A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah - so short-wavelength radiation does experience a delay, visible EM radiation does not? How does being in the visible spectrum make the photons behave so radically different?

Efferent vision is seeing the image in real time, so the visible versus the EM radiation really has nothing to do with it. That's why I said we're getting off track.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thats ok - you already backed off the claim that light cannot exist without it's source.

I didn't back off this claim because you cannot get an image from light itself if Lessans is correct. If you could get an image just from the light that has traveled light years away from its source, then efferent vision would be wrong. You would be able to see Columbus discovering America, but this is not what you would see. That's what needs to be tested. Everyone is just making statements that they believe is already proven.

You did back off from the claim that light cannot exist without it's source.

We cannot see an image from light alone, so whether light exists independently of its source doesn't negate this claim. That's what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, this brings these problems back:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

You are trying to understand efferent vision through the afferent model, and that's what is causing the problem. According to Lessans' [theory], if we can see a star, then that means it is large enough or bright enough to be seen with the naked eye or a telescope. We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star. If the star is large enough to be seen, then that means the light being emitted from that star has already reached us. That is why a camera and the eye would record the same exact picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

None of that addresses the fundamental problems.

I believe it does.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We would not see a dead star, but nevertheless detect the light coming in from it. Ergo, a camera would still see it as if it was still there, but we would no longer be able to see it.

It would not Vivisectus. You cannot just have light and get a picture. That's totally fallacious.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, the light would come from a different place in the sky, as the star has moved quite a bit since it sent the light that is now reaching us in our direction.

You're going back to a measurement of light and time that doesn't add up. No wonder you say it doesn't address a fundamental problem.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just repeating something that does not address the problem does not make the problem go away.

Where am I just repeating? If I am repeating, so are you repeating the same thing over and over again as if this makes it right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, its light WOULD reach us and would be photographable. There should be objects out there that we can photograph, but not see.

A camera needs the same thing the eye needs in order to take a photograph. It needs light and it needs the object that the light is reflecting. So if the star burns out, there would be no picture.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is not true - efferent eyes would need light and an object, but a camera is nothing but a simple light-detector. All it needs is light. Unless you want to claim that cameras are also efferent?

I have never seen a camera take a picture of light without the object that is reflecting that light. Cameras are not efferent or afferent because that relates to how the brain works, and cameras don't have a brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

Again, there should be objects that we can photograph, but not see.

No, you are once again using the afferent model as if to say that a picture can be taken from light alone without the light source. This is the sticking point, and one that needs further exploration.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Cameras are light detectors - it is simply how we designed them. Are you saying cameras work efferently too? You seem to be, or at least to be vaguely playing with the idea. How did we end up designing something to detect light, and somehow doing something else entirely?

We are not doing something else entirely. We're just including the object from which the light is being reflected; which gives the light its frequency and wavelength.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, how does the light at the end of the beam know it is time to stop existing? Whatever makes it stop exist would have to travel faster than light.

Maybe it just gets dimmer the farther it gets from its source. I'm just making a conjecture so don't get bent out of shape.

That isn't of significance if that light cannot be separated from its source for a picture to be taken or for us to see the actual image in real time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Try paraphrasing that. You will find that you cannot, as it is a nonsensical sentence. Are we once again saying that light cannot exist independent of it's source?

I am saying that in order to see an object or take a picture of an object, the light and the object have to be in view, therefore the light is not independent of its light source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And this material is completely relevant - it shows the impossible results and ramifications that follow if you assume that sight works as described in this book. You said that light cannot exist independently of a lightsource.

I said that (this is not from Lessans; this is MY interpretation, so don't blame him) because I don't believe that we can see the past, this whole demonstration is null and void. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe light can exist beyond the light source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes, you did say that. It was the only way you could explain the rather amazing results that would follow if we can see things directly and instantly the moment their light reaches us:

If light is not detectable from a camera without the object being present, and if light is not transduced into an electro-chemical signal which is then interpreted as a picture in the brain, I can safely say that it doesn't matter whether light travels independently of its source or not; we wouldn't be able to use it.

I'm only trying to extend these relations. If light is a condition of sight, and no image is seen from from the light itself (theoretically), then it follows that we must be getting an image from seeing the actual light source directly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Reality, as is easily empirically tested, does not agree with this at all. I notice you do not deal with the objections again, but just ignore them.

