A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain is a very
complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder
through our ears and the other three senses, and a camera through
our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie
projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are
projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in
relation and photographed by the brain.
I will give you an example of this by using a movie
projector. Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it.
I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the
switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall.
But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl
is not there.

.

If the external world is a blank screen, but of undeniable existence, how does the brain know which image to project onto this blank screen?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that image is in the camera's field of view, then the light, relative to the camera, is not far at all which is why it is able to reach the film and be developed, and why that same light can reach our retina without it having to travel millions of light years to reach us before a picture can be taken.

If the brain is looking out thru the eyes (rods and cones) and projecting an image, why does the light need to reach our retina?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why it's wrong. Seeing efferently has nothing to do with special relativity. It has nothing to do with transferring information faster than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What exactly is seeing if not a transfer of information?

We have demonstrated that if sight is efferent this means instantaneous communication of information between two points is possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that a pinhole will show the moon instantly is revealing. Similarly, if we can see a supernova through a pinhole, then that would mean the lightwaves being emitted from that supernova are already here. If there was no image on the other side of the pinhole, we would know that the lightwaves had not arrived, and a camera could not capture the
image, but we could still see the image efferently.

How does a Pinhole camera work?

In: Cameras, Photography, Physics

A pinhole camera is the most simple form of photography and requires practically no knowledge of photography to build a pinhole camera and capture an image using it.

The basic principle behind a pinhole camera is the light enters through the pinhole at the front of the container (eg. a shoebox) travels through the light proof box and hits the photographic paper at the back of the box. The paper reacts to the light and where the light falls it is exposed (dark) and where there is no light the paper remains light. As you will be able to see after the image has been developed; the image produced will be a negative of the actual image. The image will also be upside-down due to the way in which the light enters the box.

Then all that remains is to develop the photographic paper as you would normally. You will not see anything until you start to develop the paper. The paper will still appear white.

Remember:
- Light only travels in straight lines,
- The box will need to be light proof apart from the pinhole at the front,
- The pinhole cannot be too small, it can quite easily be too large,
- Only place the paper in the box and remove it from the box in a darkroom.
- Anything can be turned into a pinhole camera! Even rooms...

Suggestions:
- An old shoebox works well, as does a film canister.
- Use black and white paper, it is easier to develop and far simpler to start with. Maybe experiment with colour afterwards.
- You will need to use trial and error to find the correct exposure time.
eg, if the image appears too dark decrease the exposure time, if it appears too light increase the exposure time.

Have fun, pinhole camera's are great to make and a good introduction into photography.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You conceded this previously.

Do you concede it now? If not, then refute the statement if sight is efferent this means instantaneous communication of information between two points is possible.

Don't even worry about traveling light for the moment. Only the above statement

If the object or image is seen efferently, then our brain is recording what it sees instantaneously, which is faster than it would take if that same object or image was being reflected between two distant points where the object or image was no longer in sight. But this does not conflict with the theory of relativity, as far as I can see.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object or image is seen efferently, then our brain is recording what it sees instantaneously, which is faster than it would take if that same object or image was being reflected between two distant points where the object or image was no longer in sight. But this does not conflict with the theory of relativity, as far as I can see.

No not as far as you can see, as you so ironically put it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If the brain is looking out thru the eyes (rods and cones) and projecting an image, why does the light need to reach our retina?

This goes back to whether the lightwaves actually have to impinge on the retina in order for us to see the object or image. The confusion goes back to Lessans' example of God turning on the sun and us seeing it instantly. Remember, it was a hypothetical example. Anytime something is large enough where we can see it, the lightwaves coming from that source are already here by virtue of the fact that the object or image is not as far away as was believed if sight was afferent.

That's why a camera will take an exact picture of what we're seeing in real time. So I can safely say that there has to be a connection between the lightwaves that are already here, and our ability to see the object. But that does not imply that if God turned on the sun, we wouldn't be able to see it instantly since no image is entering the eye from the light itself and being decoded by the brain. Today, it is believed that these images are being carried by the light thousands of lightyears away (where the object reflecting that light is no longer visible), and from that light we are seeing the past. That is absolutely false.

[davidm]

We can easily show, using Einstein’s original thought experiment, why “real-time seeing” is IMPOSSIBLE and does indeed directly conflict with the theory of relativity.

