A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

When we're looking efferently, it indicates the object must be in view. If the object is in view, the light is present due to the inverse square law. If the inverse square law is working, there are photons (P) traveling. This means that as long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking. As the photons become spread out due to distance, less and less of the pattern shows up on the retina or film. When there is no more non-absorbed light at the film/retina, all we will get on film is white light, but no image. Therefore, apart from the object, this (P) light does not continue on forever and show up thousands of years later.

Peacegirl, none of this makes sense. You are pretending things logically follow from each other when they are not even connected, and you are making a horrible mismatch of terms from optics and your own bizarre jargon, sometimes even applying optical mechanisms that you claimed did not apply a sentence earlier!

This is the kind of disjointed thinking you get from someone who is on drugs or something. Do you really think what I quoted up there makes sense? Because it is really worryingly nonsensical.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If photons EVER get from one location to another instantly, then they have either traveled faster than light or they have teleported.

I never said the photons got there instantly. They are always traveling because new photons are always replacing old photons, so why do you keep bringing this up?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you're not going to be satisfied, but I don't know what else I can do to explain this model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can either accept the fact that your model is contradictory and incoherent (such that it can and should be rejected by all rational thinkers), or you can try to change it.

Or you can just continue with your present mindless and dishonest weaseling and avoidance.

Change it? What do you mean by that? Change it to your way of thinking? I know that would make you happy because then you would have gotten the most stubborn person on the internet to agree that she's been wrong all along. Isn't that what you want?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, none of this makes sense. You are pretending things logically follow from each other when they are not even connected, and you are making a horrible mismatch of terms from optics and your own bizarre jargon, sometimes even applying optical mechanisms that you claimed did not apply a sentence earlier!

This is the kind of disjointed thinking you get from someone who is on drugs or something. Do you really think what I quoted up there makes sense? Because it is really worryingly nonsensical.

Show me where it's nonsensical, and I'll show you that you are failing to understand the model I'm presenting. Maybe that's my fault, but it does not make the model inaccurate. There is just a lot of confusion and misunderstanding that have to be worked out. But I doubt if it will be worked out in here since more empirical testing needs to be done, and who knows how long that will take.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"springboard to catapult"? Really?

He is saying that photons need to be touching camera film to take a photograph, and asking you how did those photons get there?

This is about as basic and non dramatic of a question as you can get...There is something at location x. How did it come to be there?

Again, there's two things that you must understand for you to grasp this model. White light is the default light. As it strikes an object, certain light is absorbed and certain light is not. The part that is not, is continually being replaced by new photons, so there's no such thing as teleportation, but those (P) photons do not bounce and travel far and wide as if to say that this pattern of light can exist apart from the object which that light is revealing. In other words, this non-absorbed light is only present because of the object's absorptive properties. The reason we can see the object is because of the brain's ability to look out, through the eyes, to see what exists and a camera works the same way since it's the same non-absorbed light that is at the film. The light itself does nothing without the object. It is a condition of sight ONLY. That's why you will never see red before blue, because this light is not little packets of old images or patterns that reach the eye in the order in which they were reflected. In addition, if the object is no longer absorbing light, then there is no non-absorbed light present at the film/retina, nor is it traveling where thousands of years later we will detect that pattern of light on film. You can't have an image without the object. How does light get to location x? It travels. I am not disputing that LadyShea. That's why it takes 8.5 minutes for light to reach Earth. But this is (N) light, or white light, which will not give us an image of a past event that no longer exists. You're missing the entire concept of efferent vision, and going right back to the afferent position, which will make it appear that Lessans was wrong and that this model of sight is completely untenable, which is false.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When we're looking efferently, it indicates the object must be in view. If the object is in view, the light is present due to the inverse square law. If the inverse square law is working, there are photons (P) traveling. This means that as long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking. As the photons become spread out due to distance, less and less of the pattern shows up on the retina or film. When there is no more non-absorbed light at the film/retina, all we will get on film is white light, but no image. Therefore, apart from the object, this (P) light does not continue on forever and show up thousands of years later.

What do you mean 'IF' the inverse square law is working, This is one of the laws of physics that apply at all times and all places, it is not a function that you turn on and off with a switch. This law does not require you to believe in it to work. Unlike Lessans book which requires us to buy into it so the 'Immutable Laws' will go into effect.

Light does go on forever there is no 'P light' that was just a shorthand label to apply to the way you were describing light. There is only one kind of light and it is described as the 'electromagnetic spectrum', and very accurately at that.