I'm doing my best to offer an alternate explanation that would fit in with the efferent model of vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But what about the fact that the things we actually test tell us that thinsg are not as we would expect if efferent vision was correct?

That's because we're not testing the right thing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist. If a flashlight is turned off, so is the light that is being emitted from that source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is one of the many problems that dog the whole idea of efferent sight. I then took that explanation and thought about what would happen if it were true.

If it were true we would be seeing the actual present. What's so impossible or crazy about that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, for starters simple empirical tests disprove it.

What empirical tests disprove that we are seeing the actual present? These are theories and theories can be wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If we were not, and sight works instantly, then our eyes would see something different from a light-detector. We know the detector had to wait for the light to arrive, and detects radiation that was sent out long ago. We are testing if our eyes work different.

As it turns out, both our eyes and the light-detector see the same thing. This tells us that instant vision does not occur. Thus, we have empirical proof that we are not seeing the actual present.

Detecting radiation has nothing to do with sight. It really is not a fair example. Just because we can detect radiation that was sent out long ago does not mean we can see on the visual spectrum light that is of a certain wavelength without the object from which it is being reflected.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Secondly, it basically states that we see by a mechanism as yet unknown that violates proven laws of physics. Two very good reasons to believe it is not so.

There is no unknown mechanism that violates the laws of physics. It has to do with the workings of the brain and nothing has excluded the possibility of the brain using the eyes to see the real world. It's true that the efferent model has to be carefully mapped out, which would be the next step.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok, then please explain the mechanism by which the brain uses the eyes to detect things without detecting any incoming particles. If these particles are photons, then we are talking about afferent sight. Efferent, instant sight requires some method, hitherto unexplained, of detecting things faster than light.

To say that seeing the real world is faster than the speed of light is not a fair analogy because efferent sight has nothing to do with time whatsoever. It's your mindset that is stuck on this false idea. Please read this again.

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars.

The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ.

The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Let's get scientific, ok? There is so much emotion in this conversation, it isn't scientific at all. Bottom line: If we see afferently, that means we are seeing the past? According to Lessans, that is not true. So the $64,000 question is still alive and well. If you think it's all wrapped up in a neat little package, you're mistaken.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The only emotion I am experiencing is one of amusement, as I find it an entertaining exercise to think of what the ramifications would be if you are correct. So far the results tend to be rather outlandish.

I really don't see where it's outlandish at all, but then again I'm not coming from the same thought system as you are.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It has been pointed out to you in easily understandable terms. Just sticking your head in the sand and pretending there is no problem does not mean it does not exist.

I don't see a problem. I just see the need for more empirical testing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you ignore the problem. The reality is that simple empirical tests have been done - comparison between photographs and visual observation of stars - that contradict efferent sight. It is now up to you to deal with that, or concede that efferent sight is disproven. So far you refuse to do either.

Photographs and visual observation of stars are always the same which supports efferent vision, but you don't see it that way because you believe it supports afferent vision. You are assuming that this means the light has reached the camera and the brain at the same time. That's why you can't use the afferent model if you're ever going to understand the plausibility of efferent sight.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

According to science, what happens is that light strikes the retina, which makes the different cones and rods in the eyes react and send impulses to the brain, where an image is composed out of the information received from the individual cones and rods.

Cones and rods are major players in how we see, there is no doubt about that. I hope you don't think I am disputing this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Excellent! Then please explain the mechanism by which they allow us to see in your model. I have already explained how they work in mine, with the added benefit that it has been tested!

Show me the absolute proof as to what is occurring at the junction of the retina, optic nerve and visual cortex and I'll concede. I said I don't have an exact model yet, but that doesn't mean one can't be created based on new information. The visual cortex could theoretically see the outside world, looking through the eyes to see the world. The cones and rods are part of the eye through which the brain is looking, therefore we would see everything in the same way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This has already been made available to you. Please read the lone rangers excellent essay on the matter, which explains the basics of what we have found out by careful testing.

I still maintain there is a problem with the existing theory when it comes to the transduction of photoreceptors into a signal that can be decoded and put back together to form an image in the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So to see something, it must somehow emit light, either directly or through reflection. That light then has to travel - let us set the distance at 10 light minutes. So let us say that at 1 o'clock my time, shine a red light at you. If you are 10 light minutes away, you will see that happen at 13:10.

