A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Since you're probably just going to dismiss the above and say that I just don't understand, could you at least define "optical range"

I did explain it many times. It is seeing the real object. It is not just decoding the information being sent by the light. I appreciate your questions Artemis, but please try to refrain from making fun of me just because you might not grasp the concept immediately. That is not the course of investigation that scientists take if they really want to get t the truth. They try very hard not to jump to premature conclusions.

[Artemis Entreri]

Sorry for making fun of you by pointing out what your were likely to do (and did actually, you didn't answer the questions in the first post, you only said I didn't understand)

And frankly that isn't even seem like a decent definition of optical range... Honestly. Let me try to parse the meaning and I'll give you a chance to confirm before I continue.

Is this what you mean?
Optical range: the furthest distance at which an object is viewable.

Now this range would change greatly depending on if you're using the naked eye (and how well said eyes function), binoculars, telescope, ect. but the definition would remain constant.

Is this a accurate definition of optical range?

[LadyShea]

When she says "optical range" she means "what can be seen". Efferent vision has no mechanism and no parameters so can't be discussed in any concrete terms. You've seen what happens when you try to introduce actual factors and characteristics and properties of things based on observed reality.

It's basically childlike in that "I see a tree, because a tree is there, and it is not dark, and I have eyes, so I can see it" is the entirety of the explanation

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Sorry for making fun of you by pointing out what your were likely to do (and did actually, you didn't answer the questions in the first post, you only said I didn't understand)

And frankly that isn't even seem like a decent definition of optical range... Honestly. Let me try to parse the meaning and I'll give you a chance to confirm before I continue.

Is this what you mean?
Optical range: the furthest distance at which an object is viewable.

Now this range would change greatly depending on if you're using the naked eye (and how well said eyes function), binoculars, telescope, ect. but the definition would remain constant.

Is this a accurate definition of optical range?

Yes. Telescopes magnify the object which puts it in our optical range. The same with binoculars. But the concept remains the same. Mirrors only redirect the light but the object is still present. A mirror would not reflect an object that was now gone. That's what science is trying to make us believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When she says "optical range" she means "what can be seen".

This is so funny to me because this is more realistic than saying that light must be in optical range to be resolved. You don't eve see how farfetched afferent vision really is.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Efferent vision has no mechanism and no parameters so can't be discussed in any concrete terms.

Of course it has parameters. Whatever our visual landscape is, is the pasrameter of what we're looking at. What parameters does afferent vision have that efferent doesn't? You say the light may have to travel millions and millions of miles to put us in visual range. I say the object is in visual range which puts the light at the eye or telescope in a closed system.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've seen what happens when you try to introduce actual factors and characteristics and properties of things based on observed reality.

It's basically childlike in that "I see a tree, because a tree is there, and it is not dark, and I have eyes, so I can see it" is the entirety of the explanation

There is nothing childlike about seeing the real world LadyShea. If the object isn't resolved because it's too far away, we won't see it. It is exactly in keeping with optics. Your idea that light brings information about the real world that then finds its way to our puny eyes which then gets decoded into an image of an event that doesn't even exist anymore, is even more childlike.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Your box example still doesn't address how light gets from the source to the eye.
Afferent vision has an explanation for this, efferent vision does not.

Either the eye requires light on its photoreceptors in order to see or it does not. You said that sight without light on the eye was "magic." So we agree that the eye requires light on it's receptors to see. How does this light get to the eye?

You just keep saying that the light is instantly at the eye if the object is within optical range... That isn't an explanation, it isn't even an attempt an an explanation.

Artemis, I appreciate your questions but you're not understanding why the efferent account does not require us to wait for the light to arrive. Because it's the polar opposite of the afferent view of sight, all that is necessary is that the actual object is within our visual range (you gave a good definition). Remember, our eyes (or telescope) along with the object creates a closed system. This means that in any given situation, the distance between the object and the eyes is immaterial, as distance is not what brings us the information. That's what he meant when he said the image is not reflected. This also means that in this account, the light from all the objects that are within our visual landscape (i.e., the minute we open our eyes and look around to see what's out there) is at the eyes instantly. You are still thinking in terms of traveling light that has to get to us through space/time. But if there's nothing in the light without the object being in visual range, what are we waiting to see?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh … so we DO see light, after all!

And just think! All this time, Your Royal Shitiness has been lecturing us about how we see the OBJECT, and not the LIGHT! My, my, my!

