusion that sight is efferent was reached by you and your father has not been shared so far. We are simply expected to assume that there is a good reason to assume this is how sight works: the reason itself is not present in my version of the book.

It is my understanding that Lessans was working backwards from the idea that the brain was projecting words onto objects that were being seen. His objection was that these words were imparting meaning to those objects or persons that Lessans objected to, such as beautiful and educated. Lessans was neither and resented that others were. In order to project these words onto the 'undeniable substance' he needed to revive the idea of efferent vision where the brain is looking out and projecting these words onto the object or person.

What you are saying is a complete fabrication. This observation had nothing to do with his feelings about himself. You're out the door thedoc. I can't believe some of the things you say.

peacegirl · #**28342** 07-03-2013, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not even make sense. If an object absorbs light, and the rest of the light travels until it strikes another object, how can that light be effective if it is not the full spectrum?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens if the blue wavelength was absorbed by the last object?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens to the next object if it absorbs all but blue? How will the light allow us to see blue if there is no blue wavelength in the light?

We would not see the next object, there is no light to reflect. This has been observed and tested in the real world and is consistant with the afferent model of vision. Before you critisize a body of knowledge you should first know what that body of knowledge is, ignorance is no excuse.

So I wouldn't see a blue shirt if the light coming from a previous object had absorbed that light? I'd like to see how this is observed and tested, out of curiosity.

peacegirl · #**28343** 07-03-2013, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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 am not going back to this discussion because you will think that this model is implausible coming from your software program, or your plug ins.

What the fuck are you even talking about? There is no software program. There are no plug ins. The only assumptions here are your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just not finding the right key that will open the door.

You mean YOU can't find a way to explain your own impossible model.

:weasel:

Let's leave it at that, okay Spacemonkey? You won. You should be happy. :wink:

Why should I be happy that you're fake-conceding again?

What does it say about the plausibility of your account of vision that you can't answer even the simplest questions about it?

Why should I "leave it at that" when your account is still flatly contradictory yet you're still insisting that it's plausible?

Are you playing with me? How many crackpots claim stuff that is disregarded? Why are you still here?

We are still here because you are still here.

My being here doesn't mean you have to be here. We're not joined at the hip.

peacegirl · #**28344** 07-03-2013, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that objects behind it are affected is because light refracts. I never said it didn't.

Refraction is a function of light traveling, as is dispersion. So light travels from the object in efferent vision?

I never said light doesn't refract or disperse.

You've said it doesn't travel away from the object. Refraction and dispersion both happen to traveling light, only.

I have always said that light is constantly moving and being replaced, but this does not relate to efferent vision due to the fact that light in this account becomes a condition of sight which changes what we're seeing. Light in this model does not form an image on the retina after it traverses a long distance.

peacegirl · #**28345** 07-03-2013, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what does it mean that photons travel, strike a light receptor, and bring the image of an object to the brain that is no longer in existence? Explain this your own words.

No-one says the light brings an image, light strikes the retina and the retina signals the brain which receptor recieved which color of light and how much. From these signals the brain can intrepret the image of the object. The light may have been reflected from an object that is far away, and after the light leaves the surface of the object it travels independent of the object, and the object can disapear and we can still see the image of the object.

What happens if the light strikes another object before the light gets to us? Does that mean we will never see the object?

If the light strikes another object it can be absorbed or reflected, and if reflected it could still travel to our eyes.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you can't understand this or figure it out for yourself? The question just seems very dishonest.

If an object absorbs yellow and the next object (a shirt) that the light strikes happens to be yellow, does this mean we won't be able to see the shirt as yellow? So some objects reflect their true color based on the full spectrum, and others don't? :eek:

peacegirl · #**28346** 07-03-2013, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

What happens if the light strikes another object before the light gets to us? Does that mean we will never see the object?

Think, now. Think hard. If we shine a small flashlight on the other side of a wall, can you see it? Does our side of the wall light up?

Comd to think of it, why can I not shine light on the inside of a box and make it appear in a dark room? There is light at the object, isn't there? Should that not work to make it visible in efferent vision?

I lost you. Please explain it some other way.

Spacemonkey · #**28347** 07-03-2013, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I'm not getting into this again. If you think the efferent account is magic and cannot possibly be plausible because light travels, and therefore we can't see an object when the light has to get to our eyes which are millions of miles away, then so be it. Stick with your account. It's really okay. :yup:

I'm not asking for your permission to reject efferent vision. I don't need it. And I don't think it is doing you or anyone else any favor to allow you to ignore this gaping hole in your supposedly 'plausible' account. So I'm going to keep asking the questions you need to address until you stop weaseling and actually face up to them.

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

Are you going to give up one of these three inconsistent claims? Or are you happy to leave efferent vision as a big fat contradiction that no-one in their right mind could ever take seriously?