If we see instantly, then you would see what is happening at 13:10. If I have moved by then, a strange thing happens. You will see me having put down the light, and yet at the same time you will see a beam of red light arriving out of nowhere, right at the spot where I was 10 minutes ago!

Photons cannot be seen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your eyes are photon detectors, BUT you can never look out and see a photon. The act of seeing IS photons hitting your eye.

I'll give you that, but you must have the object or image in view for the photons to do its job of allowing us to see.

Can we see a photon

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That actually supports MY point, not yours. I notice you are avoiding the actual issues now and have started grasping at straws.

It does not support it. If you put down the light, I would see you doing that, and that would put out the beam. Once again, you are coming from the mindset of photons being able to travel without a light source. This is not the same thing as smoke that would kill you even though the original fire was put out.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so you are back to light being dependent on its source for it's continued existence? But this too has been tested, and proven wrong. Look at radar, for instance. It relies on this not being the case.

Detecting radar has nothing to do with sight. And, as I said, even if photons traveled on and on forever, we could not take a picture of them unless the object was in view. If that is true, it would be impossible to detect a picture of something that happened long ago because that event is no longer part of reality.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If light is NOT dependent on its source, then the problem remains and my point carries.

You show me a camera that can take a picture of light without the object or image being in view, and I will eat my words.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another result of instant vision has to do with the direction from which the light comes in at us here on earth and the actual position where we see the light-source. It takes a year for light from a new star to reach us. By the time it reaches us, the star would have moved. So we would see the star in one position, but the light from that star would seem to be coming from a completely different direction! We would see a beam of light with no source, and a lightsource without a beam!

The most important point here is that, according to the efferent model, we cannot see or take a picture of light without the object or image in view, because nothing is being decoded from that light into an image in the brain. Therefore, we need to study how the brain works more than how light works in order to find our answers.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is nonsense. If the object needs to be in view in real time, then the light should come in from a different angle - it came from where the star was, but what we see is where the star is

Remember, the light is already here if the star is big enough to be seen, so it would be exactly at the angle where the star is, which supports efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is not what we see in reality. You can waffle about objects and views all you want, but that point remains.

Who's waffling?

There is a total disconnect here with definition, light, and measurement. We have to go back to square one if we are going to get to the bottom of this disagreement. Of course, it will be easy for you to whitewash this whole thing, and I truly wouldn't blame you at this point.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, this is merely a result of instant vision that we do not see in real life. Either we see instantly, and we can see where the star is, or we have to wait for light to arrive to see it, in which case we either see where the star was, or we see the star appear in a different spot than were its own light!

Not if we are seeing the real star in real time, and that star is big enough and bright enough to be within our field of view. The time it would take for light to arrive would be calculated differently, which would mean the light has arrived. This would change your calculations and there would be no discrepancy.

You are stating a premise that it takes a year for light to arrive in order to see a star. But if efferent vision were true, that would mean the star is large enough to be seen, which also means that the light would have already arrived because the timing would be different. All I can do is offer this as a theory and wait for more testing because we're not going to figure it out in this thread. I do believe Lessans is right even though it's hard to wrap your head around this concept when you've been taught the complete opposite.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The timing would not be different. Lightspeed remains the same, and so does the distance of the star, which we determine by triangulating. The problem above remains the same - you have not addressed it.

I thought I did answer it. What is triangulating?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You did not. You just waffled about the timing being different without explaining why. triangulation is using geometry to determine how far away something is.

All I'm saying is if the star is that big, the light is already here, which is why a camera can take a photograph at the same time the eyes can see it. I know you think altogether differently. May the best man win.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am saying that even if efferent vision were true, the results would be that we can see a star were it is now, but see the light come in where it was when the light began its journey. So a camera would record it where it was, and the eyes would see it where it is. This does not happen in reality.

And I gave an alternate explanation.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You did no such thing. You merely said something vague about timing and left it at that.

Did I make my explanation any clearer? Probably not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nor do we see stars wink out in real time, yet remain able to photograph them as if they still existed.

Who said we could?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

efferent, instant vision. Because a camera merely detects light and does not take a real-time picture. It cannot - it has to wait for the light.

A camera cannot take a picture without the image in view so it can detect the light. To repeat: It cannot take a picture of the image without the image being in view, which then allows the light being emitted to be detected.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You can try to avoid the issue all you want, but the point remains that these are the things we would see if efferent vision were true, but we are not in fact seeing them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, we would still be seeing the same thing a camera sees because the light being reflected or emitted would have already traveled to earth as we see this huge bright star in real time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Still makes no sense. This light would come from where the star was, while the image would be of where the star is.