Could someone bump this please.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you're missing the entire concept because you are imagining that the photons reflected off the object are traveling long distances. Yes, (N) light travels long distances but there is no pattern in the light itself unless the object is there. The first thing this model states is that the non-absorbed light is not bouncing off of the object and traveling. You are imagining that the photons have a life of their own (sort of like drops of water that are traveling apart from the body of water it came from) and the object is a springboard to catapult this non-absorbed light into the universe. That's the misconception. Are you here to try to get me to see where my father was wrong, or are you actually trying to see if this model is plausible?

Originally Posted by peacegirl:

Again, there's two things that you must understand for you to grasp this model. White light is the default light. As it strikes an object, certain light is absorbed and certain light is not. The part that is not, is continually being replaced by new photons, so there's no such thing as teleportation, but those (P) photons do not bounce and travel far and wide as if to say that this pattern of light can exist apart from the object which that light is revealing. In other words, this non-absorbed light is only present because of the object's absorptive properties. The reason we can see the object is because of the brain's ability to look out, through the eyes, to see what exists and a camera works the same way since it's the same non-absorbed light that is at the film. The light itself does nothing without the object. It is a condition of sight ONLY. That's why you will never see red before blue, because this light is not little packets of old images or patterns that reach the eye in the order in which they were reflected. In addition, if the object is no longer absorbing light, then there is no non-absorbed light present at the film/retina, nor is it traveling where thousands of years later we will detect that pattern of light on film. You can't have an image without the object. How does light get to location x? It travels. I am not disputing that LadyShea. That's why it takes 8.5 minutes for light to reach Earth. But this is (N) light, or white light, which will not give us an image of a past event that no longer exists. You're missing the entire concept of efferent vision, and going right back to the afferent position, which will make it appear that Lessans was wrong and that this model of sight is completely untenable, which is false.

Wow! and I thought Lessans nonsensical word salad was bad, Peacegirl is certainly improving on dear old dad.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where it's nonsensical, and I'll show you that you are failing to understand the model I'm presenting. Maybe that's my fault, but it does not make the model inaccurate. There is just a lot of confusion and misunderstanding that have to be worked out. But I doubt if it will be worked out in here since more empirical testing needs to be done, and who knows how long that will take.

When we're looking efferently, it indicates the object must be in view.

Incorrect use of the word "Indicate". If your point is that "If efferent vision is correct, then the object must be in view because this is what efferent vision states" which does not support what you are claiming to support, namely that this is what is in fact happening. Finally, "in view" in your book seems to mean "can be seen", which makes this sentence even stranger, as you seem to be saying "If efferent vision is correct, then we can see what we can see, because this is what efferent vision claims".

If the object is in view, the light is present due to the inverse square law.

This does not follow from the previous: it is merely a new claim. Nor does the inverse square law say anything about light having to be present if an object is in view, a term that you use without defining it clearly, other than "In view means when an object can be seen."

If the inverse square law is working, there are photons (P) traveling.

This is again a more or less arbitrary claim - how does it follow that photons must (P) travel (whatever that is) if the inverse square law works? The inverse square law says nothing about photons interacting with film or retina at a distance, or about travelling without crossing the intervening space or taking any time to cross. There is no logical connection here, and the sentence makes no sense.

This means that as long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking.

Again you present something as if it logically follows from either itself or what preceded, but it does neither. It gets especially worrying here as the previous statement did not make sense either.

How would the inverse square law leading to photons (P) travelling mean that a long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking?

As the photons become spread out due to distance, less and less of the pattern shows up on the retina or film.

Oddly, this is what actually happens, not what you claim happens. You seem to be stringing random snippets together without realizing what they mean. This is a part of optics that your model is disputing!

When there is no more non-absorbed light at the film/retina, all we will get on film is white light, but no image. Therefore, apart from the object, this (P) light does not continue on forever and show up thousands of years later.

The first part of this is optics: once light has become too spread out, it becomes impossible to see due to background light drowning it out. It does not apply to efferent vision at all, as the light does not contain the information in efferent vision.

You then say "Therefore", and make a claim about a (P) light (whatever that is!) that does not follow at all from what you said previously. There is no logical connection between the two at all!

The entire statement you made up to now has been a nonsensical stringing together of either ideosyncratic weird terms (p-light, p-travelling) and half-understood terms that do not apply if your model is correct.

The worrying this is that you do not even notice how incoherent you are. I hope you are merely blinded by your fanaticism, and that you do not really have that much difficulty distinguishing between logic and mere incoherent babble. That would be a real problem.

[Vivisectus]

You are doing it again here!

Again, there's two things that you must understand for you to grasp this model. White light is the default light.

