A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

If Lessans can define words however he likes, I can spell words however I like. SO THERE !

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of us believes an "image" is being reflected. That is Lessans strawman account of optics because he was clueless.

The standard model states that light is being reflected. Light reflection can be empirically observed and measured. (N) reflection is factual.

I can't believe we're back to square one. You know what I'm talking about, so why are you acting like you have no clue?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't think Lessans knew what he was talking about when he wrote that. You have learned from debate that what he said made no sense, so you have reduced it to a kind of euphemism for yourself. Lessans was being very literal though.

Where did what he say make no sense? Please be specific. And what do you mean by reducing this knowledge to a kind of euphemism? You are talking gibberish as far as I'm concerned, so explain what you mean Ladyshea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And if you didn't want to go back to square one, why did you post his idiocy?

Because, although it was not meant to be literal, that is what it feels like. Lack of understanding means starting from square one, or going back to the beginning. Maybe not to page 1, but back to where I begin explaining the entire proof all over again. You sound more like a fundamentalist than a researcher.

Originally Posted by Lessans

We cannot see the plane simply
because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to
see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, the standard model states that the apparent size diminishes with distance. This is standard optics Lessans used here, not any new model.

That's exactly right, because this is not what makes his claim different. His claim is actually supported by standard optics. The only thing missing is the understanding of how the eyes and brain work which is completely consistent with optics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did what he say make no sense? Please be specific. And what do you mean by reducing this knowledge to a kind of euphemism? You are talking gibberish as far as I'm concerned, so explain what you mean Ladyshea.

It's all right there!

Lessans clearly thought the standard/afferent model posits "images" being "carried" by light and "images" being reflected. He used it several times, even using "wings of light" at some point.

I said that was a strawman, as has been pointed out many times. The standard model doesn't posit that at all

You said I should know what you're talking about by now, meaning I should be (and am) aware that you use "images are carried/reflected by light" as a euphemism for the mechanism of afferent vision, which you apparently somewhat understand now.

I pointed out that simply because you have learned, through your debates, that this is a ridiculous caricature of optics, doesn't mean Lessans knew or understood the standard model at all. In fact he was obviously very serious and he obviously had no clue.

You have continued to use Lessans strawman for years, at least at IIDB they finally stopped you using "wings of light" all the time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because, although it was not meant to be literal, that is what it feels like. Lack of understanding means starting from square one, or going back to the beginning. Maybe not to page 1, but back to where I begin explaining the entire proof all over again. You sound more like a fundamentalist than a researcher.

You posted Lessans exact words to make a point. His words contained that stupid strawman about images being carried by light. You took it to square one by posting and bolding his lack of understanding. Were you merely quoting your Scripture?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's all right there!

Lessans clearly thought the standard/afferent model posits "images" being "carried" by light and "images" being reflected. He used it several times, even using "wings of light" at some point.

So are you telling me that non-absorbed light is not what we're talking about, and that science does not extend this idea to mean that we can see the past such that if we were on the star Rigel, we would be able to see Columbus discovering America? Tell me I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said that was a strawman, as has been pointed out many times. The standard model doesn't posit that at all

You said I should know what you're talking about by now, meaning I should be (and am) aware that you use "images are carried/reflected by light" as a euphemism for the mechanism of afferent vision, which you apparently somewhat understand now.

I pointed out that simply because you have learned, through your debates, that this is a ridiculous caricature of optics, doesn't mean Lessans knew or understood the standard model at all. In fact he was obviously very serious and he obviously had no clue.

You have continued to use Lessans strawman for years, at least at IIDB they finally stopped you using "wings of light" all the time.

How many times do I have to repeat that the phrase "images are not carried on the wings of light", does not mean that anything is being carried literally. It only means that light does not travel through space and time bringing us an image of a past event.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because, although it was not meant to be literal, that is what it feels like. Lack of understanding means starting from square one, or going back to the beginning. Maybe not to page 1, but back to where I begin explaining the entire proof all over again. You sound more like a fundamentalist than a researcher.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You posted Lessans exact words to make a point. His words contained that stupid strawman about images being carried by light. You took it to square one by posting and bolding his lack of understanding. Were you merely quoting your Scripture?