Not true. As long as the star can be seen, and as long as there is light reaching the lens of the camera, a picture of that star would be as it is, not as it was.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really, at this stage you can do two things: you can say that reality is wrong, or that the book is wrong.

There's a third option. I can say reality is not wrong; we're just seeing it wrong, and the book is right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If the book is right, then we would expect what I described. We do not. Therefor we must assume the book is wrong.

But you're thinking is in terms of afferent vision. That's why it isn't adding up. This is not proof that Lessans is wrong. More testing has to be done on the brain and how it works, otherwise we won't be able to get a definitive answer.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Anything else is plain old religious fundamentalism. They also simply change reality if it does not suit their holy book. Hence you get Creation Museums.

This is not about changing reality to suit the book. It is about observing reality and changing our views as new knowledge is validated by science. But change is hard to come by, so it wouldn't surprise me if it took another 1000 years. If that is the case, Lessans would have been way way ahead of his time.

[thedoc]

I find it hard to believe that you are still trying to coinvince Peacegirl with scientific facts. Religious fundamentalists do not deal with facts, or scientific evidence, or emperical evidence. Peacegirl is dealing with a belief system that does not rely on anything that can be verified, it's all taken on faith. We are suposed to take Lessans book at face value, and believe it so it will make sense and be believable. It requires a very big leap of faith to accept that Lessans was correct and then everything he wrote will make sense and be believable. All this in spite of everything he wrote is in direct contradiction of everything that humanity has learned and verified over the years. The Bible and the Koran have some shreds of basis in reality, 'The Fall of all Evil' has no basis in anything even resembling reality, and no evidence or logic to support it

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You show me a camera that can take a picture of light without the object or image being in view, and I will eat my words.

Would you like fries with that?

[LadyShea]

We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star.

What do you mean "actual" star? What exactly do you believe stars are made of that we see?

hint: if we can't see light, we can't see stars.

efferent sight has nothing to do with time whatsoever.

Lessans said it did, and used the examples of the sun being turned on and seen instaneoulsy on Earth and an observer near Rigel (800 light years away) sharing the same time as Earth

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You show me a camera that can take a picture of light without the object or image being in view, and I will eat my words.

The Greenwich Meridian laser. Source not in camera's view, only the light. There are more examples all over the web.

Here's another

A camera cannot take a picture without the image in view so it can detect the light. To repeat: It cannot take a picture of the image without the image being in view, which then allows the light being emitted to be detected.

In the above pictures of a laser (pure light) visible for 10 miles, what is the "image in view"? How are you defining image? A picture IS an image, so what are you talking about?

even if photons traveled on and on forever, we could not take a picture of them unless the object was in view.

What is the "object" photographed in the above pictures of a laser beam, which is only light (photons)

[Vivisectus]

you have now fallen back on to saying "yes it does" or just claiming that things support what you say. You do not address the problems, you just claim that they are sorted.

Can you explain to me the following problem that we have if efferent sight is correct, in simple terms please, just like I am stating the problem in simple terms:

Problem 1: A star is 1 lightyear away. It appears, begins to shine, and then after 6 months it collapses into nothing. Efferent vision would predict that by the time its light hits us, there is no object to see anymore, and since we see what is there now, we see nothing. But we would still be able to detect its light, and hence, 1 year after the star began to shine and for a duration of 6 months, we would be able to photograph something that we cannot see with out eyes.

It would be a LOT of light, and 1 lightyear is really very close and would be very bright for a star. We see many of them that are far, far further away.

Problem 2: a large light is situated here on earth. We turn it on, and the light begins to travel to a huge mirror 5 light minutes away. The light then hits the mirror, bounces back, and becomes visible to us after 10 minutes.

Is light dependent on it's source for its existence? Because then we would never see the mirror unless we leave the light on for a full 10 minutes. If we turn the light off at 9, the whole stream of photons disappears. Where did they go? How do we explain the fact that technology such as radar works using the same photons, and yet rely on the fact that photons do not in fact disappear when the source stops emitting them?

