A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point. Efferent vision is a legitimate model and it does work.

You don't have a model yet. If you did, then it would be capable of providing you with answers to my questions. You have no such answers because you haven't developed a model yet. And you still show no interest in doing so.

In what sense does what you have 'work'? Does it work when explaining the moons of Jupiter? Does it work to explain observations of solar flares and supernovae? Does it work to explain how NASA calculates trajectories to other planets? Does it work when trying to give answers to any of our questions about it?

Or does it only 'work' in the sense of giving you enough of a half-baked and nonsensical explanation for you to maintain your delusional and credulous faith in your father's ignorant claims?

[davidm]

Oh, look, peacegirl bumped her original stupid thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, look, peacegirl bumped her original stupid thread.

I don't think she meant to. I linked to it from the newer thread when showing her how many times she'd completely ignored an explanation she claimed no-one had ever given her. I did state that they were links to posts from this older thread.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That contradicts your previous claim that in efferent vision the distance between the film/retina and the object is irrelevant because the image of the object appears on the film/retina instantly. Efferent vison has no explanation for why objects appear to be smaller the more distant they are from the observer. Neither does it have any explanation for why the photons from that distant object will not be represented on film. If you do have an explanation for either of those two phenomenon please provide it.

No shit. A photon on the Sun can also be absorbed by camera film on Earth at the same time. If it works instantly over 93 million miles, why would a couple hundred yards make a difference?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Oh, so the "visual range is as far as the naked eye will see". So how far is that, peacegirl? Do tell us all?

Why are you laughing? I don't think it's funny. If I am saying goodbye to my friend who is walking home, I will watch him until he's no longer within my visual range. That means that the smaller and smaller he gets, the more the (P) light gets dispersed until his image is no longer present on my retina. I really don't see what's so difficult.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't think she meant to. I linked to it from the newer thread when showing her how many times she'd completely ignored an explanation she claimed no-one had ever given her. I did state that they were links to posts from this older thread.

Could we please stay on one thread? It's hard to go back and forth. Maybe we should go back to this thread.

[LadyShea]

I don't think it's funny. If I am saying goodbye to my friend who is walking home, I will watch him until he's no longer within my visual range. That means that the smaller and smaller he gets, the more the (P) light gets dispersed until his image is no longer present on my retina. I really don't see what's so difficult.

It's not difficult, it's that your answer continues to be vacuous and circular...you're answer is consistently "The visual range is as far as I can see" or conversely "I can't see when something is out of my visual range" or even, most amusingly "The visual range is the visual range".

Dragar asked how far is the visual range. Distances on Earth are usually measured in increments like feet, yards, meters, miles, kilometers etc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have a model yet. If you did, then it would be capable of providing you with answers to my questions. You have no such answers because you haven't developed a model yet. And you still show no interest in doing so.

In what sense does what you have 'work'? Does it work when explaining the moons of Jupiter? Does it work to explain observations of solar flares and supernovae? Does it work to explain how NASA calculates trajectories to other planets? Does it work when trying to give answers to any of our questions about it?

Or does it only 'work' in the sense of giving you enough of a half-baked and nonsensical explanation for you to maintain your delusional and credulous faith in your father's ignorant claims?

How many times do I have to repeat that when all is said and done, there will be an explanation that is satisfactory to scientists using the efferent model. Until then, I am starting from the position that the eyes are not a sense organ (just like you are starting from a position that they are a sense organ), and work backwards. Obviously, the empirical evidence will need to support the claim, but I'm trying to show you how it works. You refuse to listen because you keep going back to photons teleporting.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Could we please stay on one thread? It's hard to go back and forth. Maybe we should go back to this thread.

There's nothing hard about it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat that when all is said and done, there will be an explanation that is satisfactory to scientists using the efferent model.

You said you have a working model right now, which you do not. You can't appeal to future confirmation.

Until then, I am starting from the position that the eyes are not a sense organ (just like you are starting from a position that they are a sense organ), and work backwards.

