A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The theory of relativity of simultaneity does not in any way conflict with efferent vision. You can see something differently relative to your position, and still be seeing that image in real time.

As predicted, peacegirl simply DECALARES there to be no violation of SR, when quite obviously there is.

Hey, peacegirl, if everyone sees everything in real time, why does the person on the embankment see the flashes simultaneously, while the person on the train sees them sequentially? We know why. Because the speed of light is FINITE and INVARIANT in all intertial frames, and the experiment mooted above proves, contrary to your idiot father's ravings, that the light carries INFORMATION which takes a measurable TIME to arrive at our eyes and be decoded by our brains. Thus does special relativity completely invalidate Daddy's babbling.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It shows nothing of the sort.

Thus sayeth The Idiot, while of course making no effort so SUPPORT her claim; to show WHY real-time seeing is not in conflict with SR. Of course she CAN'T support her claim which is why she merely asserts it. Pitifully predictable and laughably repulsive, as is the trademark of Her Royal Highness, who never even HEARD of relativity theory until she came to this thread to have her ass handed to her.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's true. So what you're saying is that even though we can see a supernova with the naked eye, a camera wouldn't be able to pick up that picture? That's the opposite of what Lone Ranger said.

No. Try to pay attention. I am saying that if we see efferently and instantly, as your father claims, then we would see a supernova with the naked eye but our cameras would not be able to photograph it, unless they can detect things efferently and instantly as well.

There is a third possibility. It could mean that the light has arrived, therefore the camera is able to take a picture using that light, and it also means that the eyes can see of the explosion incidentally to what the camera is doing, not because of the light.

This is the same as possibility 1 that I mentioned. If the light from the supernova has arrived (which allows cameras to photograph it) and this coincides with our ability to see the supernova with our naked eye, then either our naked eyes also have to wait for light or something that travels with light or the light somehow arrives instantly.

Remember, we can only compare the eyes to a camera up to the film or the retina.

Perhaps someone should have told your father that, since he goes much further and speaks of the brain 'developing negatives'.

Show me then where we see the event efferently, and the camera can't take a picture of that event. That would at least show us that there is some kind of discrepency. It we can't do this, then all it means is that the light is here for the camera to use that light to take a picture. That does not automatically negate the fact that we are seeing the image of the supernova instantly, as it occurs.

You are weaseling again. If efferent and instant vision were true, the only way we could photograph (as in detect the photons from) a distant supernova at the same time we could see it is if light travels instantly.

We know this is not the case. Ignoring everything else we know for the moment, it follows that either cameras also 'see' efferently and instantly, or that our eyes also have to wait for the light or something that is traveling with the light to arrive.

You were claiming the former, that cameras can take photographs without having to wait for light to arrive. Now you are claiming that the light arrives instantly.

Do you see what I was saying about consistency? Make up your mind.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't play this game with me. This is no sleight of hand confusion here. If you think it is, rethink it LadyShea, because you don't know it all, even though you think you have a monopoly on accurate thought. I will not defend him when you use a comparison that has nothing to do with him.

Fuck off, the only one who thinks she has a monopoly on truth is you.

[Angakuk]

* Angakuk arrives, panting heavily, sweating profusely, and in a state of near exhaustion.

Well, I have finally made it. I am all caught up and up-to-date on this thread. Man, what a marathon!

Peacegirl,

You have frequently expressed a desire that experiments should be conducted that will demonstrate, once and for all, whether or not the eye functions efferently, and that we should all be willing to wait patiently and suspend judgement until the results of such studies are all in. Scientific studies require significant expenditures of time, effort and money. That being the case, can you explain why you think that anyone (other than yourself) would be in the least bit interested in undertaking such an effort? What would be their motivation for doing so?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no inherent problems LadyShea. If images are traveling, why don't we see those images, why do we need a telescope or a microscope. You don't get it, I'm sure.

Who said the "images" are traveling? What do you mean why don't we see those images? We need telescopes and microscopes to gather and focus photons that our limited eyes are unable to on their own.

Really if you would only take the time to study sight and light, so you understood exactly what it is you are trying to refute.

I, myself, only have the most basic of layperson's understanding of all this, and I was able to gain that understanding pretty quickly. You can too.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't play this game with me. This is no sleight of hand confusion here. If you think it is, rethink it LadyShea, because you don't know it all, even though you think you have a monopoly on accurate thought. I will not defend him when you use a comparison that has nothing to do with him.