Do we see in real time? Because in that case, if we left the mirror there for 6 minutes, and then moved it, the mirror would reflect light at us for 1 minute, and yet remain invisible to us the whole time even though we could take a photograph of it. Or perhaps we can see it in its new position for 1 minute, but photograph it in the position where it was 1 minute ago?

These are simple logical problems that arise. They are not dependent on efferent or afferent models, as I project the logical conclusions of both. You can't just say "That doesn't happen" like you have gotten used to doing. These are simple cases where empirical data contradicts the theory of efferent sight. This means the theory must be modified or abandoned.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Would you like fries with that?

Angakuk, the aurora is the image. But I'll still have the fries.

[LadyShea]

The aurora is pure light. Which you said we cannot see or photograph.

How are you defining "image"? The photograph is the image.

even if photons traveled on and on forever, we could not take a picture of them unless the object was in view.

How are you defining object?

Are you now conceding that we can see and photograph light itself?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Greenwich Meridian laser. Source not in camera's view, only the light. There are more examples all over the web.

Here's another

In the above pictures of a laser (pure light) visible for 10 miles, what is the "image in view"? How are you defining image? A picture IS an image, so what are you talking about?

What is the "object" photographed in the above pictures of a laser beam, which is only light (photons)

There is a disconnect here. You may be able to detect photons when the air is not clean, but you are not going to get an actual image of the light source, which is what we're talking about. Without the laser pen being in view, you cannot get a picture of the laser pen. Without you being in view of the camera, you cannot get a picture of YOU no matter how much light is being reflected off of you.

This is probably a silly question but I'd like to find out the answer
> from an expert. My question is, since laser beams emmit photons whose
> travel direction is parallel to each other, how come an observer can
> see the beam from the side? Is it bacause some photons do not follow
> this rule?

Are laser beams always visible from the side? Take a keychain
laser and shoot it across the living room at a wall. (Presumably no
one has been smoking, or cooking.) Is it clearly visible between the
pointer and the wall? Probably not. If you do see anything, it's
probably restricted to very rarified little sparkles. Now get yourself
a glass of water and mix in a few drops of milk. Shine the laser
through the mix, and it's plainly visible. If you're lucky enough to
have a light fog outside, you can shine it across the yard and it'll
be very nicely seen. The difference is entirely in how much stuff
there is in the beam's path to scatter some fraction of the radiation
away from the original direction. The specks you may see in the
comparatively clean air of the living room are, of course, dust,
widely space apart, much more so than the molecules in the water/milk
mix, or the tiny water droplets in the fog. If you were out in the
vacuum of space, you'd see absolutely nothing.

Now of course, in a scattering medium it also depends upon the
luminosity of the laser radiation. (Assuming of course that the
radiation is of a visible frequency.) If you've a high enough wattage
laser, then it will be visible even in clean air, such as what you see
at a laser show. (Some laser shows pump their own fogs, just to make
sure!) I used to work with CO2 cutting lasers, powerful enough to cut
steel. But even so the beams were visible only if whisps of smoke
strayed into the light path.

http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum....-from-the-side

[LadyShea]

Your quoted material supports my point.

how much stuff there is in the beam's path to scatter some fraction of the radiation (light) away from the original direction. The specks you may see in the comparatively clean air of the living room are, of course, dust, widely space apart, much more so than the molecules in the water/milk mix, or the tiny water droplets in the fog. If you were out in the vacuum of space, you'd see absolutely nothing.

Exactly right. The air contains particles of all kinds as well as water vapor. Our atmosphere is not a vacuum. This allowed the very strong laser to be seen and photographed. They are still photographs of the light itself, helpfully slightly scattered.

but you are not going to get an actual image of the light source, which is what we're talking about. Without the laser pen being in view, you cannot get a picture of the laser pen.

No, we weren't talking about the light's source, weasel. You said we cannot see the light from stars, but the "actual star" (which means you have no idea what you are talking about). You said we cannot see the light itself.

Yes, we can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean "actual" star? What exactly do you believe stars are made of that we see?

hint: if we can't see light, we can't see stars.

Lessans said it did, and used the examples of the sun being turned on and seen instaneoulsy on Earth and an observer near Rigel (800 light years away) sharing the same time as Earth

You tell me LadyShea, if light is not present, can we see anything at all?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your quoted material supports my point.

Exactly right. The air contains particles of all kinds as well as water vapor. Our atmosphere is not a vacuum. This allowed the very strong laser to be seen and photographed. They are still photographs of the light itself, helpfully slightly scattered.

