A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Round and round on the merry-go-round of lunacy you go!

US: If the light doesn't need to propagate for you to see it, then how do you see it? HOW do you see it instantaneously?

PEACEGIRL Oh, well, it's because of efferent seeing!

US: Oh, OK. But HOW??? What is the MECHANISM OF THIS MIRACLE????

PEACEGIRL Don't ask me how! You might as well ask, "how does the grass grow?"

Stop making me look stupid David because I'm really not, and neither was Lessans. Light does not have to propagate for you to see an image, IF WE SEE EFFERENTLY. YOU ARE FAILING THIS COURSE!!!!

[LadyShea]

But this is not the transfer of information

Yes it is. "I see light" is information.

Now let's revisit the scenario of you and I on a football field trading coded messages with laser pens. You cannot deny that is transfer of information. Seeing the light immediately via efferent vision, means information is transferred faster than the speed of light. This is impossible.

Proceed to weasel

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera is taking a picture of an object or image using the light that is being reflected. The wavelength is present in the camera's field of view, therefore, the light does not have to travel thousands of light years to get here. To repeat: If efferent vision is correct, all that is needed is a camera, an object or image within the field of view, and light that is being reflected or emitted from said object or image. This does not breach any physical laws because light is still the one condition that is necessary.

And if a supernova occurs 1,000 light-years away, then by definition the light that it emits won't reach us for 1,000 years. A supernova only 1,000 light-years away is easily visible to the naked eye.

So are you now saying that if a star 1,000 light-years away goes supernova right now, we won't be able to see it for another 1,000 years, when the light it's emitting finally reaches us?

Or would we see it in real time -- in direct contradiction to your claim that the "light that is being reflected or emitted from said object" must necessarily be present in order for us to see it? Note that the light emitted by this supernova is not present, and won't be for another 1,000 years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not why. I've just finished the final version. My kids want to read it. By the way, my son just called me and he passed his Boards. Yesssssssss!!!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Great news! Congratulations.

Thank you!!!

Never never never never never did my father put a noose around my neck. Never did he pressure me into doing anything. One time he said, you'll have to carry the ball, but he said it in a lighthearted way, not in a demanding way. My god, if he couldn't say that to his own daughter, who could he say it to? It was his life's work. But if I never looked at the book again, he would never have blamed me or manipulated me into feeling guilty. That is the antithesis of what this book stands for.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am really not that sure.

But I am.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You fight so hard for something that - well I really don't think it is that great. And I assure you I have read the first two chapters at least a dozen times now. The way your father wrote - I know you'll hate me for saying this - but it strikes me as so self-congratulatory, such an attempt at playing the great and mighty philosopher, so grandiose and utterly convinced of his own rightness. It would be a lot easier to read if it wasn't so damn pompous! I cannot square the language of the book with the image that you obviously have of him -the image of a selfless, humble scholarly man.

Forget the form of his writing for a moment. If you have read the first two chapters this many times, and all you can come up with is this one argument about firemen being a condition of fires? Come on Vivisectus, you can do better than that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And what makes me wonder doubly hard is that it seems impossible for him to be wrong in your eyes, even if it is about something that is trivial in the larger scope of the book. Your fathers ideas work fine without efferent vision - it is not required at all.

If that's what you think, then let's get off the subject. The whole point behind efferent vision is to demonstrate our true relationship with the external world and our intrinsic value within that relationship, therefore it is important to understand but not to the extent that it will turn people off from reading any further.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If your father was humble and non-manipulative, how come you consider him infallible? That does not add up to me.

I never said he was infallible, but as far as his discovery, I think he got it right. Am I necessarily wrong because I believe he was right?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are they out there too, trying to convince people? What do they think?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because I never put it on them. My kids lead busy lives, although I'm sure when they have time, they will desire to share their grandfather's discovery with others.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I meant your siblings, actually. How do they feel about their fathers work? And if I were you I would not share this work with your children unless you are ready to accept that they might reject them and not let it harm your relationship with them.