1. There is train moving on a track in constant uniform motion: an inertial frame.

2. An observer sits in the center of the train, equidistant from front and back.

3. There is an observer on the ground, on the embankment.

4. The train arrives at a point where the observer on the train and the observer on the ground are even with each other: the observer on the ground is now also equidistant from the front and back of the train.

5. The observer on the ground reports that flashes of lightning hit the front and back of the train simultaneously.

6. The observer on the train reports that the light hits the front of the train FIRST, and the back of the train SOME TIME LATER. Why?

7. Because from the perspective of the observer on the ground, the train is heading toward the first light, and away from the second. Since the speed of light is INVARIANT, it does not “add” the velocity of the train from the rear, nor is the velocity of the light coming from the front of the train retarded by “swimming upstream,” as it were, against the train’s motion. If that were the case, then the observer on the train would agree with the observer on the ground, that the light flashes happened simultaneously.

8. Who is right? When did the light flashes “really” happen? Both are right, but only in his/her own frame. Simultaneity is frame-dependent, and does not have an objective, absolute fact-of-the-matter occurrence for all observers.

9 This is in DIRECT CONFLICT WITH REAL-TIME SEEING. If real-time seeing were true, relativity would be IMPOSSIBLE because everyone would share the same plane of simultaneity. The whole phrase “theory of relativity” derives from the phrase “relativity of simultaneity.” The relativity of simultaneity means that different observers in different relative motions with respect to one another will have differing planes of simultaneity, and this is a direct consequence of the fact that light speed is finite and information cannot be obtained instantaneously. In a world of real-time seeing, the observer on the train and the observer on the ground would ALWAYS AGREE on when the flashes occurred; either they would both think they occurred simultaneously or they would both think they occurred sequentially. Disagreement would be IMPOSSIBLE in such a world, yet because such disagreements do occur in the real world, it follows that REAL-TIME SEEING IS CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVED.

Now watch Her Royal Highness say:

“Real-time seeing doesn’t conflict with the theory of relativity.”



Now. Here it is, beautifully demonstrated on YouTube.

Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

Now here is the explanation of that video, from the site quoted above. Note the bolded material:

Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car, and another standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car - one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light. He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike, because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear.

But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear. But her conclusion is very different. As Einstein showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light. So, because each light pulse travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he sees the front strike first, it actually happened first.

Whose interpretation is correct - the observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike? Einstein tells us that both are correct, within their own frame of reference. This is a fundamental result of special relativity: From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events.

Notice, of course, that this COMPLETELY DESTROYS REAL-TIME SEEING. What the two observers in differing inertial frames see, and when they see it, and what they report seeing, IS ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT ON THE SPEED OF LIGHT. If real-time seeing were possible, they both would agree on what they see and when they see it, and Einstein would have been wrong. But, he wasn’t.

On a side note, if one really wanted to have an interesting conversation rather than the one we are having now with peacegirl, consider the fact that for the woman on the train, there is going to be lighting flash at the back of the train, in her future — only, she doesn’t know it yet.

The theory of relativity means that the future is “set.” What’s going to happen, is going to happen.

What does THAT do to free will?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object or image is seen efferently, then our brain is recording what it sees instantaneously, which is faster than it would take if that same object or image was being reflected between two distant points where the object or image was no longer in sight. But this does not conflict with the theory of relativity, as far as I can see.

It does conflict, because the theory of relativity states that instantaneous communication of information between two points is impossible.

I deleted the whole pinhole camera thing, because it is irrelevant in this post.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anytime something is large enough where we can see it, the lightwaves coming from that source are already here by virtue of the fact that the object or image is not as far away as was believed if sight was afferent.

[Imagines the Apollo astronauts crashing into the moon because vision is efferent.]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The brain is a very
complex piece of machinery that not only acts as a tape recorder
through our ears and the other three senses, and a camera through
our eyes, but also, and this was never understood, as a movie
projector. As sense experiences become related or recorded, they are
projected, through the eyes, upon the screen of the objects held in
relation and photographed by the brain.
I will give you an example of this by using a movie
projector. Here is a smooth white wall in a dark room with nothing on it.
I am dropping a negative plate or slide into the projector, flipping the
switch, and just take a look — there is a picture of a girl on the wall.
But go up and touch her. All you feel is the wall itself because the girl
is not there.