I wasn't even talking to you. I related an amusing anecdote about accidental discoveries in response to the quoted material. Jeez it's not all peacegirl all the time.

Get over yourself, lady. I have not claimed a monopoly on accurate thought, I have offered my thoughts and refutations. That you are struggling to defend your view, because you do not understand what your defense requires you to refute in the process, is not my fault.

See here's the problem. You can't just assert that efferent sight is possible therefore should be given equal consideration as other hypotheses. You have to show why afferent sight is wrong or flawed or doesn't work. You also have to show why various well supported scientific principles do not apply to vision or the field of optics in general.

What you are trying to do requires much more work than just saying "Well the fat cows haven't come home and sung yet" or "Someday some scientist somewhere for some reason will study this and vindicate me".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

remains a fantasy, like Santa Claus.

Whoa, I protest this in the strongest possable terms, go pick on something like 'Honest Politicians' instead.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

100% incorrect LadyShea. I never said, and neither did Lessans. You claim that he said we don't see something on a pinhole that has not traveled from point A to point B. You are making up stories, and I don't know why.

He said an observer on or near Rigel, with a powerful enough telescope, could see what is happening on Earth at the same moment it is happening on Earth. He used the specific example that the hypothetical observer on Rigel would see him writing the words he was writing at that exact moment. Seeing is communication of information.

That means he asserted that Rigel time and Earth time are the same time and that people 800 light years apart could see each other (communicate information) instantaneously.

I never mentioned a pinhole at all except to say I deleted that portion of your post because it was irrelevant to any point I have made.

[peacegirl]

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?

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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.

That's why I made the distinction because I know you said we would burn up if they were large enough and within our own galaxy.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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.

My only question is if they were too distant and too dim to be visible to the naked eye, or even with a telescope, how could a camera take a picture of them?

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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 think there needs to be clarification. If there is a fire four miles away, and it's too small for me to see from where I am living, as the fire spreads, I will only begin to recognize that a fire began somewhere else when the flames reach my location. If you want to compare a supernova to this, then, yes, we would be seeing the light coming from the explosion of the supernova, without seeing the supernova as it explodes. But this has nothing to do with images embedded in light that the eyes can decode, which is why I believe this is not an appropriate example (I never did), and will be used as some kind of proof against efferent vision.

***

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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.

Only if the star is bright enough or close enough. If it's not, then we can't see it because there is no light present in which to see it.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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

I will repeat: Only if the explosion was large enough and bright enough to be seen. If it wasn't, how could we see it?

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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.]

No, there is a misunderstanding. If light is not seen at point A (the explosion), because it is too far away, then the only way we could see it is that light coming from the explosion (similar to the example about a fire spreading) would have to travel until it was close enough to be seen. This does not contradict Lessans' observations at all.

Originally Posted by 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.

But I'm not in disagreement with this aspect of physics.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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.

I'm neither.

[LadyShea]

My only question is if they were too distant and too dim to be visible to the naked eye, or even with a telescope, how could a camera take a picture of them?

They were too dim and too distant to see prior to them going supernova.

What he's saying is that we have "discovered" some stars ONLY when they went supernova. We couldn't see them one day, and we could see them the next. They became visible and photographable at the same time because the light from the supernova had reached Earth.

You had said something about the light from these stars already being present by the time they went supernova. He was saying no, we couldn't see them at all prior to the nova event.

[LadyShea]

No, there is a misunderstanding. If light is not seen at point A (the explosion), because it is too far away, then the only way we could see it is that light coming from the explosion (similar to the example about a fire spreading) would have to travel until it was close enough to be seen. This does not contradict Lessans' observations at all.

It does. Lessans stated that if we can see something (because it meets the criteria of seeing), we can see it instantly, without the light from point A the event or object having to travel to point B our eyes/brain. You have stated this dozens of times. You are being inconsistent in the extreme.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not in disagreement with this aspect of physics.

The problem is that real time, instant seeing (efferent vision) is, by definition, also real time, instant transmission of information. Which is impossible according to relativity.

What exactly are you having such a hard time understanding about this?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My only question is if they were too distant and too dim to be visible to the naked eye, or even with a telescope, how could a camera take a picture of them?

Evidently, this is a difficult concept for you. Before they went supernova, the stars in question were not photographable.

Incidentally, there have been many supernovae that were close-enough to us that the stars in question were visible and photographable before they went supernova.