Then explain the Hubble Deep Field Images

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you laughing? I don't think it's funny. If I am saying goodbye to my friend who is walking home, I will watch him until he's no longer within my visual range. That means that the smaller and smaller he gets, the more the (P) light gets dispersed until his image is no longer present on my retina. I really don't see what's so difficult.

It's hilarious. Note that you've still defined 'visual range' as 'how far we can see' (or once just as 'visual range' as LadyShea reminds me! ). Which still means your counter example to standard vision laughably reads 'We can't see things too far to see!', which is hardly anything we should worry about, nor a sensible question for you to be asking.

And why are you putting (P) in front of light now? Are you now talking about an entirely different light to the rest of us?

Anyway, back on topic. Tell me, peacegirl: how far is my visual range? Roughly. Metres? Kilometres? Lightyears?

You can also answer TLR at the same time: how far away can he see a Boeing 747 aircraft?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not difficult, it's that your answer continues to be vacuous and circular...you're answer is consistently "The visual range is as far as I can see" or conversely "I can't see when something is out of my visual range" or even, most amusingly "The visual range is the visual range".

When did I ever say "the visual range is the visual range?" You're making up stories. Yes, the visual range is the (P) reflection (remember, the light is not bouncing off of the object and traveling through space/time) that extends from the object. Depending on the angle and the position of the lens, we will get a mirror image on the retina because that is what the cones and rods are able to resolve.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dragar asked how far is the visual range. Distances on Earth are usually measured in increments like feet, yards, meters, miles, kilometers etc.

I never measured it. It's the range that someone can see an object before it disappears from view. When an object is too small to see, then you can say it is beyond one's visual range. The (P) reflection has become too distant to be resolved at the retina. Of course, I would be basing this on someone who has 20/20 vision. This is perfectly consistent with optics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There's nothing hard about it.

Please don't speak for me LadyShea. I feel like two different conversations are going on and I don't know which questions have come before which. I like to keep the questions in sequential order. I'm not always consistent doing this, but now this is really messing me up.

[LadyShea]

When did I ever say "the visual range is the visual range?" You're making up stories.

You answered the question "What is the visual range" with the answer "The visual range",

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then what's "visual range" mean, peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It means that the object (how many times do I have to repeat this: the physical entity, not the light), is within visual range

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't speak for me LadyShea. I feel like two different conversations are going on and I don't know which questions have come before which. I like to keep the questions in sequential order. I'm not always consistent doing this, but now this is really messing me up.

Then why did you post in this one today?

Anyway, pick a thread or subscribe to both, and check the dates before you respond. We can manage to bring stuff from one thread to the other if needed.

I was serious when I asked if you'd been drinking today, by the way.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat that when all is said and done, there will be an explanation that is satisfactory to scientists using the efferent model. Until then, I am starting from the position that the eyes are not a sense organ (just like you are starting from a position that they are a sense organ), and work backwards. Obviously, the empirical evidence will need to support the claim, but I'm trying to show you how it works. You refuse to listen because you keep going back to photons teleporting.

That is exactly the problem: you take a (crackpot) idea, and work back, trying to find whatever you can use, and discarding anything else.

The actual scientific method is: observe something, and then base a hypothesis on that observation, test that hypothesis, and adjust it based on your findings. This method stays in close touch with reality.

[LadyShea]

It's the range that someone can see an object before it disappears from view. When an object is too small to see, then you can say it is beyond one's visual range.

IN other words, the visual range is how far someone with 20/20 vision can see. You do know this is not an answer, right?