Does it not bother you at all that you are positing photons at the retina without being able to explain where they came from or how they got there? Why do you keep pretending that this problem doesn't exist? Do you think that if you ignore it, it will just go away? Do you think other people might be so stupid as to not consider it a problem either?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**28348** 07-03-2013, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

So tell me, how can the largest telescope ever gather enough light from a past event to ever get an image when that light has dispersed beyond the point of resolution?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light detector is what determines the point of resolution.

Some equipment, like the Hubble, can store the information from the gathered light, and continue exposure to gather more and more light from the exact same place, over long periods of time. It took 1 million minutes of light gathering, aimed at a specific pinpoint in space, for enough light to be gathered to create the Deep Field images.

Right now I'm talking about diffused light. How can that light ever be collected to form an image when the light is going in opposite directions away from the source?

Diffused light is radiated in all directions from the source, like from a star or a light bulb. A detector can then collect some of it. What do you mean "opposite directions" and why would that cause a problem in detecting the light?

Quote:

Exactly what I said. If reflected light is at an angle that is opposite of light that is going at opposite angles, how can this light ever be collected?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What.The.Fuck. Reflected light at an angle opposite to light that is going at opposite angles? What does that even mean? It's complete gibberish

Quote:

Stop making this sound like gibberish, okay? If light is radiating in a straight line in every direction from the source, where will the light be millions of years from now, and how can that light be gathered to form an image, even if the light is being collected from the strongest telescope ever made?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stick a detector anywhere around the source and you can collect some of that light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A detector may be able to collect some of the light (theoretically), but how could it ever collect enough to form a recognizable image?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can't collect all of it nor does it need to. What the hell are you babbling about?

I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A partial image does not an image make.

What are you talking about partial images?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole thing doesn't even make sense except for the fundies who want to believe it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course this incoherent shit you made up doesn't make any sense. Because YOU MADE IT UP! It is a strawman.

What you are talking about has zero to do with observed reality or my explanations of how light works.

It's a spiral galaxy from the Hubble Ultra Deep Space Image...so it is a small part of the larger image. Is that what you mean by partial or what exactly?

How in the world can you get just enough light to recognize what something is? What you're saying makes no sense.

You are making no sense. Your questions are nonsense. Do you think there is only a tiny amount of light out there or what?

Our Sun produces the equivalent energy to a trillion one megaton bombs EVERY SECOND. That energy is emitted as light. That is an enormous amount of light it has put out over how ever many millions years it has existed. It is not the only star, nor is it the largest star. There are and have been trillions of stars, and all that light is traveling through the Universe! All we have to do is stick a light detector out there to catch some of it.

I just don't see how catching some of it is going to give us an exact replica of what existed billions of years ago. Maybe when we're able to travel to distant planets we'll be able to catch, in a small patch of sky, some of the light that was from the days before the Roman Empire fell. Wouldn't that be interesting? It would be like watching old reruns.

thedoc · #**28349** 07-03-2013, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think we can all agree that there are a few major stumbling blocks here:

1: You do not understand enough about optics to understand what it actually is you are disagreeing with. Because of this, you regularly argue against positions that no-one actually holds: your famous recurring travelling images are a good example of this.

2: Efferent vision is not really a theory: it is a conclusion. No-one, including you, knows how it works! Based on some (undisclosed) other ideas, the conclusion that sight must be efferent has been reached by you and your father, but as far as I can tell neither of you ever knew, or spent any time finding out, how it is supposed to work.

3: The reasons why this conclusion that sight is efferent was reached by you and your father has not been shared so far. We are simply expected to assume that there is a good reason to assume this is how sight works: the reason itself is not present in my version of the book.

It is my understanding that Lessans was working backwards from the idea that the brain was projecting words onto objects that were being seen. His objection was that these words were imparting meaning to those objects or persons that Lessans objected to, such as beautiful and educated. Lessans was neither and resented that others were. In order to project these words onto the 'undeniable substance' he needed to revive the idea of efferent vision where the brain is looking out and projecting these words onto the object or person.

What you are saying is a complete fabrication. This observation had nothing to do with his feelings about himself. You're out the door thedoc. I can't believe some of the things you say.

That is quite understandable, since what I say is based on reality, and what you believe is based on Lessans fantasy. What I say is based on the fabrication of what is written in the book and what you are posting in support, so it must be total fiction.

thedoc · #**28350** 07-03-2013, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that objects behind it are affected is because light refracts. I never said it didn't.

Refraction is a function of light traveling, as is dispersion. So light travels from the object in efferent vision?

I never said light doesn't refract or disperse.

You've said it doesn't travel away from the object. Refraction and dispersion both happen to traveling light, only.

I have always said that light is constantly moving and being replaced, but this does not relate to efferent vision due to the fact that light in this account becomes a condition of sight which changes what we're seeing. Light in this model does not form an image on the retina after it traverses a long distance.

Photons, once emitted are not replaced, they continue to travel till they are absorbed by some object. If anything accurately can be said of photons, it is that they are followed by other photons that are emitted and continue to follow them till they are absorbed in turn by some object.