I think there needs to be clarification. If there is a fire four miles away, and it's too small for me to see from where I am living, as the fire spreads, I will only begin to recognize that a fire began somewhere else when the flames reach my location.

I suspect you'll recognize that fact long before the flames reach your location.

If you want to compare a supernova to this, then, yes, we would be seeing the light coming from the explosion of the supernova, without seeing the supernova as it explodes.

Are you now suggesting that we have to wait for the light to reach us before we can see the supernova, and that we wouldn't see it in real time? In direct contradiction to what you've repeatedly claimed?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only if the star is bright enough or close enough. If it's not, then we can't see it because there is no light present in which to see it.

A supernova only 1,000 light-years distant would not only be easily visible to the naked eye, it would almost-certainly be bright enough to an observer on Earth to cast shadows.

I will repeat: Only if the explosion was large enough and bright enough to be seen. If it wasn't, how could we see it?

Again, a supernova only 1,000 light-years distant would be easily visible to the naked eye, much less through a telescope.

No, there is a misunderstanding. If light is not seen at point A (the explosion), because it is too far away, then the only way we could see it is that light coming from the explosion (similar to the example about a fire spreading) would have to travel until it was close enough to be seen. This does not contradict Lessans' observations at all.

You're lying weaseling.

A supernova only 1,000 light-years distant would be easily visible to the naked eye.

You admitted that the information ("the star has exploded") originates at the star itself. You also claim that we would see the explosion (and thus acquire the information that the star has exploded) immediately.

Thus you are trapped in your own logic, because you've just claimed that the information ("the star has exploded") has somehow gotten from the star to an Earthbound observer instantaneously.

And that most-definitely is a violation of Relativity Theory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm neither.

Actually, you're one or the other. Possibly both.

You've had it explained to you -- by several different people, and in terms that any reasonably intelligent 5th grader would understand -- how and why your notion of efferent vision conflicts with Relativity Theory. If you're still claiming that you don't understand why this is true, then you're either an idiot* or a liar -- possibly both.


*This does not necessarily mean that you're generally idiotic. A person can be quite intelligent in most ways while being truly idiotic in reference to some deeply-held belief(s) that (s)he cannot or will not subject to critical scrutiny.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

We see in real time only if the object or image is large enough. If it's not, then we could not see it. We would then be seeing the light only when it traversed a certain distance. But this does not contradict efferent vision whatsoever because we are still seeing an image or object in real time as long as it is close enough to us. For example, we may not be able to see a spring 5 miles away from which a river originated. We only see the river.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

It does not LadyShea. If we are discussing an explosion that is too far away to be seen, then we would not be seeing the actual event, but the light from that event as it came into view. In that case we would be talking about a time related event, but this in no way indicates that a chemical-electrical signal from that light is being sent to the brain to be decoded into an image.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

images embedded in light

[LadyShea]

But this has nothing to do with images embedded in light that the eyes can decode, which is why I believe this is not an appropriate example (I never did), and will be used as some kind of proof against efferent vision.

Nobody believes images are embedded in the light. Photons do not carry images. Each photon conveys a little bit of information about the object it was emitted from or reflected off of due to the direction and frequency as it hits the retina.

This is a really simplified analogy, but maybe it will help. Imagine millions of droplets of paint being thrown at a canvas from all directions and distances. This paint changes color as it slows down due to passing through the air or water or whatever or bounces off something and changes direction...the directions and distance they come from, as well as any objects or materials they interact with on the way, will determine how, or even if, they hit the canvas and what the color is, and what pattern they form.

The brain creates the image based on the qualities (frequencies) of the light that reaches the retina.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see in real time only if the object or image is large enough.

Doesn't matter for this discussion. In the efferent vision model, if we can see it, because it meets your criteria, we are seeing it in real time, instantaneously.

That means we are receiving information about the object instantaneously. That is what is impossible due to causality and relativity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not LadyShea.

What does not what? Efferent vision as per Lessans does not state we see instantly? Efferent vision as per Lessans does not make claims about time? Yes it does, quite emphatically.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;952319][

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

No, there is a misunderstanding. If light is not seen at point A (the explosion), because it is too far away, then the only way we could see it is that light coming from the explosion would have to travel until it was close enough to be seen. This does not contradict Lessans' observations at all.

If a star that is too far away to be seen before it goes super nova, goes super nova and is now bright enough to be seen, how far would the light need to travel to be seen by an observer, or another way how close to the observer would the light need to be, to be seen. Let us assume that the star is not moving relative to the observer (the star and the observer are always the same distance apart).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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.