I know, I think it was LadyShea who corrected me. I already answered that my brother passed away from a sudden arrhythmia 24 years ago (three years before my father passed away), and my sister is in business so she couldn't help with the writing but she is waiting on the first order of books, so she can help in whatever way she can.

Huh? What does that last sentence mean? I'm not human now? Oh my god, where are you coming from? You have misconstrued everything about this book, and the fact that everybody in here believes your quick synopsis of Chapters One and Two, and won't look into it any further, makes me realize that it is not me who has closed the door; it's the people in here who have closed the door to further investigation, and thrown away the key.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It means that I hope you do not let your fathers work overshadow your life, that's all. And that I hope you don't let it get in the way of the good things in it. That's all.

It hasn't, except for the time I'm spending in here. Hours and hours of discussion and nothing to show for it is beginning to get to me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

??

??

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop making me look stupid David because I'm really not, and neither was Lessans. Light does not have to propagate for you to see an image, IF WE SEE EFFERENTLY. YOU ARE FAILING THIS COURSE!!!!

It does not have to propagate? Then explain the mechanism of seeing. How does one SEE?

Remember, you and Lessans said that light is a condition of seeing. This means the light has to be present. But if the sun is turned on, the light is not present for eight and a half minutes, and hence Lessans' own condition is not fulfilled: The light is absent and the condition of seeing is not fulfilled.

And, peacegirl? I'm really anxious for you to respnd to the 64 million dollar question. You said that someone would see the source light of the sun and the reflected light of the moon instantaneously. And I asked:

If that is the case, then why would you not also see the reflected light of your neighbor instantaneously? Why would you have to wait eight and a half minutes to see the reflected light of your neighbor, when you are seeing the reflected light of the moon instantaneously, along with the source light of the sun??????

And the answer is--??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes it is. "I see light" is information.

Now let's revisit the scenario of you and I on a football field trading coded messages with laser pens. You cannot deny that is transfer of information. Seeing the light immediately via efferent vision, means information is transferred faster than the speed of light. This is impossible.

Proceed to weasel

I'm not going to weasel. This is not a game LadyShea. It's a very important discussion whether you realize it or not. Using light in the way you just described is a transfer of information, that's true. We know the light from the laser pen has traveled from point A to point B. But when viewing a light source or object (the coded message was not the light source), we can see it as long as light is surrounding that source (a necessary condition), which means that there does not have to be a transfer of information to see said object. I think we're on two diffrent wavelengths (no pun intended).

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's what you think, then let's get off the subject.

Oh, I bet you want to get off this subject.

Not gonna happen.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the laser pen was not the light source...

WTF?????

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to weasel.

Then address the 64 million dollar question I have now put twice to you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to weasel. This is not a game LadyShea. It's a very important discussion whether you realize it or not. Using light in the way you just described is a transfer of information, that's true. We know the light from the laser pen has traveled from point A to point B. But when viewing a light source or object (the coded message was not the light source), we can see it as long as light is surrounding that source (a necessary condition), which means that there does not have to be a transfer of information to see said object.

What are you talking about? On a dark night, you see my green laser light flashing in a pattern we previously determined meant "Hi". If the green flashing light isn't transmitting the message then what is?

I think we're on two diffrent wavelengths (no pun intended).

You are making shit up and obfuscating to make this most simple of experiments fit your preconceived and not very well thought out idea.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? On a dark night, you see my green laser light flashing in a pattern we previously determined. If the green flashing light isn't transmitting the message then what is?

What we're seeing is that this woman has no idea what she is talking about. This is why she so tenaciously clung to the pattern of just copying and pasting wallpapers of Lessans' text from his book without explaining any of it in her own words. Now that she has been lured to explaining stuff in her own words, she repeatedly stumbles over the contradictions inherent in these "ideas" and it all ends up nonsense. Of course if you try to explain nonsense, you will talk nonsense, and you will keep talking nonsense until you admit that you are trying to explain nonsense.