This was not a strawman since what he meant and what science believes is one and the same. Science's claims that the eyes are a sense organ, and therefore we see the past, which is inaccurate according to Lessans.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1041242]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans clearly thought the standard/afferent model posits "images" being "carried" by light and "images" being reflected. He used it several times, even using "wings of light" at some point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So are you telling me that non-absorbed light is not what we're talking about, and that science does not extend this idea to mean that we can see the past such that if we were on the star Rigel, we would be able to see Columbus discovering America? Tell me I'm wrong.

I've told you you're wrong many times.

That shit about seeing Columbus discovering America from Rigel is a product of Lessans ass. I've told you that as well. Lessans said it was "in the encyclopedia" without stating which encyclopedia. Hell you even asked "Why is it in the encyclopedia then?" without checking that it was in any encyclopedia.

Rigel is not the right distance away to see that for one thing. And any observer to see that specific event would need to be in a perfectly straight line, in space, from the location of that event as well as the right distance away for that exact time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It only means that light does not travel through space and time bringing us an image of a past event.

But light does travel through space and time. That is an empirical fact.

That light can be intercepted in its travels, and used to create an image is also fact, as we can demonstrate at will with cameras...hello Hubble deep field images!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was not a strawman since what he meant and what science believes is one and the same. Science's claims that the eyes are a sense organ, and therefore we see the past, which is inaccurate according to Lessans.

Lessans said a lot of things that implied that science is incorrect, but because Lessans was wrong about what he said leaves us with science's statement that the eyes are sense organs and we see the past as being completely accurate. Also Lessans had no idea what science believed so could not in any way have ment what science believed, except with 'George's secret weapon'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've told you you're wrong many times.

Are you kidding me? Many people have agreed that if the conditions were right, the light from this event would be seen, even though the event was long gone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That shit about seeing Columbus discovering America from Rigel is a product of Lessans ass. I've told you that as well. Lessans said it was "in the encyclopedia" without stating which encyclopedia. Hell you even asked "Why is it in the encyclopedia then?" without checking that it was in any encyclopedia.

Whether this example, was, or was not, in the encyclopedia, this is what science states, as a matter of fact. Who cares what example is given, it all means the same thing. According to science, we never see the present such that if we were far enough away, and light was traveling directly toward our eyes without being deflected, we would see the event from which that light came, even when the event is no longer present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Rigel is not the right distance away to see that for one thing. And any observer to see that specific event would need to be in a perfectly straight line, in space, from the location of that event as well as the right distance away for that exact time.

That's just the point I was making. It is believed -- all conditions being accounted for --- that we would see a past event from light itself, even if the object from which that light was reflected was long gone. Don't you realize by now this is exactly what Lessans was disputing, and what he meant when he said that there is no picture traveling on the waves of light which then gets decoded by the brain?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It only means that light does not travel through space and time bringing us an image of a past event.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But light does travel through space and time. That is an empirical fact.

No one is debating this LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That light can be intercepted in its travels, and used to create an image is also fact, as we can demonstrate at will with cameras...hello Hubble deep field images!

I never said light can't be intercepted. That's not the issue. I just want to say that it was not his fault that he uncovered certain findings, especially if he is right. You are acting like it's impossible that he could be right, which justifies your anger, but it may come back to bite you in the ass.

[Vivisectus]

We cannot see the plane simply
because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to
see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Interesting though isn't it? We know why this happens in optics. But why on earth would something we see change its apparent size due to distance if there is nothing that needs to travel between object and retina?

Optics explains this common observation. I am not aware of an efferent explanation, except for your claims that one is simply not required. But if vision was efferent, then why do distant objects seem smaller and ultimately become indistinguishable?

And don't say "If something is within the field of view" because that just means "it can be seen". We know that already. The question is: why is distance a factor if nothing needs to travel?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to tell you that this light travels, but it fades out the farther away it gets from its source. This means that at the point in which there is no resolution of the image on the film/retina, the light that was absorbed is no longer absorbed at that distance, therefore the blue light is once again joined with the other colors of the visual spectrum (white light), which does travel through space and time at 186,000 miles a second.