There is no such thing as default light. You just do not understand what light is.

As it strikes an object, certain light is absorbed and certain light is not.

Photons that have certain wavelengths are.

The part that is not, is continually being replaced by new photons,

Whut? No they are not. Where do these photons come from? Has this ever been measured or demonstrated? This is just an unwarranted leap.

so there's no such thing as teleportation,

This does not follow from the fact that photons are constantly being replaced at the object, which in itself is just an unwarranted assertion.

but those (P) photons do not bounce and travel far and wide as if to say that this pattern of light can exist apart from the object which that light is revealing.

Again - unwarranted leap. Why? You seem to be under the impression that you are demonstrating that this is so, but you are merely asserting that it is so in horribly tortured sentences. Also, you cannot just claim that something is a (P) something and then pretend that makes sense.

In other words, this non-absorbed light is only present because of the object's absorptive properties.

Lol whut? This is pure nonsense. What you say here is not a re-phrasing of what came before, so it is not "in other words". Nor does it follow from the previous that "the non-absorbed light that travels without crossing the intervening space instantly but is nevertheless not being teleporting is only present because of the absorptive properties"

You are once again just stringing words together without noticing you are making no sense. You need to look into this, Peacegirl. This is worrying.

The reason we can see the object is because of the brain's ability to look out, through the eyes, to see what exists

That just means "We can see efferently because the brain makes the eyes see efferently". It is completely circular and explains nothing. Again you do not seem to notice that you are effectivly saying nothing, which explains why you cannot spot the circular reasoning in the book.

and a camera works the same way since it's the same non-absorbed light that is at the film.

You just said that it is the brain that looks out and allows the eyes to interact instantly - but now you say that a camera can do the same thing because of non-absorbed light? This is a contradiction.

The light itself does nothing without the object. It is a condition of sight ONLY.

Again, an unwarranted leap. Can you demonstrate how, or why, or what you are talking about even? All you are doing here is re-hashing what is in the book, and pretending that it explains something. It does not.

That's why you will never see red before blue, because this light is not little packets of old images or patterns that reach the eye in the order in which they were reflected.

Unsupported assertion. In fact, all tests done on light suggest the opposite.

In addition, if the object is no longer absorbing light, then there is no non-absorbed light present at the film/retina,

More assertions

nor is it traveling where thousands of years later we will detect that pattern of light on film. You can't have an image without the object.

and another one.

How does light get to location x? It travels. I am not disputing that LadyShea. That's why it takes 8.5 minutes for light to reach Earth. But this is (N) light, or white light, which will not give us an image of a past event that no longer exists.

Again - we know this is what you believe. We just think that belief is plain wrong. And we can demonstrate to you - and have - why this is so. All you can do is string meaningless mumbo-jumbo together and then claim this has demonstrated the point you just repeated.

You're missing the entire concept of efferent vision, and going right back to the afferent position, which will make it appear that Lessans was wrong and that this model of sight is completely untenable, which is false.

That is just another version of you saying "Efferent vision is completely plausible, as long as you first accept that efferent vision is plausible".

[Vivisectus]

Enough is enough. Peacegirl, please go and do your homework. Either demonstrate how Efferent Vision could possibly be plausible, given the empirical evidence we have gathered, or admit that you simply do not know how it could possibly work.

Important questions to answer are:

- How do you account for the observations of the moons of jupiter, and the fact that we can accurately predict its physical position using calculations that take a time delay into account?

- How come lab tests show dogs can recognize human faces on photographs?

- How come lab tests show that infants can see, they just cannot change the focus distance of their eyes? (please study carefully what lenses do and what focussing is before you go into this one)

- How come neutrinos and the image of a supernova always show up in the same timeframe, while we know that they travel at just below the speed of light?

-How do the photons interact with film at a distance in the scenario where the sun has just been turned on? This is commonly thought to be impossible and a breach of the laws of physics. How do the eyes manage it anyway? Please actually demonstrate.

If you cannot do this, you should just admit that you do not know, but believe it anyhow. If you do not admit this, you show by your actions that you are merely being irrational by defending something that is irrational, and that there is no more reason to discuss this book with you, as you simply will not listen to any criticism of it, no matter how well founded.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When we're looking efferently, it indicates the object must be in view. If the object is in view, the light is present due to the inverse square law. If the inverse square law is working, there are photons (P) traveling. This means that as long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking. As the photons become spread out due to distance, less and less of the pattern shows up on the retina or film. When there is no more non-absorbed light at the film/retina, all we will get on film is white light, but no image. Therefore, apart from the object, this (P) light does not continue on forever and show up thousands of years later.