How can she not see, for instance, the plain contradiction in saying that one will see the reflected light of the moon instantaneously along with the source light of the sun, when the sun is turned on, but will have to wait eight and a half minutes to see the reflected light of the neighbor? WHY? Why is the reflected light of the moon instantaneous and the reflected light of the neighbor lagged by eight and a half minutes? It's plainly absurd, a flat contradiction! Yet whenever those contradictions become so obvious that even peacegirl must see them, a big red flag goes up in her head and blots out everything else, destroying thought itself. And that banner says:

LESSANS IS ALWAYS RIGHT

[LadyShea]

But when viewing a light source or object (the coded message was not the light source), we can see it as long as light is surrounding that source (a necessary condition), which means that there does not have to be a transfer of information to see said object.

Wait wait wait. Are you saying we need to have ambient light around the laser light to see the laser light?

Good god woman, go pick up two 10.00 laser pens and go in a dark room, or preferably a dark outdoor area and tell me you need "surrounding" light to see the laser light.

[LadyShea]

dupe

[Vivisectus]

Forget the form of his writing for a moment. If you have read the first two chapters this many times, and all you can come up with is this one argument about firemen being a condition of fires? Come on Vivisectus, you can do better than that.

That is as may be, but I find arguing with you rather pointless as you treat your fathers ideas as a religion. There is no point in arguing with the religious, as they feel they know an absolute truth - a truth that you must believe in first, without evidence, before you can be convinced of it. Since the absolute, unchanging truth has already been established, anything that seems to contradict it cannot be true. There is no point in examining if whatever contradicts the faith is true - all you have to do is find out how it is false.

You feel the same way about what I say - but there is a difference. I can provide evidence and support for my point of view where appropriate. You frequently resort to saying "I knew my father and he was a very clever fellow. If he had made a mistake, the would have spotted it, so whatever he wrote must be correct".

The fireman spiel is not an argument by the way, but an example. By using something obviously nonsensical and giving it the exact same amount of support as your fathers idea - in this case we were talking about the whole blame/justification part. I was pointing out that there was no support for the original statement at all and that we therefor had not been given a reason to believe it was true. Please note I am not commenting on whether it is true or not - merely that it is unsupported, and that we therefor have no reason to believe it is true.

But hey - we've been over this again and again. Interestingly you said "all this time on this forum and nothing to show for it". It could have been different - there were many opportunities for you to learn new things. But you were never interested on having these ideas examined, and you feel like you already know everything you need to know. You merely wanted people to agree with these ideas, as you have already decided they are absolutely true, and that nothing will change your mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And if a supernova occurs 1,000 light-years away, then by definition the light that it emits won't reach us for 1,000 years. A supernova only 1,000 light-years away is easily visible to the naked eye.

So are you now saying that if a star 1,000 light-years away goes supernova right now, we won't be able to see it for another 1,000 years, when the light it's emitting finally reaches us?

Or would we see it in real time -- in direct contradiction to your claim that the "light that is being reflected or emitted from said object" must necessarily be present in order for us to see it? Note that the light emitted by this supernova is not present, and won't be for another 1,000 years.

We would see it in real time, even though you claim we would burn up if it was that close, correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait wait wait. Are you saying we need to have ambient light around the laser light to see the laser light?

Good god woman, go pick up two 10.00 laser pens and go in a dark room, or preferably a dark outdoor area and tell me you need "surrounding" light to see the laser light.

No, that's not what I meant. I'm saying that there has to be a light source, that's all. We are able to see the actual laser pen in real time, although we can also see the point of light when it strikes an opaque surface. That would indicate that the beam traveled from the pen to another destination; or from point A to point B.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laser pointer pens (color: red, green, violet)

High-powered green laser pointer
A laser pointer or laser pen is a small portable and visible laser designed to highlight something of interest by projecting a small bright spot of colored light onto it. Doctors say that laser pointers with power less than 5 milliwatts (5 mW) are generally safe to use, but devices with power of 100 mW or more sold on the Internet have recently caused permanent eye damage.[1] The small width of the beam and low power of typical laser pointers make the beam itself invisible in a reasonably clean atmosphere, showing a point of light when striking an opaque surface.