.

Originally Posted by thedoc

If the external world is a blank screen, but of undeniable existence, how does the brain know which image to project onto this blank screen?

It's not a blank screen doc. We are seeing everything in our field of vision; I don't call that a blank screen. We have learned to identify objects in the real world by the use of words that distinguish these objects and images from each other. This is what Lessans calls the screen of undeniable substance. We can't deny that objects exist, but the problem is how the eyes get conditioned. The word 'beautiful' is a word with no real substance. When learning words, the brain, not knowing what is real and what isn't, takes a photograph, through the eyes, of everything it sees and the experience that is associated with it, so when a girl is called beautiful, the brain photographs the image with the word "beautiful" and the positive inflection associated with those features. Consequently, whenever we see a girl with those type features (that fall into the category of what is considered beautiful), that word is projected onto the screen of undeniable substance (the girl), when no such beauty exists. If someone is called ugly, the brain does the same thing; it photographs and records the features that become associated with a negative inflection. So when those features are seen, the eyes will see ugliness because it is projecting the word "ugly" onto the screen of undeniable substance (the girl). Take away the word, and all you will see are the differences in substance. Within that range, people are judged accordingly, and the brain continues it's recording. By the time the conditioning takes place, the person believes that he actually is seeing a beautiful or ugly individual and no one can convince him otherwise.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

[Imagines the Apollo astronauts crashing into the moon because vision is efferent.]

The light waves are alreay here, peacegirl? Because? The sun, the moon, and the so-called distant stars are all actually sitting on top of our eyes? There is no space at all between objects??

You truly are nuts, lady! Like your Dad, you are one for the ages -- just not in the way that you like to imagine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

[Imagines the Apollo astronauts crashing into the moon because vision is efferent.]

Why? We're still measuring distance in the same way, and that distance is accurate because the mathematical measurements are accurate. We're just not seeing the past because of how the brain works, not how light works. I think people are reading into this way too much, in so far as the problems they believe would occur if efferent vision were true.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They both require light, but the light ends at the film of a camera and at the retina of the eye.

Check and check, so far.

Anything beyond the retina cannot be compared to a camera because cameras do not have brains.

Also correct.

If the sun was already visible to the naked eye, the photons have already arrived.

We know this is true under the current, afferent model of sight, because we would not be able to see (since we see photons) if they weren't. Your case for efferent sight, however, claims that exactly this is what doesn't need to happen for us to see. The photons don't need to arrive, according to you, as both us and our cameras somehow 'see' things instantly.

Then you say this:

Even if a small star would explode into a supernova, the star was already visible because the stream of light coming from that star was already here

and this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anytime something is large enough where we can see it, the lightwaves coming from that source are already here by virtue of the fact that the object or image is not as far away as was believed if sight was afferent.

Ok, so now your explanation for why a camera takes pictures of the same things we see even though a camera definitely works by detecting light while you claim our eyes don't is that the light arrives instantly and/or originates much closer than we thought?

Which is it, peacegirl? If a distant star explodes, you say we would see it instantly, as would our cameras. Is that because the light from the exploding star arrives instantly? Is it because the exploding star is much closer (apparently right next to us) than we thought, or perhaps the explosion somehow generates light right next to us, regardless of the distance? Is it because the light doesn't need to arrive for us to see it?

I mean, there are problems with all of these suppositions, which I would be willing to explain again despite my certainty that you won't listen, but I would personally feel better about that if you were at least consistent in your bullshitting and weaseling.

Pick a story, will you?

[LadyShea]

We're just not seeing the past because of how the brain works, not how light works. I think people are reading into this way too much, in so far as the problems they believe would occur if efferent vision were true.

Lessans chose to include brainless tools, like a powerful telescope, in his model of efferent sight and he chose to assert that instant communication of information from ~800 light years away is a product of his model of efferent sight.

The problems are inherent in the work. Sorry you're the one holding the bag of crazy and trying to reconcile it with reality, but you got what you got.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

... bag of crazy ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does conflict, because the theory of relativity states that instantaneous communication of information between two points is impossible.