Light cannot be absorbed at a distance. It can only be absorbed at the surface of the object. And once it is absorbed it stays absorbed. But all of this is irrelevant to the above exchange. Read through it again and see what I mean. You were trying to explain my allegedly false premise. First you said my premise is that light carries an image through space and time. I explained that that is not what I believe at all. You then changed the premise to the idea that non-absorbed light travels from the object to the retina. I pointed out that that is a premise you agree with too. And your above response doesn't change that. So you still haven't identified any false premise in my reasoning.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again misinterpreting what this expression means. Back to square one doesn't mean I had to leave. It means what I thought people understood have understood nothing, therefore we have to go back to the first day of class and start all over again.

Lol. You thought I meant you never left the forum? I meant you never left square one. You have never made any progress here in either your understanding of afferent vision, or in the development of your non-model of real-time vision. You have been stuck at square one this whole time. You are not teaching a class here. Everyone here knows more than you do - even about the material you are trying to 'teach'. The only ignorance preventing your progress is your own.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no contradiction if you understand that the light that is (P) reflected is not traveling long distances to reach the distant film, as you keep alluding to. The distance is equivalent to the distance that it takes for the light to reflect off of a mirror. Why do I get a mirror image? Because there's virtually no distance, so I am seeing a copy of myself when I look in the mirror. The same applies here, even though the actual distance is much farther away. This is only possible because of how the eyes work, which is why we see in real time, not in delayed time.

The contradiction I was there referring to was between your statement that you are not avoiding anything and your point blank refusal to answer my questions.

The light reflected off the object is traveling whatever distance there is between the object and the camera/retina. If that distance is long, then so is the actual traveled distance. If the light doesn't travel that whole distance then it doesn't get to the retina/film (at least not without teleporting part of the way).

The actual distance is equivalent to whatever the actual distance is between the object and the film/retina. And the same holds for a mirror. The distance traveled by light reflecting off a mirror is whatever the distance is between the mirror and your eyes.

It doesn't matter what you think the 'virtual distance' is. The REAL distance remains unchanged, and the REAL distance is that which light has to actually travel if it is to REALLY get to the film/retina.

And you still haven't answered my questions, or told me why they are "dumb".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

FIRST SET

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]


SECOND SET

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]

Oh really? Hilarious.

Bump.

Go on Peacegirl. Ignore these questions. Show us all how well you can weasel. Display your complete lack of intellectual integrity for all to see.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But focussing cannot mean the same thing, as you admit in this sentence without realizing it: it means redirecting light coming from a point on an object so it hits a corresponding point on the film or retina.

The light from the object is not there yet: it will not be until it has crossed the intervening space, which takes time. You say we can see without that delay, and that the light does not carry the information.

The word "focussing" only has meaning in the framework of optics. You just do not realize this, and are using the word without really understanding what it means.

You just admitted that in fact it IS teleportation: the film or eye captures those photons which are present at the object, without requiring those to cross the intervening space. This is pretty much the definition of teleportation.

Lenses cannot be "focussed on an object". Lenses focus light. They do not magically teleport photons.

You are once again arguing against yourself without noticing.

You already have. I have posted some of the simpler ones for your perusal prior to this post.

It is true that you also do not understand what a mirror image is, but I was referring to the word "focussing". Your use of the word shows that you do not understand it.

I fully realize that is what you think. But your explanations are so nonsensical and contradictory that you are actually doing the reverse. It is just that you do not notice, or ignore that fact.

Since you seem to have produced no answer to this, I assume you agree that I am in the right. If you need any help in your transition back to reality, please do not hesitate to message me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Interesting though isn't it? We know why this happens in optics. But why on earth would something we see change its apparent size due to distance if there is nothing that needs to travel between object and retina?

I never said that photons are stationary Vivisectus. But the photons, in efferent vision, are not required to travel to Earth for that something to be seen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Optics explains this common observation. I am not aware of an efferent explanation, except for your claims that one is simply not required. But if vision was efferent, then why do distant objects seem smaller and ultimately become indistinguishable?

That part of the explanation is correct.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And don't say "If something is within the field of view" because that just means "it can be seen". We know that already. The question is: why is distance a factor if nothing needs to travel?