No, we weren't talking about the light's source, weasel. You said we cannot see the light from stars, but the "actual star" (which means you have no idea what you are talking about). You said we cannot see the light itself.

Yes, we can.

You will not call me weasel LadyShea without a reaction from me. You are making this word a noun, and that's very condescending. If you want to talk to me intelligently, let go of the name calling because it's a distraction, and you know it.

[Vivisectus]

When you think about it, the night sky should be a strange and confusing sight indeed if efferent sight were correct. You would see all the stars where they actually are right now, but we would be able to detect light-beams hitting us from the places where the stars where when they emitted that light. Over the years these beams of light would try to catch up with the position of the star at its current location, and it would be exactly one year behind for every lightyear that the star is away from us.

A photograph of the night-sky should give us a completely different image from what we see, because all those stars have moved quite a bit since then, and some of them don't even exist anymore. There should be quite a few light-beams slowly catching up with where the star was last visible.

Also - what about red-shift? When we see a star and determine its exact color, and then compare that color to the color a star of that type should have, we can determine if that star is moving away from us or towards us. This is caused by the fact that if a star is coming toward us, this makes the frequency of the lightwave increase, causing the color to become more blue. If an object is moving away from us, it makes the frequency of the lightwave decrease, making it more red. If we are seeing efferently, this should not happen: we would always see it the exact color that it is, because we would not be using the light to create the image, merely to facilitate it in some unexplained fashion.

We use the fact that light works this way in a lot of technology: doppler radar and police radar guns, for instance.

The sheer amount of empirical evidence against efferent sight is overwhelming.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When you think about it, the night sky should be a strange and confusing sight indeed if efferent sight were correct. You would see all the stars where they actually are right now, but we would be able to detect light-beams hitting us from the places where the stars where when they emitted that light. Over the years these beams of light would try to catch up with the position of the star at its current location, and it would be exactly one year behind for every lightyear that the star is away from us.

OMG, that sounds like what it is already. You are not getting the fact that the light from the star and the star itself are one and the same.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

A photograph of the night-sky should give us a completely different image from what we see, because all those stars have moved quite a bit since then, and some of them don't even exist anymore. There should be quite a few light-beams slowly catching up with where the star was last visible.

Also - what about red-shift? When we see a star and determine its exact color, and then compare that color to the color a star of that type should have, we can determine if that star is moving away from us or towards us. This is caused by the fact that if a star is coming toward us, this makes the frequency of the lightwave increase, causing the color to become more blue. If an object is moving away from us, it makes the frequency of the lightwave decrease, making it more red. If we are seeing efferently, this should not happen: we would always see it the exact color that it is, because we would not be using the light to create the image, merely to facilitate it in some unexplained fashion.

If light works like fire and ashes, we would see the the red becoming blue. I am not arguing with this phenomena, but I don't see what this has to do with the actual object that has to be in place for that object is seen. We're not talking about the fallout because of debris that allows us to see photons. We're talking about seeing the actual object. The former is about seeing changes in color due to changes in atmosphere; the latter is about seeing the object that must be in view in order for it to be seen. Do you see the difference? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We use the fact that light works this way in a lot of technology: doppler radar and police radar guns, for instance.

The sheer amount of empirical evidence against efferent sight is overwhelming.

Not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You tell me LadyShea, if light is not present, can we see anything at all?

We see light, so if there is no light to see, no we cannot see. What's your point?

[LadyShea]

We're talking about seeing the actual object.

What actual object?

The former is about seeing changes in color due to changes in atmosphere

Space has no atmosphere it is a vaccum. When he was discussing red shift, he meant the color change due the frequency changes caused by distance and direction of motion relative to the telescope mounted camera (in space, like the Hubble).

; the latter is about seeing the object that must be in view in order for it to be seen.

What object?

Do you see the difference? Of course not.

Because you aren't describing anything real.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG, that sounds like what it is already. You are not getting the fact that the light from the star and the star itself are one and the same.

No, they are not. All we SEE is the light in the afferent model. In the efferent model, there is the object, and then there is light, which only facilitates sight. Stars are not made out of light. You are beginning to flap a bit, i notice.