I deleted the whole pinhole camera thing, because it is irrelevant in this post.

Maybe this will help. We're not arguing about light and how we see that light relative to our position. The only point that is being made is that there are no images of the object embedded in that light that is decoded by the brain. I think the confusion is due to the discussion about light and its properties, and the brain and its properties. They are two separate entities.

The part about the pinhole was meant to show that because the lightwaves are here, the second the pinhole camera is in place, there's no delay. We see the moon on the back of the makeshift box instantly. But you have to think in terms of efferent vision in order to understand what I'm saying.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe this will help. We're not arguing about light and how we see that light relative to our position. The only point that is being made is that there are no images of the object embedded in that light that is decoded by the brain. I think the confusion is due to the discussion about light and its properties, and the brain and its properties. They are two separate entities.

The part about the pinhole was meant to show that because the lightwaves are here, the second the pinhole camera is in place, there's no delay. We see the moon on the back of the makeshift box instantly. But you have to think in terms of efferent vision in order to understand what I'm saying.

And the disproof of this contention is here.

It is also

here.

Why did the video imbed in this post but not in the previous one?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They both require light, but the light ends at the film of a camera and at the retina of the eye.

Originally Posted by Kael

Check and check, so far.

Anything beyond the retina cannot be compared to a camera because cameras do not have brains.

Originally Posted by Kael

Also correct.

If the sun was already visible to the naked eye, the photons have already arrived.

Originally Posted by Kael

We know this is true under the current, afferent model of sight, because we would not be able to see (since we see photons) if they weren't. Your case for efferent sight, however, claims that exactly this is what doesn't need to happen for us to see. The photons don't need to arrive, according to you, as both us and our cameras somehow 'see' things instantly.

No, I am saying that if the brain is not decoding images from the light, the object has to be large enough to be seen. If a camera takes the same picture of that object, that means that the light has arrived at the camera's aperture. Obviously, a camera needs that light in order for a picture to be developed. That also means that if a supernova shows up in a pinhole camera, the light from that light source has arrived, which is why we would be seeing the same picture as a camera. The only time there would be a discrepency is if the light had not reached Earth. But if efferent vision is true we are seeing the star go supernova in real time. Lone Ranger said it would be too close to us and it would burn Earth up. But I doubt this because our galaxy is so huge that it would be thousands of light years away. The sun is 8.3 light minutes away, so when we're talking about a supernova, it would be far enough away that it would not burn the Earth up. There has only been a couple supernovas within our galaxy, correct?

Originally Posted by Kael

Then you say this:

Even if a small star would explode into a supernova, the star was already visible because the stream of light coming from that star was already here

Originally Posted by Kael

and this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl"

Anytime something is large enough where we can see it, the lightwaves coming from that source are already here by virtue of the fact that the object or image is not as far away as was believed if sight was afferent.

Originally Posted by Kael

Ok, so now your explanation for why a camera takes pictures of the same things we see even though a camera definitely works by detecting light while you claim our eyes don't is that the light arrives instantly and/or originates much closer than we thought?

Which is it, peacegirl? If a distant star explodes, you say we would see it instantly, as would our cameras. Is that because the light from the exploding star arrives instantly? Is it because the exploding star is much closer (apparently right next to us) than we thought, or perhaps the explosion somehow generates light right next to us, regardless of the distance? Is it because the light doesn't need to arrive for us to see it?

It means we would see it before the photons got here because of how the eyes work, not how light works.

Originally Posted by Kael

I mean, there are problems with all of these suppositions, which I would be willing to explain again despite my certainty that you won't listen, but I would personally feel better about that if you were at least consistent in your bullshitting and weaseling.

Pick a story, will you?

I'm trying to be consistent, but everyone is bringing up light and relativity. I made a mistake when I said the photons are already here which implied that we were seeing the supernova in delayed time. This confusion would be resolved if we focussed our attention on the brain and the juncture between the photoreceptors and the optic nerve. But then again, this discussion will never be resolved until further empirical studies are completed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It means we would see it before the photons got here because of how the eyes work, not how light works.

Which is WRONG, and conclusively demonstratred to be wrong by the theory of relativity. The simple YouTube video of how light and the eye work and interact shows that your claims are utter buncombe.