No, being in the field of view means that the object is in range. Science states that the object does not have to be in range, only light. How many more times do I have to repeat this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, being in the field of view means that the object is in range. Science states that the object does not have to be in range, only light. How many more times do I have to repeat this?

Science does not say that we can see things that are outside our visual range so long as the light from it is within range. It does not say that at all. You should probably stop trying to tell us what science says, seeing as how you clearly do not have a clue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But focussing cannot mean the same thing, as you admit in this sentence without realizing it: it means redirecting light coming from a point on an object so it hits a corresponding point on the film or retina.

The light from the object is not there yet: it will not be until it has crossed the intervening space, which takes time. You say we can see without that delay, and that the light does not carry the information.

I said that even if the photons are being replaced as the light is being absorbed and (P) reflected, the fact that the eyes must be focused on the actual material substance, changes the actual distance between the eye and the object. That's why it doesn't matter how far away the object actually is, as long as it meets the requirements of size and brightness, which then allows a mirror image to be present on the film/retina.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The word "focussing" only has meaning in the framework of optics. You just do not realize this, and are using the word without really understanding what it means.

I understand what focusing the light means, but you can't focus light without the material substance that is (P) reflecting that light, or else you'll get no image at all.

It has nothing to do with teleportation Vivisectus. When the lens is focused on the object it is getting a mirror image. The film or eye is capturing only those photons that are present at the object, which is why the light is the opposite side of the coin, so to speak.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You just admitted that in fact it IS teleportation: the film or eye captures those photons which are present at the object, without requiring those to cross the intervening space. This is pretty much the definition of teleportation.

That's why I said that even if photons are constantly in procession, there can never be red before blue, in efferent vision, because the distance from the object does not require the photons to travel to Earth in order for the object to be seen.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lenses cannot be "focussed on an object". Lenses focus light. They do not magically teleport photons.

You are once again arguing against yourself without noticing.

You can focus light all you want, but without the object present which is (P) reflecting that light, you will not get a photograph of the object, nor will you see it.

I'd like to see the lab results.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You already have. I have posted some of the simpler ones for your perusal prior to this post.

I'd like to see them again. Could you link me to them?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you see, in that one paragraph you managed to point out a huge unresolved issue in your idea not just once but twice, used a word that you do not understand and that has no meaning unless you are wrong, and then stated that if we observed something that we have actually observed, your strange and confused notion is wrong.

There is no teleporting. When I say you capture a picture, all I mean is that when the camera clicks, those photons that are in route from the object are going to reflect the color of the object even if it changes color, because the distance is short (due to the brain looking out, through the eyes), just like the distance between a large mirror and a person 100 yds. away would be a short distance and show an exact mirror image.

What word are you talking about? Mirror image?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is true that you also do not understand what a mirror image is, but I was referring to the word "focussing". Your use of the word shows that you do not understand it.

I know what a lens does. It focuses the light so that the image is clear when it lands on the retina.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your position is so utterly untenable that you cannot help but argue against it, even when you think you are trying to argue for it. It just cannot be done: it is completely irrational.

I am arguing for it, and I've never changed my position. There might be confusion as to how this model is tenable, but that is a communication problem.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I fully realize that is what you think. But your explanations are so nonsensical and contradictory that you are actually doing the reverse. It is just that you do not notice, or ignore that fact.

It's very difficult to show people the difference between efferent and afferent, which is causing the problem.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Since you seem to have produced no answer to this, I assume you agree that I am in the right. If you need any help in your transition back to reality, please do not hesitate to message me.

I am very much grounded in reality. The question is: Are you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that even if the photons are being replaced as the light is being absorbed and (P) reflected, the fact that the eyes must be focused on the actual material substance, changes the actual distance between the eye and the object.

The act of focussing cannot change the actual physical distance between your eyes and the things you are looking at. That's just completely stupid. It would require either things to move towards you whenever you look at them, or your eyes to pop out of your head.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no teleporting. When I say you capture a picture, all I mean is that when the camera clicks, those photons that are in route from the object are going to reflect the color of the object even if it changes color, because the distance is short (due to the brain looking out, through the eyes), just like the distance between a large mirror and a person 100 yds. away would be a short distance and show an exact mirror image.