Some higher-powered laser pointers project a visible beam via scattering from dust particles or water/fog droplets along the beam path. Higher power and higher frequency lasers (green or blue color) may have a visible beam even in clean air because of Rayleigh scattering from air molecules, especially when viewed in moderately-to-dimly lit conditions. The intensity of such scattering increases when these beams are viewed from angles near the beam axis. Such pointers, particularly in the green-light output range, are used as astronomical-object pointers for teaching purposes, in the same general manner as flashlights.

The recent low-cost availability of infrared (IR) diode laser modules of up to 1000 mW (1 watt) output has created a generation of IR-pumped frequency-doubled (DPSS) "laser pointers" in green, blue, and violet, of extremely high visible power (100–300 mW). Because the IR in the beams of these lasers is difficult to filter and contributes heat which is difficult to dissipate in a pocket laser pointer package, it is often left as a beam component in cheaper high-power "pointers." This causes a degree of extra potential hazard in these devices.

[peacegirl]

Forget the form of his writing for a moment. If you have read the first two chapters this many times, and all you can come up with is this one argument about firemen being a condition of fires? Come on Vivisectus, you can do better than that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is as may be, but I find arguing with you rather pointless as you treat your fathers ideas as a religion. There is no point in arguing with the religious, as they feel they know an absolute truth - a truth that you must believe in first, without evidence, before you can be convinced of it. Since the absolute, unchanging truth has already been established, anything that seems to contradict it cannot be true. There is no point in examining if whatever contradicts the faith is true - all you have to do is find out how it is false.

There is evidence if you could only take the time to understand his observations. But I really think it's a lost cause. His observations are sound. You can tell me they aren't, and refuse to read further, and that's fine with me, but that in no way indicates his proof is not there. You will then say this book is my religion. Whatever!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You feel the same way about what I say - but there is a difference. I can provide evidence and support for my point of view where appropriate. You frequently resort to saying "I knew my father and he was a very clever fellow. If he had made a mistake, the would have spotted it, so whatever he wrote must be correct".

The fact that he was a very deep thinker was not my evidence of the soundness of this book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The fireman spiel is not an argument by the way, but an example. By using something obviously nonsensical and giving it the exact same amount of support as your fathers idea - in this case we were talking about the whole blame/justification part. I was pointing out that there was no support for the original statement at all and that we therefor had not been given a reason to believe it was true. Please note I am not commenting on whether it is true or not - merely that it is unsupported, and that we therefor have no reason to believe it is true.

I know what you were doing, but it was not a fair analogy. There was support for the original statement that one of the justifications people unconsciously use --- if they are desiring to gain at someone else's expense (e.g. steal from someone, for example) --- is that they know that if they are caught, they will be blamed and punished, which gives them the advance justification they need in order to follow through with their desires. This is very much supported and the fact that you used such a lame analogy makes me think that you are doing what everyone else is doing; either pulling statements out of context, or looking for flaws and therefore not reading it with the intent of true understanding.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But hey - we've been over this again and again. Interestingly you said "all this time on this forum and nothing to show for it". It could have been different - there were many opportunities for you to learn new things. But you were never interested on having these ideas examined, and you feel like you already know everything you need to know. You merely wanted people to agree with these ideas, as you have already decided they are absolutely true, and that nothing will change your mind.

So what you're saying is I was supposed to learn something, not you. Actually, I have learned a lot and am still learning, but nothing that anyone has offered has proven Lessans wrong on any count. That's the truth, even if no one at this point believes that efferent vision is possible.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

WTF?????

That is an:



indeed.

--J.D.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would see it in real time, even though you claim we would burn up if it was that close, correct?

A supernova that's 1,000 light-years away will not endanger the Earth. I really, really wish you'd acquire some basic reading-comprehension skills.

Regardless, you just got through saying that the "light that is being reflected or emitted from said object" must necessarily be present in order for us to see it. But if the supernova is 1,000 light-years distant, the light won't reach us until 1,000 years after the supernova took place -- by definition.


So which is it?

If the light from the supernova must be present in order for us to see it, we won't see the supernova until 1,000 years after it happens. Thus we cannot see it in real time.