[LadyShea]

Forget light for the moment

Lessans chose to include brainless tools, like a powerful telescope, in his model of efferent sight and he chose to assert that instant communication of information from ~800 light years away (if you don't like the term because of "light", a light year is approximately 10 trillion Kilometers) is a product of his model of efferent sight.

You have to explain how instantaneous communication of information between two points does not negate the theory of relativity.

What you seem to keep ignoring is that efferent visions asserts we see in "real time", and relativity states that time is relative, so there is no such thing as real time. So, yes, you have hit the wall of physics because efferent vision makes claims about time.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It means we would see it before the photons got here because of how the eyes work, not how light works.

...

I'm trying to be consistent, but everyone is bringing up light and relativity. I made a mistake when I said the photons are already here which implied that we were seeing the supernova in delayed time. This confusion would be resolved if we focussed our energy on the brain and the juncture between the photoreceptors and the optic nerve.

That's fine then, we can do that. You're still left with one big, glaring problem. If our eyes and brain don't need to wait for the light or anything else from a distant exploding star to arrive, we would see it instantly. If our cameras, from pinhole box to film to digital, DO need to wait for that light in order to photograph the object, then they would not be able to photograph it for however many thousands of years it would take for the light to make that trip.

So, why would we be able to photograph a distant exploding star at the same time our eyes can see it? Why DO both see the same things at the same time? There are really only two possibilities.
1) Both our eyes and our cameras have to wait for the light (or something else) to arrive, and both only see the light from a distant supernova thousands of years after it actually exploded.
2) Neither have to wait, and both our eyes and cameras can somehow 'see' the distant explosion the moment it happens.

If you pick 1, then sight is obviously not in 'real time', and probably isn't efferent.
If you pick 2, then whatever unknown mechanism our brains possess that allows instant, efferent sight is also present in all our cameras, despite the simple fact that they were conceived, designed, and built on the sole principle of detecting incoming light, and should not work at all without it. We merely built them in such a way that they possessed this undefined efferent mechanism accidentally.

In short, if you pick 2, the one you have been claiming most of the time, then yes, this completely and totally contradicts everything we think we know about light, vision, relativity, causality, physics, photography, and a great deal more besides.

But then again, this discussion will never be resolved until further empirical studies are done.

This was never much of a discussion to begin with, and there is only one participant who is capable of resolving it. The testing has been done, peacegirl, for centuries now, and continues to this day. None of it has ever hinted at the merest shadow of a possibility that Lessans even could be right, let alone that he is. But you don't want to hear that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Kael

That's fine then, we can do that. You're still left with one big, glaring problem. If our eyes and brain don't need to wait for the light or anything else from a distant exploding star to arrive, we would see it instantly. If our cameras, from pinhole box to film to digital, DO need to wait for that light in order to photograph the object, then they would not be able to photograph it for however many thousands of years it would take for the light to make that trip.

So, why would we be able to photograph a distant exploding star at the same time our eyes can see it? Why DO both see the same things at the same time? There are really only two possibilities.
1) Both our eyes and our cameras have to wait for the light (or something else) to arrive, and both only see the light from a distant supernova thousands of years after it actually exploded.
2) Neither have to wait, and both our eyes and cameras can somehow 'see' the distant explosion the moment it happens.

If you pick 1, then sight is obviously not in 'real time', and probably isn't efferent.
If you pick 2, then whatever unknown mechanism our brains possess that allows instant, efferent sight is also present in all our cameras, despite the simple fact that they were conceived, designed, and built on the sole principle of detecting incoming light, and should not work at all without it. We merely built them in such a way that they possessed this undefined efferent mechanism accidentally.

In short, if you pick 2, the one you have been claiming most of the time, then yes, this completely and totally contradicts everything we think we know about light, vision, relativity, causality, physics, photography, and a great deal more besides.

This was never much of a discussion to begin with, and there is only one participant who is capable of resolving it. The testing has been done, peacegirl, for centuries now, and continues to this day. None of it has ever hinted at the merest shadow of a possibility that Lessans even could be right, let alone that he is. But you don't want to hear that.

Of course, we went over all of this with her long ago. In one ear, out the other, as always.