Lady, you're demented. The meaningless codswallop reproduced above is actually more risible than you're father's unintentionally humorous swill.

[davidm]

"The light is present due to the inverse square law ... if the inverse square law is working..."



Let me guess, peacegirl, it's the inverse square law that creates the mirror images, is that it? Inverse = mirror, right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, none of this makes sense. You are pretending things logically follow from each other when they are not even connected, and you are making a horrible mismatch of terms from optics and your own bizarre jargon, sometimes even applying optical mechanisms that you claimed did not apply a sentence earlier!

This is the kind of disjointed thinking you get from someone who is on drugs or something. Do you really think what I quoted up there makes sense? Because it is really worryingly nonsensical.

Show me where it's nonsensical, and I'll show you that you are failing to understand the model I'm presenting. Maybe that's my fault, but it does not make the model inaccurate. There is just a lot of confusion and misunderstanding that have to be worked out. But I doubt if it will be worked out in here since more empirical testing needs to be done, and who knows how long that will take.

When we're looking efferently, it indicates the object must be in view.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Incorrect use of the word "Indicate". If your point is that "If efferent vision is correct, then the object must be in view because this is what efferent vision states" which does not support what you are claiming to support, namely that this is what is in fact happening. Finally, "in view" in your book seems to mean "can be seen", which makes this sentence even stranger, as you seem to be saying "If efferent vision is correct, then we can see what we can see, because this is what efferent vision claims".

By definition, the object must be in view because efferent vision means that we're seeing things in real time. In order to see anything in real time (which is the point at which we must work backwards), we need light, which is a reflection of what is happening in the real world. It is the exact opposite of afferent vision, which claims that the eyes are a sense organ and, therefore, light is bringing us the real world, which takes time. Really truly, if you let go of your defensiveness, you will see that Occam's Razor in this instance is correct. It is a much easier model.

If the object is in view, the light is present due to the inverse square law.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This does not follow from the previous: it is merely a new claim. Nor does the inverse square law say anything about light having to be present if an object is in view, a term that you use without defining it clearly, other than "In view means when an object can be seen."

No, there is nothing in optics that is inconsistent with efferent vision such that this knowledge would exclude this model outright.

If the inverse square law is working, there are photons (P) traveling.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is again a more or less arbitrary claim - how does it follow that photons must (P) travel (whatever that is) if the inverse square law works? The inverse square law says nothing about photons interacting with film or retina at a distance, or about travelling without crossing the intervening space or taking any time to cross. There is no logical connection here, and the sentence makes no sense.

Don't you see what you're doing? You are reasoning that there is no intervening space, which I never said. There is an intervening space, but when it comes to sight, efferent vision changes the true distance because of the way THE EYES WORK.

This means that as long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again you present something as if it logically follows from either itself or what preceded, but it does neither. It gets especially worrying here as the previous statement did not make sense either.

How would the inverse square law leading to photons (P) travelling mean that a long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking?

Why does this not make sense? I'm trying to help you to see that it does make sense.

As the photons become spread out due to distance, less and less of the pattern shows up on the retina or film.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oddly, this is what actually happens, not what you claim happens. You seem to be stringing random snippets together without realizing what they mean. This is a part of optics that your model is disputing!

Not at all. I am agreeing that photons themselves don't fade out, but you are forgetting the default position of light, which is white light and joins the non-absorbed wavelength light (so to speak) as the distance gets too far away from the observer. The problem here is that you think light alone jumps off of the object and continues on. This is wrong. This is why I keep saying that efferent VISION is being forgotten, which IS THE WHOLE CLAIM THAT PROVES LESSANS RIGHT.

When there is no more non-absorbed light at the film/retina, all we will get on film is white light, but no image. Therefore, apart from the object, this (P) light does not continue on forever and show up thousands of years later.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The first part of this is optics: once light has become too spread out, it becomes impossible to see due to background light drowning it out. It does not apply to efferent vision at all, as the light does not contain the information in efferent vision.

What is background light other than white light? The light does contain information as long as we're looking at the object since light is the mirror image counterpart. We're not getting rid of light. Light reflects our world, but light does not carry patterns to our eyes.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You then say "Therefore", and make a claim about a (P) light (whatever that is!) that does not follow at all from what you said previously. There is no logical connection between the two at all!

The entire statement you made up to now has been a nonsensical stringing together of either ideosyncratic weird terms (p-light, p-travelling) and half-understood terms that do not apply if your model is correct.