And now that you accept that the light takes TIME to bounce off the object, hit the mirror, and rebound to the retinas of the viewer, it logically follows that we see images of things as they were in the past!

So, now you ACCEPT the actual scientific account of light and sight! Isn't that interesting!

Well, of course you don't really. You are just too stupid and dishonest to notice that you have contradicted yourself, and Lessans. You just have no idea what you are saying. You string words together and hurl them at the wall like spaghetti, hoping that something, anything, will stick.

Hey, peacegirl, how's the marketing of Daddy's book working out for you?

I never said we didn't see light David. We see rainbows, isn't that light? We see images on our computer; isn't that light? We see sunsets; isn't that light? And we see ourselves in the mirror due to light's reflection. We see all kinds of interesting phenomena when light interacts with the environment. But the concept remains the same. We are seeing these interactions in real time due to the way the eyes work. This doesn't change the properties of light, just the function. The reason scientists never understood this model of sight is because it appears logical that we are receiving and interpreting light that takes time to reach us. But this logic is unsound. And now that we know the truth, you should be happy. I know it's upsetting at first to realize that science may have gotten it wrong, but there is nothing in this account that is offensive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes you did. You just said it again below...

Instantly means zero time. So again...

What is your mechanism, and how does it relocate photons from the Sun to the film or retina in zero time?

I know you will never get it; maybe Artemis will. The mechanism is what I explained yesterday. The light travels and when it's luminous enough for us to see the object, we have already walked into the box where the light has reached the far end (remember, in this closed system distance is not a factor, just brightness and size), placing the light instantly (zero time) at our retina which then puts our eyes in optical range.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have weaseled from start to finish, and have yet to even address our objection.

Yet you contradict this every time you say that light can be at the retina or film before it has had time to travel there.

That's not what I'm saying. Do you read any of my posts other than yours?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is transmitted, true, but there is nothing in the light itself to give us information apart from the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course there is. The frequency, intensity, and direction of travel of the light is information. But even if this were not true and light brought no information at all, you would still need light AT THE RETINA and you still have no explanation at all for HOW IT COULD GET THERE.

I have given it. You must have ignored everything I've explained, or you are completely blocked. My explanation must bounce right off of you like light bounces off of objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know why you have continually ignored my points as if they mean nothing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yet w all know exactly why you keep ignoring our posts and questions as if they mean nothing.

No, I only ignore you because you repeat yourself over and over. Light travels. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you have to lash out at me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that it's difficult to change from one account to another, but that doesn't mean he was wrong just because you can't wrap your head around it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We know he was wrong because he needs light to be somewhere before it can possibly get there.

But it is there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That means that although light travels, the image (or the nonabsorbed photons)...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Still with the lame traveling images strawman. Non-absorbed photons =/= images.

Isn't that what you believe is happening? That across millions of miles we are able to resolve the light from a distant object (even if the object is no longer present) to get an image? I can change the wording but I won't remove the concept.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...which allows us to see in real time, does not get reflected, since this light is at the eye or sensor instantly...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure, it's there instantly. Now where did it come from, and how did it get there? If it came from the Sun then how was this 93 million mile change in location achieved in zero time?

You know what? Unless you can explain back to me what I posted yesterday, I'm not going to continue this useless conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that strikes the surface of the mirror which is made of a sheet of glass attached to a thin layer of metallic backing. When the objects in the room reflect the light, the light travels to the mirror, hits the surface and is then reflected off of the surface of the mirror at the angle of reflection. This is in direct proportion to the angle of incidence. As the light hits the smooth surface of the mirror, we get a clear image of ourselves.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This explanation employs traveling light, so it follows that we will not see the newly ignited Sun in a mirror until the light has had time to travel from the Sun to the surface of the mirror on Earth. So any vision or photography employing mirrors will be delayed and not in real time.

It is true that light travels which takes time, but if we are able to see the Sun in the mirror, the light is already at the film. The light took a detour and bounced off the mirror. But the object (the Sun) is still present which makes it a closed system. You have to look at this in reverse. If we are able to see the object, then we know the light has put us within range. You have the Sun's light (brightness), the film, and the mirror, all within this closed system. The photograph, therefore, will be a representation of the real thing IN REAL TIME.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Artemis, light has to be striking the eye. This is not magic.

It's funny you use the term "striking" as striking denotes movement on the part of the light hitting the eye. But I'm sure you'll chock this up to a missuse of words.