[LadyShea]

If you pick 2, then whatever unknown mechanism our brains possess that allows instant, efferent sight is also present in all our cameras, despite the simple fact that they were conceived, designed, and built on the sole principle of detecting incoming light, and should not work at all without it. We merely built them in such a way that they possessed this undefined efferent mechanism accidentally.

This reminded me of a discussion I saw about the Egyptian pyramids. It seems that if you do some simple calculation (height of the pyramid divided by circumference or something like that) the result is pi.

Some people thought that this indicated the Egyptians were way more advanced than previously thought, because they must have discovered pi. Others thought this indicated alien involvement because the ancient Egyptians couldn't have discovered pi.

Of course the most logical answer is that the ancient Egyptians didn't know shit about pi, but for consistency and efficiency used a marked wheel for measurement during construction. Where there be circles, there be pi

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I am saying that if the brain is not decoding images from the light, the object has to be large enough to be seen. If a camera takes the same picture of that object, that means that the light has arrived at the camera's aperture. Obviously, a camera needs that light in order for a picture to be developed. That also means that if a supernova shows up in a pinhole camera, the light from that light source has arrived, which is why we would be seeing the same picture as a camera. The only time there would be a discrepency is if the light had not reached Earth. But if efferent vision is true we are seeing the star go supernova in real time. Lone Ranger said it would be too close to us and it would burn Earth up. But I doubt this because our galaxy is so huge that it would be thousands of light years away. The sun is 8.3 light minutes away, so when we're talking about a supernova, it would be far enough away that it would not burn the Earth up. There has only been a couple supernovas within our galaxy, correct?

I don't know if you're deliberately lying or just displaying abysmal reading comprehension.

Regardless.

First, we've not only seen quite a few supernovae within our own galaxy, we've seen them in other galaxies.

Note that almost all of them are the result of stars that, before they went "BOOM" were too dim and too distant to be visible to the naked eye. In fact, many of them were too dim and too distant to be visible even with a telescope.

So the notion that there was a continuous stream of light that somehow allowed us to see them in "real time" is not true.

Despite this, in every single case, we could photograph the supernova the moment it became visible to the naked eye. If we see in "real time" but a camera must wait for light from the event to arrive (remember, most of these stars were not visible before going supernova -- that is, we were not receiving light from them), then we should be seeing most of these stars for a minimum of several years (actually several millennia) before they could be photographed.

***

I note, by the way, that you completely ignored my last post. So allow me to summarize.

Point 1: You admitted that if a hypothetical star 1,000 light-years away were to explode, the information ("the star has exploded") originates at the star itself.

Point 2: You claimed that we would see the star's explosion as soon as it happened.

Point 3: This necessarily means that the information ("the star has exploded") would somehow have to traverse a distance of 1,000 light-years instantaneously. [Note that it doesn't matter in the slightest how the information traversed that distance -- it only matters that it did. It could be carried by infinitely-fast carrier pigeons or the brain could "reach out" somehow and acquire the information directly. Regardless, the point is that the information traveled from the exploding star to the Earth instantaneously.]

Point 4: That is a violation of Relativity Theory. In fact, a more clear-cut violation of the theory would be difficult to imagine, since practically the entire point of Relativity Theory is that information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.


So yes, despite your repeated claims that you don't see how efferent vision would violate Relativity Theory, it most-certainly does. And if, after this, you still insist that you can't understand how your notion of efferent vision would violate Relativity Theory, you're either an idiot or a liar.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

brainless tools

Although not intended as such, that there is p. much the perfect description of Lessantology's adherents, all two of them.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Point 4: That is a violation of Relativity Theory. In fact, a more clear-cut violation of the theory would be difficult to imagine, since practically the entire point of Relativity Theory is that information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.

Although it would appear that peacegirl has a loose grip on physics, your statement is not entirely correct. Due to Lorentz contraction one can't accelerate an object of finite mass to the speed of light since it would require more energy than exists in the observable universe. The equations do predict that if there were such a thing as imaginary mass it would automatically travel faster than light with a speed proportional to the inverse of the imaginary mass. These are theoretical particles known as tachyons. Other theories rule them out as unstable but SR says nothing about that. And of course phase can travel faster than light but it can't carry information.

If you are going to scold peacegirl take care that you know what you're talking about.