The worrying this is that you do not even notice how incoherent you are. I hope you are merely blinded by your fanaticism, and that you do not really have that much difficulty distinguishing between logic and mere incoherent babble. That would be a real problem.

Vivisectus, I am not stringing together nonsensical idiosyncractic weird terms. That's your cop-out, which gives you a sense of winning this debate, but you haven't won at all since you are not interested in anything else Lessans has to say. The only reason I'm on this thread is because this knowledge will either keep interest or it won't, and if I come back with an answer that doesn't explain what you are asking, this in itself doesn't make this model wrong. It just means there is a miscommunication. Unfortunately, if I can't get across that Lessans was not wrong, or at the very least that his claim is not crazy, people will refuse to listen to his most important discovery of all: that man's will is not free and what this means for all mankind.

[LadyShea]

1.White light is the default light.

Def of White Light: Apparently colorless light, such as ordinary daylight. It contains all the wavelengths of the visible spectrum at equal intensity.

2. As it strikes an object, certain light is absorbed and certain light is not.

Clarification needed, you mean some wavelengths are absorbed, correct?

3. The part that is not, is continually being replaced by new photons

Where do the old, non-absorbed photons go? What do they do?

You say there are "new" photons replacing them, but the ones that have been replaced have to be somewhere, they have to have some location.

What is that location?

Where do the "new" replacement photons come from, and where do they go?

4. so there's no such thing as teleportation

You haven't established that yet, until we know where the "new" photons came from and where the old, replaced, non-absorbed photons are now and how they came to be in those locations.

5. but those (P) photons do not bounce and travel far and wide as if to say that this pattern of light can exist apart from the object which that light is revealing.

This is where you run into those pesky laws of physics. Light is energy. Photons are energy packets that are not in any way dependent on or attached to matter that has not absorbed them. If they aren't absorbed they are reflected or transmitted (with or without refraction). These are the only things that can happen when light wavelengths encounters matter....absorbed, reflected, transmitted

There are multiple laws at work here, not theories. The Laws of Reflection, Snell's Laws, and the laws of thermodynamics in that light cannot be destroyed nor can it disappear or fade away.

6. In other words, this non-absorbed light is only present because of the object's absorptive properties.

Nope, that breaks the laws of physics. Non absorbed light exists, and keeps existing until/unless it is absorbed. Try again

7. The reason we can see the object is because of the brain's ability to look out, through the eyes, to see what exists and a camera works the same way since it's the same non-absorbed light that is at the film.

How did the non absorbed light get to the film? How did it change it's location from the surface of the object to the surface of the film, where it must be to be absorbed by the film and create a photographic image?

Those are two different locations. They are not the same location. You understand this, correct? You have here, and you have there, to borrow some terminology from Lessans. Photons must get from here to there somehow. Travel, teleport, pop into existence, there must be some mechanism to get from there to here or here to there...what is that mechanism?

8. The light itself does nothing without the object.

Breaking the laws of physics. Light has inherent, known, measurable, physical properties, one of them is that it travels unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. So it has to do SOMETHING. Try again

9. In addition, if the object is no longer absorbing light, then there is no non-absorbed light present at the film/retina, nor is it traveling where thousands of years later we will detect that pattern of light on film.

Why would the object or matter stop absorbing light? If the light is not traveling, is it stationary? If it's neither traveling nor stationary WHERE IS IT AND HOW DID IT GET THERE?

10. How does light get to location x? It travels. I am not disputing that LadyShea.

You disputed it multiple times in your own explanation! See above points

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are once again just stringing words together without noticing you are making no sense. You need to look into this, Peacegirl. This is worrying.

Yes, this is worrying as Peacegirl is a human being and does warrent some degree of compassion and concern for her well being. I have this vague expectation that at some time someone is going to log on to Peacegirl's account and inform us that she will not be posting for awhile, as hse has been sedated and confined to her room for her own safety, being that she is too incoherent and disoriented to be left on her own. If her posts are any indication of her though process, she really needs close supervision.

[LadyShea]

What is background light other than white light?

What background light? You already agreed with me that there is no place on Earth where there isn't some matter for light to be interacting with, and that there is nowhere on Earth we wouldn't see some matter, whether the ground, the wall, even looking into a clear sky there are the molecules in our atmosphere interacting with the sunlight.

[Vivisectus]

I do so love the word codswallop

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What do you mean 'IF' the inverse square law is working, This is one of the laws of physics that apply at all times and all places, it is not a function that you turn on and off with a switch. This law does not require you to believe in it to work. Unlike Lessans book which requires us to buy into it so the 'Immutable Laws' will go into effect.