However, when you say that light must be at the eye in order for us to see makes it incumbent on you to explain how the light came to be at the eye in the first place.
It could not have moved there from the source, in your efferent model, since it hasn't had time.
You haven't claimed that it has teleported.
It couldn't have come into existance at the eye
I'm at a loss to come up with any other possibilities.

If you claim that the eye can see an object before the light from that object has had time to reach the eye must imply that the eye can see the object without the light striking the eye. However, this as you say would be magic.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you will never get it; maybe Artemis will. The mechanism is what I explained yesterday. The light travels and when it's luminous enough for us to see the object, we have already walked into the box where the light has reached the far end (remember, in this closed system distance is not a factor, just brightness and size), placing the light instantly (zero time) at our retina which then puts our eyes in optical range.

This sounds quite different than the "sun at noon" scenario. What happens in the box if the light hasn't already reached the far end?
The box scenario doesn't really do anything to explain anything. It's just a guy in a box looking at objects also in the box and you say that he see's them instantly. There isn't anything to show why he must be seeing them in real time vs speed-of-light-delayed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

It's funny you use the term "striking" as striking denotes movement on the part of the light hitting the eye. But I'm sure you'll chock this up to a missuse of words.

However, when you say that light must be at the eye in order for us to see makes it incumbent on you to explain how the light came to be at the eye in the first place.

And I've explained it.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

It could not have moved there from the source, in your efferent model, since it hasn't had time.

But time is not relevant here.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You haven't claimed that it has teleported.
It couldn't have come into existance at the eye
I'm at a loss to come up with any other possibilities.

You're not quite getting it either. Light is traveling; I am not changing the properties of light, but due to efferent vision it creates a situation where there is no travel when we're looking at the object. Light is only there to reveal the object or the external world within our visual landscape, so when we look at something we are not receiving the information from traveling light that has crossed the span of millions of miles. That doesn't mean light isn't traveling this distance; it just means that we are not waiting for the information in this light. If we can see a faraway object, it just means that the light is giving us a mirror image (so to speak; sorry but I have to go back to this since no one is getting it), of the actual object. Distance and time are irrelevant. The light lets us see the real world; we don't see the real world from delayed light. That's why he said light is a condition, not a cause of sight.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

If you claim that the eye can see an object before the light from that object has had time to reach the eye must imply that the eye can see the object without the light striking the eye. However, this as you say would be magic.

But that's not what I said. That's what everyone wants to believe I said, or what my father said, which are both wrong.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that light travels which takes time, but if we are able to see the Sun in the mirror, the light is already at the film. The light took a detour and bounced off the mirror. But the object (the Sun) is still present which makes it a closed system. You have to look at this in reverse. If we are able to see the object, then we know the light has put us within range. You have the Sun's light (brightness), the film, and the mirror, all within this closed system. The photograph, therefore, will be a representation of the real thing IN REAL TIME.

Yes when you look you see the light that is on the eye NOW but it had to travel to get there. The interaction of the light and your eye is instant from your perspective. However, from the light's point of view nanoseconds or minutes or years have passed since it left it's source/object (depending on how far away the source/object is) That is afferent vision!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

This sounds quite different than the "sun at noon" scenario. What happens in the box if the light hasn't already reached the far end?

Then the object would be out of visual range.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

The box scenario doesn't really do anything to explain anything. It's just a guy in a box looking at objects also in the box and you say that he see's them instantly. There isn't anything to show why he must be seeing them in real time vs speed-of-light-delayed.

When I use the box as an analogy I am comparing it to the guy's visual landscape (what he sees when he walks into the box or opens his eyes to see what he sees). The reason you don't see why he can't be seeing in delayed time is because you are still thinking in terms of distance, as if we receive images in the light. Until you can retrain your mind to think in terms of this account, you will continue to be perplexed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Yes when you look you see the light that is on the eye NOW but it had to travel to get there. The interaction of the light and your eye is instant from your perspective.

It may take a nanosecond for the light to get to the other side of the box. That only means that until it does, we won't have the ability to see the object because one of the conditions is that light is at the eye and that it has enough luminosity. But when you think of the object (regardless of how far away it is) and the viewer in the perspective of the object being only a baseball field away, not a million mile gap, you will begin to understand this better.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

However, from the light's point of view nanoseconds or minutes or years have passed since it left it's source/object (depending on how far away the source/object is) That is afferent vision!