If we do see the supernova in "real time" -- as it happens -- then it is not necessary for the light from the supernova to be present in order for us to see it. This is necessarily so, because that light won't reach us for another 1,000 years.


Since they are directly contradictory, both your claims cannot possibly be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I meant. I'm saying that there has to be a light source, that's all. We are able to see the actual laser pen in real time, although we can also see the point of light when it strikes an opaque surface. That would indicate that the beam traveled from the pen to another destination; or from point A to point B.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laser pointer pens (color: red, green, violet)

High-powered green laser pointer
A laser pointer or laser pen is a small portable and visible laser designed to highlight something of interest by projecting a small bright spot of colored light onto it. Doctors say that laser pointers with power less than 5 milliwatts (5 mW) are generally safe to use, but devices with power of 100 mW or more sold on the Internet have recently caused permanent eye damage.[1] The small width of the beam and low power of typical laser pointers make the beam itself invisible in a reasonably clean atmosphere, showing a point of light when striking an opaque surface.

Some higher-powered laser pointers project a visible beam via scattering from dust particles or water/fog droplets along the beam path. Higher power and higher frequency lasers (green or blue color) may have a visible beam even in clean air because of Rayleigh scattering from air molecules, especially when viewed in moderately-to-dimly lit conditions. The intensity of such scattering increases when these beams are viewed from angles near the beam axis. Such pointers, particularly in the green-light output range, are used as astronomical-object pointers for teaching purposes, in the same general manner as flashlights.

The recent low-cost availability of infrared (IR) diode laser modules of up to 1000 mW (1 watt) output has created a generation of IR-pumped frequency-doubled (DPSS) "laser pointers" in green, blue, and violet, of extremely high visible power (100–300 mW). Because the IR in the beams of these lasers is difficult to filter and contributes heat which is difficult to dissipate in a pocket laser pointer package, it is often left as a beam component in cheaper high-power "pointers." This causes a degree of extra potential hazard in these devices.

The light from the laser is perfectly visible directly, if it's shone into your eyes. That's why it's illegal to aim laser pointers at aircraft. You could distract or potentially even temporarily blind a pilot.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I meant. I'm saying that there has to be a light source, that's all. We are able to see the actual laser pen in real time, although we can also see the point of light when it strikes an opaque surface. That would indicate that the beam traveled from the pen to another destination; or from point A to point B.

[/I]

What's with the Wiki?

You don't need the point to hit a surface to see a laser light. OMG have you never even played with a laser pen?

But fine, make it a bright flashlight with full batteries. Make it a frog giggin light. Make it a road flare. It doesn't matter. Can you see a bright light from a light emitting source at 50 yards efferently? Do you see it in real time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did not remind me of anything David. I came to this realization myself, without your help.

You are so stuck on your way of thinking that I could repeat this 100 times, and you would still come back with the same question.

If the light is absent you cannot see anything David. Therefore, the conditions for sight is not met, you are right, which is why if the sun was turned on, and the light hadn't reached Earth yet, we would not be able to see each other. You mean all this time you haven't read the prerequisite for efferent sight?? Why am I wasting my breath?

And the answer is--??

I did not say that. I said that the moon would be seen only if the solar emissions are being reflected off the moon's surface. Then the conditions for sight would have been met. Requirements for efferent sight:

a. The object has to be bright enough.

b. The object has to be large enough, or...

c. The object has to be close enough.

In the case of the sun being turned on instantly, the light would not be reflecting off of the individuals on Earth until 8.5 light minutes later. So the requirement for sight would not have been met. After the light arrived (because it travels at a finite speed), there is a continuous stream of photons coming from the sun, which would meet the requirements for sight to occur until night falls on the part of the Earth where this same individual lives, which would, once again, prevent him from seeing in natural light until that side of the Earth meets the sun's rays as morning approaches.


--------------------------------------------------
It all has to do with orbit and reflected light
The Moon circles the earth at its own pace, not at the same pace that the earth rotates. The moon also has a quirk that it always has the same side facing us. Like if you were spinning holding a ball on a tether, the part of the ball attached to the string is always toward you.