Light does go on forever there is no 'P light' that was just a shorthand label to apply to the way you were describing light. There is only one kind of light and it is described as the 'electromagnetic spectrum', and very accurately at that.

Could someone bump this please.

Bump please.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I do so love the word codswallop

Gobbledegoop.

[thedoc]

Mishmash. Wow, that ones in my dictionary but my dictionary is too old to have Lessans name in the definition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What background light? You already agreed with me that there is no place on Earth where there isn't some matter for light to be interacting with, and that there is nowhere on Earth we wouldn't see some matter, whether the ground, the wall, even looking into a clear sky there are the molecules in our atmosphere interacting with the sunlight.

This is true, but if there is no matter that is interacting with the light which would have to be in the direction the lens is aimed; we will still get light striking the film/retina (as long as it's daylight); we just won't get an image.

[Vivisectus]

By definition, the object must be in view because efferent vision means that we're seeing things in real time.

Circular: we are discussing IF efferent vision is valid. You cannot invoke it as true, therefor the object must not be in view "by definition".

In order to see anything in real time (which is the point at which we must work backwards)

This is why you go wrong so much: you assume something, and then try to make it fit reality. This is unscientific, and even irrational unless you are doing it as a mere thought-experiment.

,

we need light, which is a reflection of what is happening in the real world.

Self-contradictory and nonsensical. Light is not a reflection of anything.

It is the exact opposite of afferent vision, which claims that the eyes are a sense organ and, therefore, light is bringing us the real world, which takes time.

Nonsensical: there is no exact opposite to optics, nor does your idea represent the exact opposite of same.

Really truly, if you let go of your defensiveness, you will see that Occam's Razor in this instance is correct. It is a much easier model.

Appeal to malice on my part, which is childish. Occams razor applies to efferent vision, not afferent: efferent vision explains nothing, but requires photons to behave in ways that have never been observed and are deemed impossible: they affect a retina from great distances without crossing that distance, and instantly.

No, there is nothing in optics that is inconsistent with efferent vision such that this knowledge would exclude this model outright.

Blanket denial without any substance - also this does not address the point I was making, which is that your sentence "If the object is in view, the light is present due to the inverse square law." is completely nonsensical. Again, your responses have no logical connection with what you are supposed to be responding to. Why is this? Are you confused, or just unwilling to face up to reality?

Don't you see what you're doing? You are reasoning that there is no intervening space, which I never said. There is an intervening space, but when it comes to sight, efferent vision changes the true distance because of the way THE EYES WORK.

1: I was not arguing that there is no intervening space. I was arguing that the photons somehow affect a film or retina across this space with crossing it, or taking any time.
2: You are arguing that the eyes somehow change the distance between the sun and the earth - this is absurd. And then you simply say this is BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE EYES WORK - which is the same as saying that cheese causes gravity because of the way fermented lactose allows it to.

Can you really not see that this is crazy talk? It really does not make sense.

Why does this not make sense? I'm trying to help you to see that it does make sense.

you said:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

If the inverse square law is working, there are photons (P) traveling. This means that as long as the object is sucking up certain wavelength light, the non-sucked up light is being revealed to the person looking.

The first sentence is nonsense, but on top of that, the second sentence does not logically follow from the first at all. The inverse square working and photons (P) travelling does not mean that logically, as long as an object is sucking up light the non-sucked up light is being revealed. Not only is every sentence nonsensical, even if sentence 1 was true, there is no reason to believe that makes sentence 2 true!

That you do not see this is a bit frightening. I literally cannot imagine how someone can not know the difference between a sentence that is a logical conclusion from the first and a sentence that is merely adjacent to it. You display the kind of reasoning I would expect from someone who has taken drugs.

Not at all. I am agreeing that photons themselves don't fade out, but you are forgetting the default position of light, which is white light and joins the non-absorbed wavelength light (so to speak) as the distance gets too far away from the observer. The problem here is that you think light alone jumps off of the object and continues on. This is wrong. This is why I keep saying that efferent VISION is being forgotten, which IS THE WHOLE CLAIM THAT PROVES LESSANS RIGHT.

First off, there is no such thing as a default position of light. Secondly, light spreading leading to signal loss is something that has to do with afferent vision, which we call optics, not efferent vision. The photons do not travel from the sun to the eye in your model - this would take time and would mean we simply interpret light. They somehow interact with the retina from a distance.

So how can they spread?

The last sentence

This is why I keep saying that efferent VISION is being forgotten, which IS THE WHOLE CLAIM THAT PROVES LESSANS RIGHT

is plain incoherent. Efferent vision is what your father claims. A claim cannot prove anyone or anything right. Again I must ask - do you really not notice how strange and disjointed your reasoning is?