Right, and when it finally gets to Earth where it's been dark, we will finally be able to see each other because the conditions of sight have been met. This doesn't change what I've been trying to get across.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It may take a nanosecond for the light to get to the other side of the box. That only means that until it does, we won't have the ability to see the object because one of the conditions is that light is at the eye. But when you think of the object (regardless of how far away it is) and the viewer in the perspective of the object being only a baseball field away, not a million mile gap, you will begin to understand this better.

This is how afferent vision works. Everyone has been saying it till they are blue in the face.

[Artemis Entreri]

Now take the above statement and realize that light is continuously travelling to the eye, literally in waves, and the light you are seeing right NOW are the photons at the front of the line (at your eye). The ones at the front of the line have been travelling for some amount of time. Your eye can't see the ones that are at the back of the line (leaving the source/object) right now because they haven't made it to your eye yet.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given you more than enough evidence.

You have never provided any evidence to support the claim that the light which is at the eye and enables us to see an object came to be at the eye without traveling from the object to the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mechanism is what I explained yesterday. The light travels and when it's luminous enough for us to see the object, we have already walked into the box where the light has reached the far end (remember, in this closed system distance is not a factor, just brightness and size), placing the light instantly (zero time) at our retina which then puts our eyes in optical range.

Right there, where I highlighted your words, that it where you need to insert the missing mechanism. How is the light placed instantly at our retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not quite getting it either. Light is traveling; I am not changing the properties of light, but due to efferent vision it creates a situation where there is no travel when we're looking at the object.

Same problem as above. How does efferent vision create a situation where there is no travel when we're looking at the object? What is the mechanism? What does efferent vision do that creates this situation?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, and when it finally gets to Earth where it's been dark, we will finally be able to see each other because the conditions of sight have been met. This doesn't change what I've been trying to get across.

It is a dark and cloudy night. There is no moon. It is so dark that you can't even see your hand in front of your face. The only thing visible is a single pinpoint of light in the night sky. When you look up and see that single pinpoint of light, what are you seeing?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is a dark and cloudy night. There is no moon. It is so dark that you can't even see your hand in front of your face. The only thing visible is a single pinpoint of light in the night sky. When you look up and see that single pinpoint of light, what are you seeing?

Ah, - - - a single pinpoint of light?

Am I right?

Do I get a gold star on my paper?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you will never get it; maybe Artemis will. The mechanism is what I explained yesterday. The light travels and when it's luminous enough for us to see the object, we have already walked into the box where the light has reached the far end (remember, in this closed system distance is not a factor, just brightness and size), placing the light instantly (zero time) at our retina which then puts our eyes in optical range.

There's nothing to get, and you still haven't explained any mechanism at all. If the light at the film or retina is light that has traveled to get there, then it can't be there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. And if it didn't travel there, then you are changing the known properties of light and violating physics. There is no box and no walking into a box, and even within a box you cannot have light from one end of the box present at the other end of the box until it has had time to travel across the length of the box. Light cannot instantly change location by 93 million miles. That simply isn't possible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I'm saying. Do you read any of my posts other than yours?

It is exactly what you are saying. You have repeatedly stated that light will be instantly at the film or retina. That is 8min before it has had time to travel there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given it. You must have ignored everything I've explained, or you are completely blocked. My explanation must bounce right off of you like light bounces off of objects.

This is not an honest response. You have not offered any explanation at all for your 93 million mile instantaneous relocation of photons. All you've done is repeatedly refuse to address this problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I only ignore you because you repeat yourself over and over. Light travels. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you have to lash out at me.

I only repeat what you have refused to address. I am not lashing out. I'm simply asking you to actually address the problem here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is there.

Great. So where did it come from, and how did it get there? If it came from the Sun then how was this 93 million mile change in location achieved in zero time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't that what you believe is happening?

No. This is not just about the wording. Your whole concept is wrong. Only light travels, not images.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is true that light travels which takes time, but if we are able to see the Sun in the mirror, the light is already at the film.

That is simply contradictory. If the light at the film or retina is light that has traveled from the Sun to the mirror and then from the mirror to the film or retina, then that light cannot and will not be there instantaneously. It can only be there 8min after the Sun is ignited and has begun emitting photons.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not quite getting it either. Light is traveling; I am not changing the properties of light, but due to efferent vision it creates a situation where there is no travel when we're looking at the object.

That's a plain contradiction, Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Everyone has been saying it till they are blue in the face.

Well they'd better stop it, or it's going to get very crowded in here.