What is the visual range for seeing a mountain? A tree? A chipmunk? A dollar bill? Jupiter?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you laughing? I don't think it's funny. If I am saying goodbye to my friend who is walking home, I will watch him until he's no longer within my visual range. That means that the smaller and smaller he gets, the more the (P) light gets dispersed until his image is no longer present on my retina. I really don't see what's so difficult.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's hilarious. Note that you've still defined 'visual range' as 'how far we can see' (or once just as 'visual range' as LadyShea reminds me! ). Which still means your counter example to standard vision laughably reads 'We can't see things too far to see!', which is hardly anything we should worry about, nor a sensible question for you to be asking.

The only thing that I'm disputing in standard vision is that the light is representative of the object without the object being present. I don't get why people don't understand what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And why are you putting (P) in front of light now? Are you now talking about an entirely different light to the rest of us?

Haven't you been following this thread? Spacemonkey helped me there. The word "reflect" does not apply in efferent vision. Objects absorb and the remaining non-absorbed light extends (or P reflects which is not a true reflection) until the light fades out. LadyShea explained how dispersed light fades. LadyShea, could you find that post?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Anyway, back on topic. Tell me, peacegirl: how far is my visual range? Roughly. Metres? Kilometres? Lightyears?

You can also answer TLR at the same time: how far away can he see a Boeing 747 aircraft?

The visual range in efferent vision is not as important as the size of the object. Something that is huge such as the sun could be seen instantly because it meets the requirements. That's why we can see the moon in real time even though it's far away. Everyone thinks that the photons have to travel from that great distance before we would be able to detect the image from light. That's not true. There has to be light surrounding the object which then serves as a mirror image instantly due to the non-absorbed wavelength extending (or (P) reflecting) from the object. The light intersects with the eye or film as a result. Nothing is teleporting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

IN other words, the visual range is how far someone with 20/20 vision can see. You do know this is not an answer, right?

What is the visual range for seeing a mountain? A tree? A chipmunk? A dollar bill? Jupiter?

I just answered that. You could have a microscopic cell right in front of you but it would be out of visual range because it's too small to see. Therefore, in efferent vision it's not so much the distance that is necessary for sight; it's the size (it could be magnified) and brightness of the object (or matter) that allows sight to occur.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Could we please stay on one thread? It's hard to go back and forth. Maybe we should go back to this thread.

Why did you start replying in this older thread? What is the point of abandoning the newer thread to return to the older one? Does it really matter which thread you use to ignore and evade questions?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat that when all is said and done, there will be an explanation that is satisfactory to scientists using the efferent model.

No, there won't be any such explanation. You would first need to develop a consistent and coherent model for efferent vision, and that is what you are refusing to do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until then, I am starting from the position that the eyes are not a sense organ (just like you are starting from a position that they are a sense organ), and work backwards.

I'm not doing that at all. You're the one starting with the cart and working backwards to the horse. The rest of us are starting with the evidence which shows vision to be afferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the empirical evidence will need to support the claim, but I'm trying to show you how it works.

No, you're not. You're ignoring my questions and refusing to tell me how it allegedly works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You refuse to listen because you keep going back to photons teleporting.

You're lying again.

[Spacemonkey]

I see that you've reverted to claiming you have a working model of efferent vision. So please use that model to answer the following two sets of questions. Show me that your 'model' works well enough to do this without contradicting itself. If you can't do this then you don't have a working model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why does efferent vision still have no answers to the following simple questions?



When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]



1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

[LadyShea]

LadyShea explained how dispersed light fades. LadyShea, could you find that post?

Um, A) I didn't explain how "dispersed" light "fades" and B) Dragar is an astrophysicist, he doesn't need me to explain the inverse square law as it applies to optics.

[LadyShea]

There has to be light surrounding the object which then serves as a mirror image instantly due to the non-absorbed wavelength extending (or (P) reflecting) from the object. The light intersects with the eye or film as a result.

How does the photon come into physical contact with the film via this mirror image?

Put the marble in the envelope from across the room, peacegirl.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does the photon come into physical contact with the film via this mirror image?

Put the marble in the envelope from across the room, peacegirl.

I think she's lost enough of her marbles already without you having her throw her remaining ones across the room at an envelope.