If light works like fire and ashes, we would see the the red becoming blue. I am not arguing with this phenomena, but I don't see what this has to do with the actual object that has to be in place for that object is seen. We're not talking about the fallout because of debris that allows us to see photons. We're talking about seeing the actual object. The former is about seeing changes in color due to changes in atmosphere; the latter is about seeing the object that must be in view in order for it to be seen. Do you see the difference? Of course not.

This has nothing to do with any of that. You are just flailing now and trying to confuse things.

Look, it is perfectly simple. Because the speed of light is finite and does not change, the frequency of the beam becomes higher (and is seen by us as more blue) if it comes from an object that is moving towards us.

If we see by detecting light and interpreting that as an image in our brains, we can explain that phenomenon. If we see efferently, then we cannot explain it - in fact, the efferent hypothesis would predict that this would not happen.

It has nothing to do with light working like fire and ashes, or with refraction off particles in the atmosphere.

Not.

I see we have now come to the true basis of your argument: "Is not!", repeat and say louder as required. Playground tactics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We see light, so if there is no light to see, no we cannot see. What's your point?

I was just responding to you. You said:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

hint: if we can't see light, we can't see stars.

I was just agreeing with the obvious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What actual object?

Space has no atmosphere it is a vaccum. When he was discussing red shift, he meant the color change due the frequency changes caused by distance and direction of motion relative to the telescope mounted camera (in space, like the Hubble).

What object?

Because you aren't describing anything real.

Did you not read what I wrote in the previous post? I am not talking about shifts in hue that become the image we are seeing. Answer me this because you double talk a lot. Can a camera take a picture of LadyShea without YOU being in the camera's field of view? It's a simple yes or no question.

[LadyShea]

What did you mean when you said:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star.

Are you are purposefully weaseling around to avoid backing up your assertions, peacegirl or are you still (months and months into this) still very confused?

[Vivisectus]

Can a camera take a picture of LadyShea without YOU being in the camera's field of view? It's a simple yes or no question.

Sure. We just use a mirror to deflect the light that is reflected off shea, and aim that at a camera. Shea can stand around a corner, and hey presto! We have a picture of Shea without her being in the camera's field of view. Easy!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you not read what I wrote in the previous post? I am not talking about shifts in hue that become the image we are seeing. Answer me this because you double talk a lot. Can a camera take a picture of LadyShea without YOU being in the camera's field of view? It's a simple yes or no question.

I double talk? No, you are the one who seems to have no idea what we are trying to get across. Or you are purposefully talking about something completely different to distract us from the actual topic.

What does your question have to do with the discussion at hand, which is seeing and photographing light itself? Your question is a total non sequitur

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you not read what I wrote in the previous post? I am not talking about shifts in hue that become the image we are seeing. Answer me this because you double talk a lot. Can a camera take a picture of LadyShea without YOU being in the camera's field of view? It's a simple yes or no question.

Yes.

To produce this effect, LadyShea needs to be moving very fast, or be very far away, or both. This is why we're arguing with you using astronomical bodies, because the effects are obvious given the large distances and high speeds.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure. We just use a mirror to deflect the light that is reflected off shea, and aim that at a camera. Shea can stand around a corner, and hey presto! We have a picture of Shea without her being in the camera's field of view. Easy!

Or use a prism or two to refract the light around a corner. Either way, you could take a picture of LadyShea without her being in the camera's field of view.

[peacegirl]

This has nothing to do with any of that. You are just flailing now and trying to confuse things.

Look, it is perfectly simple. Because the speed of light is finite and does not change, the frequency of the beam becomes higher (and is seen by us as more blue) if it comes from an object that is moving towards us.

I am not denying this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If we see by detecting light and interpreting that as an image in our brains, we can explain that phenomenon. If we see efferently, then we cannot explain it - in fact, the efferent hypothesis would predict that this would not happen.

Of course we can explain it because the changes are actually taking place externally, and efferent vision sees those external changes. But we cannot see an old picture of reality as if this is the same phenomena.

It has nothing to do with light working like fire and ashes, or with refraction off particles in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We use the fact that light works this way in a lot of technology: doppler radar and police radar guns, for instance.

I have said over and over that you cannot compare doppler radar (which is a proven technology) as a way to discount efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The sheer amount of empirical evidence against efferent sight is overwhelming.

Not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I see we have now come to the true basis of your argument: "Is not!", repeat and say louder as required. Playground tactics.

If I am using playground tactics, then what do you call the tactics people have used in here to try to embarrass me and make me look like a fool? Huh?