Now imagine you and the ball are going around at different speeds. So sometimes the ball is in front of you where you can see it and sometimes it's not.

The reason we can see the moon at all is because it reflects sunlight from its surface. The reason you can see it during the day is because it just happens to be in the part of its orbit where it is both in the sky and reflecting enough light for you to see. You might have noticed the closer to the horizon, the more moon you see during the day.

It's like you and a friend standing in front of the headlights on a car. When you are standing next to them, even with the headlights, half of them will be lit from your viewpoint. In fact, that might be a fun way to see how this works. Go somewhere dark, stand in front of the headlights (or any bright light) and have someone circle you. You'll see all the light phases and even a solar and lunar eclipse as they walk in front of and behind you.

Why is it that you can see the moon during the day sometimes. I thought we could only see it at night.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What we're seeing is that this woman has no idea what she is talking about. This is why she so tenaciously clung to the pattern of just copying and pasting wallpapers of Lessans' text from his book without explaining any of it in her own words. Now that she has been lured to explaining stuff in her own words, she repeatedly stumbles over the contradictions inherent in these "ideas" and it all ends up nonsense. Of course if you try to explain nonsense, you will talk nonsense, and you will keep talking nonsense until you admit that you are trying to explain nonsense.

How can she not see, for instance, the plain contradiction in saying that one will see the reflected light of the moon instantaneously along with the source light of the sun, when the sun is turned on, but will have to wait eight and a half minutes to see the reflected light of the neighbor? WHY? Why is the reflected light of the moon instantaneous and the reflected light of the neighbor lagged by eight and a half minutes? It's plainly absurd, a flat contradiction! Yet whenever those contradictions become so obvious that even peacegirl must see them, a big red flag goes up in her head and blots out everything else, destroying thought itself. And that banner says:

LESSANS IS ALWAYS RIGHT

Why are you making up lies just to make what I'm saying look like a contradiction? Please answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A supernova that's 1,000 light-years away will not endanger the Earth. I really, really wish you'd acquire some basic reading-comprehension skills.

Regardless, you just got through saying that the "light that is being reflected or emitted from said object" must necessarily be present in order for us to see it. But if the supernova is 1,000 light-years distant, the light won't reach us until 1,000 years after the supernova took place -- by definition.


So which is it?

If the light from the supernova must be present in order for us to see it, we won't see the supernova until 1,000 years after it happens. Thus we cannot see it in real time.

If we do see the supernova in "real time" -- as it happens -- then it is not necessary for the light from the supernova to be present in order for us to see it. This is necessarily so, because that light won't reach us for another 1,000 years.


Since they are directly contradictory, both your claims cannot possibly be true.

The light from the laser is perfectly visible directly, if it's shone into your eyes. That's why it's illegal to aim laser pointers at aircraft. You could distract or potentially even temporarily blind a pilot.

Who's arguing with this? The source of the light is not visible (the laser pen), but the effects of that light traveling from the light source (the laser pen) into your eye is very much affecting your vision. But that doesn't mean the light itself is going into your brain to be interpreted as WAY TOO BRIGHT. Geezeeeeee!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I meant. I'm saying that there has to be a light source, that's all. We are able to see the actual laser pen in real time, although we can also see the point of light when it strikes an opaque surface. That would indicate that the beam traveled from the pen to another destination; or from point A to point B.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's with the Wiki?

You don't need the point to hit a surface to see a laser light. OMG have you never even played with a laser pen?

Not really, but I've seen them and I know they can be dangerous, especially to pilots because they can go blind temporarily.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But fine, make it a bright flashlight with full batteries. Make it a frog giggin light. Make it a road flare. It doesn't matter. Can you see a bright light from a light emitting source at 50 yards efferently? Do you see it in real time?

Of course you can. You are actually seeing the light source in that instance. A road flare is the actual light source. A bright flashlight shining at you may be difficult to see the actual light source because of the light shining in your eyes, similar to a laser pen. But if that flashlight were to aim at a wall, for example, you would see the light that has traveled from the light source to the wall, which is delayed because that light has traveled a finite distance to another destination which is reflecting that light.