No camera can capture light that is not yet at the camera. Only photons AT THE FILM can interact with that film. It doesn't matter how short you think the distance is - as long as it is non-zero the light still has to travel that distance, and that TAKES TIME, thereby introducing a time delay such that the properties of the light at the camera may no longer represent the nature of the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am very much grounded in reality.

Your posts prove otherwise.

[Vivisectus]

I said that even if the photons are being replaced - how? as the light is being absorbed and (P) reflected, that does not mean anything. the fact that the eyes must be focused on the actual material substance, changes the actual distance between the eye and the object. I already explained, focussing is something that lenses do to light in optics That's why it doesn't matter how far away the object actually is, as long as it meets the requirements of size and brightness, that is just saying "things can be seen thwne they are large and close enough to be seen, which is the same as saying "we can see what we can see" which then allows a mirror image to be present on the film/retina.That makes no sense - a mirror image is a term used in optics

I have added my comments in bold. That is a meaningless word-salad.

I understand what focusing the light means, but you can't focus light without the material substance that is (P) reflecting that light, or else you'll get no image at all.

Please support that claim with an observation, or any other reason to believe it, or retract. Unless you support it it remains irrational.

That's why I said that even if photons are constantly in procession, there can never be red before blue, in efferent vision, because the distance from the object does not require the photons to travel to Earth in order for the object to be seen.

I will just let you review that sentence and see if you think it is rational at all. I will ignore it if you so choose and we will blame it on a moment of madness. if not, we will have to examine the implications, especially those for your ideas.

You can focus light all you want, but without the object present which is (P) reflecting that light, you will not get a photograph of the object, nor will you see it.

My claims are backed with observations, observations which I can share. Yours here is not. Please provide proof that said object is not there 1 second per light second ago, in stead of there now.

I'd like to see them again. Could you link me to them?

To steal a sentence from Dr X: I am a RIVER to my people. I provided the test diagram and the link a few posts ago.

There is no teleporting. When I say you capture a picture, all I mean is that when the camera clicks, those photons that are in route from the object are going to reflect the color of the object even if it changes color, because the distance is short (due to the brain looking out, through the eyes), just like the distance between a large mirror and a person 100 yds. away would be a short distance and show an exact mirror image.

Instant transfer over ANY distance - long or short - is teleportation. Also, you once again resort to gross irrationality. If the photons are "in route" (sic) then they are travelling, which means there is a time delay.

I know what a lens does. It focuses the light so that the image is clear when it lands on the retina.

The light carries no information in your idea. So why does it need focussing? Optics has a very clear explanation. An explanation that allowed us to build cameras, digital cameras, telescopes, binoculars, televisions, omputer monitors, etc etc etc.

Please explain all this from an efferent point of view?

It's very difficult to show people the difference between efferent and afferent, which is causing the problem.

The efferent point of view conflicts with reality. If this is not so, please provide an explanation for the many observations we make that suggest a time delay in sight.

I am very much grounded in reality. The question is: Are you?

Ok good! When is the revolution starting, which is going to happen because of the wonderful knowledge which no-one but you believes in, and which the book said was supposed to have been over by now?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to tell you that this light travels, but it fades out the farther away it gets from its source.

No, it does not, you imbecile. LadyShea already posted the graphics that show what actually happens. Needless to say you dishonestly ignore them.

[davidm]

Pray tell, O great thinker Peaceigirl, how does light "fade out"? What does that mean?
Does it get tired and stop moving? Does it pant for breath? Does it get darker and darker until it no longer exists? Or what?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Something else must be going on if real time seeing is correct.

Yeah, something else is going on, all right. It is: real-time seeing isn't correct.

I also said that the light-time correction that was made must have corrected itself by putting the difference back into the equation, if Romer used this differential in his original calculation.

What the fuck does this even mean? You don't even know what you are trying to say, do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light cannot be absorbed at a distance. It can only be absorbed at the surface of the object. And once it is absorbed it stays absorbed. But all of this is irrelevant to the above exchange. Read through it again and see what I mean. You were trying to explain my allegedly false premise. First you said my premise is that light carries an image through space and time. I explained that that is not what I believe at all.