My only question is if they were too distant and too dim to be visible to the naked eye, or even with a telescope, how could a camera take a picture of them?[/quote]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Evidently, this is a difficult concept for you. Before they went supernova, the stars in question were not photographable.

Incidentally, there have been many supernovae that were close-enough to us that the stars in question were visible and photographable before they went supernova.

So far, so good.

I think there needs to be clarification. If there is a fire four miles away, and it's too small for me to see from where I am living, as the fire spreads, I will only begin to recognize that a fire began somewhere else when the flames reach my location.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I suspect you'll recognize that fact long before the flames reach your location.

Right, through smoke, embers, the smell of burning wood, etc. I remember my oldest son was in law school in San Diego quite a few years ago, and there was a huge brush fire that was spreading in that area. The air was so thick and dark they couldn't see in front of them, and they had a hard time breathing. And the cars were covered with ash. Luckily, they got it under control before it reached them because they couldn't evacuate in time. I remember how worried I was.

If you want to compare a supernova to this, then, yes, we would be seeing the light coming from the explosion of the supernova, without seeing the supernova as it explodes.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Are you now suggesting that we have to wait for the light to reach us before we can see the supernova, and that we wouldn't see it in real time? In direct contradiction to what you've repeatedly claimed?

We're talking about two different things and I'm not sure how to differentiate between them. Please keep the example of the fire. When we see embers from a fire, we are seeing those embers in real time. They are particles that have travelled. If a supernova explodes, and that explosion is filled with certain materials, then we will see those remnants as they travel close enough to us.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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.

Only if the star is bright enough or close enough. If it's not, then we can't see it because there is no light present in which to see it.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A supernova only 1,000 light-years distant would not only be easily visible to the naked eye, it would almost-certainly be bright enough to an observer on Earth to cast shadows.

If the remnants of that supernova have traveled a finite distance, we would be seeing the leftover material of that supernova, just as we would be seeing a river that traveled a certain distance from which it originated. If we were seeing a shadow being cast, that information got there through time and space, therefore we would not be seeing the shadow in real time. But this has nothing to do with efferent vision because the light source that is casting that shadow is visible to the naked eye; therefore the shadow is not embedded in the light apart from the source from which it originated.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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

I will repeat: Only if the explosion was large enough and bright enough to be seen. If it wasn't, how could we see it?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Again, a supernova only 1,000 light-years distant would be easily visible to the naked eye, much less through a telescope.

This all goes back to how the eyes and brain work, not the properties of light. That's why there is so much confusion.

Originally Posted by Lone Ranger

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.]

No, it only means the eyes, being the window of the brain, would see the supernova instantly if it were close enough and bright enough. The information regarding the supernova would be obtained because of our ability to see efferently, which means that the image of the supernova is seen directly; not embedded in the lightwaves which are then decoded by the brain into an image.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, there is a misunderstanding. If light is not seen at point A (the explosion), because it is too far away, then the only way we could see it is that light coming from the explosion (similar to the example about a fire spreading) would have to travel until it was close enough to be seen. This does not contradict Lessans' observations at all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're lying weaseling.

I don't see where.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A supernova only 1,000 light-years distant would be easily visible to the naked eye.

You admitted that the information ("the star has exploded") originates at the star itself. You also claim that we would see the explosion (and thus acquire the information that the star has exploded) immediately.

Only if the star was actually close enough to us. We don't get an exact image of an explosion that happened in the past. We get remnants, just as we don't get an exact image of a spring that originates 50 miles away; we get a river. If an explosion of any kind takes place, it eventually dies out after it spreads as far as it can physically go. What you are saying is that the image of the supernova would be an exact replica of what occurred thousands of light years ago because the light is carrying the image to the eye. That is mistaken.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Thus you are trapped in your own logic, because you've just claimed that the information ("the star has exploded") has somehow gotten from the star to an Earthbound observer instantaneously.

The phrase "the information has somehow gotten" is fallacious because the information has not gotten anywhere; the image is there to be seen.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And that most-definitely is a violation of Relativity Theory.

That's because you are thinking in terms of the information being contained in the light even if the source of that light was no longer present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm neither.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, you're one or the other. Possibly both.

You've had it explained to you -- by several different people, and in terms that any reasonably intelligent 5th grader would understand -- how and why your notion of efferent vision conflicts with Relativity Theory. If you're still claiming that you don't understand why this is true, then you're either an idiot* or a liar -- possibly both.