What is background light other than white light? The light does contain information as long as we're looking at the object since light is the mirror image counterpart. We're not getting rid of light. Light reflects our world, but light does not carry patterns to our eyes.

Background light can be any light. But this is something that matters in optics, not efferent vision. The next sentence is again weird and disjointed:

The light does contain information as long as we're looking at the object since light is the mirror image counterpart.

First off, you are contradicting the book which states the opposite. Then you say that light is the mirror image counterpart... of what? And what does that even mean? A mirror image is an optical illusion caused by light reflecting off a surface, giving us the illusion that what is reflected is behind the surface of the mirror. Light is not a "mirror image counterpart" of anything, nor does calling light "A mirror image counterpart" explain anything. Can you draw me a diagram of what happens when we look at an object and light is a mirror image counterpart? Because what you wrote down simply makes no sense!

Vivisectus, I am not stringing together nonsensical idiosyncractic weird terms

Again your beliefs are in conflict with reality. (P) reflection, (P) light and (P) travelling are all idiosyncratic terms: no-one knows what they mean, and you are the only one claiming to know what they mean. They are also undefined, make no sense, and I find them weird.

You are also unable to demonstrate any kind of logical connection between your statements. You use words like "therefore" when what you said before does not lead logically to what comes after! You seem to think that simply putting another claim after an initial claim and sticking the word "therefore" in between constitutes a logical proof!

This is just weird, Peacegirl. You do not even seem to notice that the things you are saying are incoherent. You seem to consider these sentences on a very basic emotional level only, and you seem to be unable to consider them rationally at all.

That's your cop-out, which gives you a sense of winning this debate, but you haven't won at all since you are not interested in anything else Lessans has to say.

Emotional appeals that are irrelevant. If my point of view is biased, then I must be wrong, and you should be able to show that I am wrong. You cannot, which is why you resort to these emotional appeals.

The only reason I'm on this thread is because this knowledge will either keep interest or it won't, and if I come back with an answer that doesn't explain what you are asking, this in itself doesn't make this model wrong.

Just because I cannot explain to you how cheese causes gravity does not make it wrong either! It just does not give you any reason to believe it is right. Just like you have not been able to give us any reason to believe Lessans was right.

It just means there is a miscommunication.

It can also mean that Lessans is wrong.

Unfortunately, if I can't get across that Lessans was not wrong, or at the very least that his claim is not crazy, people will refuse to listen to his most important discovery of all: that man's will is not free and what this means for all mankind.

Indeed. And so far you have been unable to show that Lessans was not crazy. This is caused by the fact that his claims were irrational, and completely unsupported. They were merely his opinions, and not very informed opinions at that.

Peacegirl, I suggest you try to put efferent vision in really, really simple terms. Step by step. And whenever you cannot do so, consider that perhaps you had a feeling it made sense, but really it didn't, since you cannot put it into coherent language. Because the way you reason right now is worryingly disjointed.

[LadyShea]

This is true, but if there is no matter that is interacting with the light which would have to be in the direction the lens is aimed; we will still get light striking the film/retina (as long as it's daylight); we just won't get an image.

There is no place, on Earth, where in daylight, one could point a lens in any direction and not encounter matter in some form or get an image of something. You look up at the clear sky in daylight and you see blue (which is caused by light interacting with the atmosphere).

This is why we put our most powerful telescope, the Hubble, into orbit, so the atmosphere and artificial light wouldn't interfere with it. That's why observatories are routinely located on mountains.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are doing it again here!

There is no such thing as default light. You just do not understand what light is.

Photons that have certain wavelengths are.

Whut? No they are not. Where do these photons come from? Has this ever been measured or demonstrated? This is just an unwarranted leap.

No, it isn't. The photons are coming from the Sun, which are continually taking the place of the previous photons. But it doesn't matter because it is still the exact same mirror image, regardless of which photon is present.

so there's no such thing as teleportation,

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This does not follow from the fact that photons are constantly being replaced at the object, which in itself is just an unwarranted assertion.

All I mean is that as photons move on, new photons emerge.

but those (P) photons do not bounce and travel far and wide as if to say that this pattern of light can exist apart from the object which that light is revealing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again - unwarranted leap. Why? You seem to be under the impression that you are demonstrating that this is so, but you are merely asserting that it is so in horribly tortured sentences. Also, you cannot just claim that something is a (P) something and then pretend that makes sense.