Then what do you believe? I thought that the afferent version of sight states that objects reflect non-absorbed light which (N) travel through space and time such that if there was no interference with that light, we would eventually see the image (of the original object or event that is now long gone) as it strikes our retina and is interpreted by our brain.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You then changed the premise to the idea that non-absorbed light travels from the object to the retina. I pointed out that that is a premise you agree with too. And your above response doesn't change that. So you still haven't identified any false premise in my reasoning.

Okay, that premise I agree with. But I don't agree with your other premises. For example, you don't believe the material substance must be in visual range for your version of sight to work, correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Pray tell, O great thinker Peaceigirl, how does light "fade out"? What does that mean?
Does it get tired and stop moving? Does it pant for breath? Does it get darker and darker until it no longer exists? Or what?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...sion/isql.html

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what do you believe? I thought that the afferent version of sight states that objects reflect non-absorbed light which (N) travel through space and time such that if there was no interference with that light, we would eventually see the image (of the original object or event that is now long gone) as it strikes our retina and is interpreted by our brain.

Yes, that's right (so long as the object is not too far away). None of this involves or requires an image being carried by light or traveling through space and time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, that premise I agree with. But I don't agree with your other premises. For example, you don't believe the material substance must be in visual range for your version of sight to work, correct?

No, incorrect. Of course an object has to be in visual range to see it. That is true by definition, and will remain true on any model of vision, efferent or afferent. I've explained to you how dispersion and resolution work in afferent vision. Visual range and the range at which an image can be formed are two different things. Visual range is (for an object of a given size) the range at which an image can be formed using only one's eyes. Using another instrument such as a telescope can extend the range at which an image can be formed from arriving light well beyond mere visual range. The more powerful the telescope, the greater the range.

So where is my alleged false premise? You have no idea do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then give me the link.

There is no teleporting. When I say you capture a picture, all I mean is that when the camera clicks, those photons that are in route from the object are going to reflect the color of the object even if it changes color, because the distance is short (due to the brain looking out, through the eyes), just like the distance between a large mirror and a person 100 yds. away would be a short distance and show an exact mirror image.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Instant transfer over ANY distance - long or short - is teleportation. Also, you once again resort to gross irrationality. If the photons are "in route" (sic) then they are travelling, which means there is a time delay.

Yes, but even so, the distance is short, so there will never be a different color than what the object itself is reflecting. That's why we get a mirror image on our retina.

What word are you talking about? Mirror image?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is true that you also do not understand what a mirror image is, but I was referring to the word "focussing". Your use of the word shows that you do not understand it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know what a lens does. It focuses the light so that the image is clear when it lands on the retina.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The light carries no information in your idea. So why does it need focussing? Optics has a very clear explanation. An explanation that allowed us to build cameras, digital cameras, telescopes, binoculars, televisions, omputer monitors, etc etc etc.

Please explain all this from an efferent point of view?

Of course light is necessary. We can't see the material world without it. The only difference is that the light is not bringing the information to our brain from our eyes; it is allowing the information to be seen by our brain, through our eyes. Of course, we can see information that light is revealing if the object is present, which occurs when we use a pinhole camera, but light by itself would not show an image if the material substance reflecting that light was not present, or within the field of view of the pinhole.

It's very difficult to show people the difference between efferent and afferent, which is causing the problem.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The efferent point of view conflicts with reality. If this is not so, please provide an explanation for the many observations we make that suggest a time delay in sight.

If you follow me, you'll understand why the efferent version of sight makes it possible to see an object in real time because all that is required is for light to be bright enough as it (P) reflects off the object, and large enough to be seen --- even if the photons have not traveled to Earth, which takes time. Therefore, the time factor causes as much delay as it would if we were looking in a huge mirror from across a field because the requirements of efferent vision are being met. That means we would still be getting an exact mirror image whether we're looking at an object that is thousands of miles away, or looking at an object that is only a few feet away.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Since you seem to have produced no answer to this, I assume you agree that I am in the right. If you need any help in your transition back to reality, please do not hesitate to message me.

I am very much grounded in reality. The question is: Are you?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok good! When is the revolution starting, which is going to happen because of the wonderful knowledge which no-one but you believes in, and which the book said was supposed to have been over by now?

No it didn't. Again, this just confirms to me that you didn't read the book since that statement was clarified.