*This does not necessarily mean that you're generally idiotic. A person can be quite intelligent in most ways while being truly idiotic in reference to some deeply-held belief(s) that (s)he cannot or will not subject to critical scrutiny.

Thank you for qualifying that. It makes me feel so much better.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that light has traveled from an old supernova, then we would not be seeing the original supernova, But we would be seeing in real time

If a supernova occured 10,000 years ago we could not see the original supernova as it happens, but if the light from the supernova is just now arriving how could we see it, if the supernova itself no longer exists as a visible object? The light from the original supernova is the only thing there is to see. The star itself is too dim to be seen when it is not supernova.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody believes images are embedded in the light. Photons do not carry images. Each photon conveys a little bit of information about the object it was emitted from or reflected off of due to the direction and frequency as it hits the retina.

This is a really simplified analogy, but maybe it will help. Imagine millions of droplets of paint being thrown at a canvas from all directions and distances. This paint changes color as it slows down due to passing through the air or water or whatever or bounces off something and changes direction...the directions and distance they come from, as well as any objects or materials they interact with on the way, will determine how, or even if, they hit the canvas and what the color is, and what pattern they form.

The brain creates the image based on the qualities (frequencies) of the light that reaches the retina.

The mistaken notion is that light contains the information because what we see is not the present, but the past. This comes from the belief that the retina converts the photons into electrical-chemical signals that go directly into the brain. This is the fallacy, and no matter how much we discuss light and its properties, we're not going to get a definitive answer because we can't prove that the premises upon which we are basing our reasoning, is foolproof.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody believes images are embedded in the light. Photons do not carry images. Each photon conveys a little bit of information about the object it was emitted from or reflected off of due to the direction and frequency as it hits the retina.

This is a really simplified analogy, but maybe it will help. Imagine millions of droplets of paint being thrown at a canvas from all directions and distances. This paint changes color as it slows down due to passing through the air or water or whatever or bounces off something and changes direction...the directions and distance they come from, as well as any objects or materials they interact with on the way, will determine how, or even if, they hit the canvas and what the color is, and what pattern they form.

The brain creates the image based on the qualities (frequencies) of the light that reaches the retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mistaken notion is that light contains the information because what we see is not the present, but the past.

So you keep asserting. You have, however, failed to demonstrate that there is a mistake, or even pointed out any instance where the model of afferent vision doesn't work in reality.

This is the fallacy, and no matter how much we discuss light and its properties, we're not going to get a definitive answer because we can't prove that the premises upon which we are basing our reasoning, is foolproof.

To be taken even remotely seriously or have this examined by anyone in science, you need to demonstrate a single situation where the currently accepted theory of afferent vision fails. Then you have to demonstrate efferent vision is a remotely plausible alternate explanation and that it corrects the problem you found. Then you have to eliminate all other possible alternative explanations as inferior to the efferent vision explanation. Then you have to explain how efferent vision does not negate other well supported scientific principles like causality and relativity.

None of this requires definitive answers or foolproofness. It requires only astute observation in conjunction with a thorough understanding of the model you are questioning, and a coherent explanation and demonstration that your observation is accurate and consistent, and that others can easily make the same observation and formulate a testable hypothesis.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

* Angakuk arrives, panting heavily, sweating profusely, and in a state of near exhaustion.

Well, I have finally made it. I am all caught up and up-to-date on this thread. Man, what a marathon!

Peacegirl,

You have frequently expressed a desire that experiments should be conducted that will demonstrate, once and for all, whether or not the eye functions efferently, and that we should all be willing to wait patiently and suspend judgement until the results of such studies are all in. Scientific studies require significant expenditures of time, effort and money. That being the case, can you explain why you think that anyone (other than yourself) would be in the least bit interested in undertaking such an effort? What would be their motivation for doing so?

But, Pastor, don't you want to bring an end to all evil and finally achieve world peace? In his book Seymour recounts asking Holy Men this very question. As he explains, once real-time seeing is validated, The Golden Age begins.

Oh, wait! I forgot. Sure, you're a pastor. But you're an evil pastor!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the fallacy ...

Oh, and would you care to explain how you know that this is a "fallacy"? What -- you know -- EVIDENCE you have to support your claim?

Oh, I know!

"DADDY SAID SO!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

... but then the eyes and the camera see it as the same time, which is when the light from the event arrives. One year for every light year after the event.

That's the premise, not the conclusion.