Well that's the only way I can distinguish light that travels at a finite speed, and light that does not. I am not under the impression that I am demonstrating that this is so. I am describing the model. How many times do I have to say that empirical testing will be needed to support his observation.

In other words, this non-absorbed light is only present because of the object's absorptive properties.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lol whut? This is pure nonsense. What you say here is not a re-phrasing of what came before, so it is not "in other words". Nor does it follow from the previous that "the non-absorbed light that travels without crossing the intervening space instantly but is nevertheless not being teleporting is only present because of the absorptive properties"

It did follow Vivisectus, and you still have no idea why the object, in the efferent version, reflects a mirror image on the film/retina.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are once again just stringing words together without noticing you are making no sense. You need to look into this, Peacegirl. This is worrying.

It's easy to make it look like I'm wrong, just like you did when you said that firemen are not the cause of fires is analogous to blame is not the cause of crime, which is false.

The reason we can see the object is because of the brain's ability to look out, through the eyes, to see what exists

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That just means "We can see efferently because the brain makes the eyes see efferently". It is completely circular and explains nothing. Again you do not seem to notice that you are effectivly saying nothing, which explains why you cannot spot the circular reasoning in the book.

There is no circular reasoning in the book Vivisectus. If anything, his description of what is going on just needs more supporting evidence to confirm his observations.

and a camera works the same way since it's the same non-absorbed light that is at the film.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You just said that it is the brain that looks out and allows the eyes to interact instantly - but now you say that a camera can do the same thing because of non-absorbed light? This is a contradiction.

It is not a contradiction. You must have been sleeping this whole time.

The light itself does nothing without the object. It is a condition of sight ONLY.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again, an unwarranted leap. Can you demonstrate how, or why, or what you are talking about even? All you are doing here is re-hashing what is in the book, and pretending that it explains something. It does not.

If that's how you feel, then find a better topic to debate.

That's why you will never see red before blue, because this light is not little packets of old images or patterns that reach the eye in the order in which they were reflected.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Unsupported assertion. In fact, all tests done on light suggest the opposite.

They have never proved that this is what is actually happening. Their conclusions are based on what they think is happening.

In addition, if the object is no longer absorbing light, then there is no non-absorbed light present at the film/retina,

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More assertions

nor is it traveling where thousands of years later we will detect that pattern of light on film. You can't have an image without the object.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

and another one.

How does light get to location x? It travels. I am not disputing that LadyShea. That's why it takes 8.5 minutes for light to reach Earth. But this is (N) light, or white light, which will not give us an image of a past event that no longer exists.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again - we know this is what you believe. We just think that belief is plain wrong. And we can demonstrate to you - and have - why this is so. All you can do is string meaningless mumbo-jumbo together and then claim this has demonstrated the point you just repeated.

You have proved nothing. Your version may look foolproof, but it's a far cry from being factual.

You're missing the entire concept of efferent vision, and going right back to the afferent position, which will make it appear that Lessans was wrong and that this model of sight is completely untenable, which is false.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is just another version of you saying "Efferent vision is completely plausible, as long as you first accept that efferent vision is plausible".

In order to follow what happens in the efferent version, you have to work backwards to see what aspects in this model are different from the afferent version. Of course, in order for this account to be plausible it can't violate the laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no place, on Earth, where in daylight, one could point a lens in any direction and not encounter matter in some form or get an image of something. You look up at the clear sky in daylight and you see blue (which is caused by light interacting with the atmosphere).

This is why we put our most powerful telescope, the Hubble, into orbit, so the atmosphere and artificial light wouldn't interfere with it. That's why observatories are routinely located on mountains.

Anytime there is matter interacting with light, and it is within our field of view, we will see it. We can look out for miles and not see anything, but we will see the ground since it's always there. As I said before, we can't walk on air. But we will not see an image if it is not within that range, which I've said all along. And I agree that we see a blue sky or a rainbow or a sunset because of the way light is interacting with the atmosphere.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You just said that it is the brain that looks out and allows the eyes to interact instantly - but now you say that a camera can do the same thing because of non-absorbed light? This is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not a contradiction. You must have been sleeping this whole time.

It is a contradiction. If the brain looking out is what allows for instant mirror images at the retina, then cameras cannot take instant pictures because they have no brains to look out

If it is focusing lenses that allows for instant mirror images at the retina and camera film, then the brain looking out is not even a factor.

Your repeatedly using stuff about the brain to answer questions about cameras and film is nonsensical and contradicts your insistence that the most important factor in efferent vision is how the brain works.

Why does it matter how the brain works if camera film and glass or plastic lenses can do the exact same thing?