A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Think efferent, that's all I can say. If the eye can see the object in real time (not the image from light), then the light has to be at the eye. I understand people don't get it and they think it's not physically possible because light hasn't traveled to earth where the retina is located, but it doesn't have to in the efferent account.

It has to get to the location in ANY account where light has a specific location. You must account for how the light came to be located there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said photons don't travel. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

Did the light at the retina on Earth (composing the mirror image, and which is supposedly there before any light has arrived on Earth) travel to get there? Yes, or No?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club.

And the first rule of contradiction club is not the first rule of contradiction club.

[thedoc]

NOTICE: This weeks meeting of 'Procrastinators Anonymous' will be postponed till next week, or the week after? A notice will be posted, if anyone can find the time to post it, or write it, or make a decision when the next meeting will be held?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has to get to the location in ANY account where light has a specific location. You must account for how the light came to be located there.

I have been trying to tell you that the efferent account changes everything because we're not talking about photons traveling to bring the image to the eye without the object, which is what is being disputed. We're talking about the eye seeing the object which means the object must be present. This presence allows the light to form a mirror image at the retina. This has nothing to do with light traveling through space/time. Once you get that straight, we can talk further. We're on a merry-go-round, and we're not getting anywhere. I really don't know if the people in this thread are going to get the concept or not. All I can tell you is that it is scientifically sound, even if you don't see it right now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did the light at the retina on Earth (composing the mirror image, and which is supposedly there before any light has arrived on Earth) travel to get there? Yes, or No?

Spacemonkey, haven't you been paying attention? He said that light needs to be surrounding the object and the object needs to be large enough and bright enough to be seen by the person looking. If the light from the object is fading because of dispersion, the object would appear smaller and smaller since less and less light is at the retina. This is exactly in keeping with optics. If the sun was turned on at 12:00, according to the efferent account, we would get a mirror image of the sun instantly, but it would take 8 minutes for light to travel to Earth, so we would not be able to see each other until 12:08.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been trying to tell you that the efferent account changes everything because we're not talking about photons traveling to bring the image to the eye without the object, which is what is being disputed. We're talking about the eye seeing the object which means the object must be present. This presence allows the light to form a mirror image at the retina. This has nothing to do with light traveling through space/time. Once you get that straight, we can talk further. We're on a merry-go-round, and we're not getting anywhere. I really don't know if the people in this thread are going to get the concept or not. All I can tell you is that it is scientifically sound, even if you don't see it right now.

Stop weaseling for one moment, and answer this simple question:

If the light at the retina didn't get there by traveling there, then how did it get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, haven't you been paying attention? He said that light needs to be surrounding the object and the object needs to be large enough and bright enough to be seen by the person looking. If the light from the object is fading because of dispersion, the object would appear smaller and smaller since less and less light is at the retina. This is exactly in keeping with optics. If the sun was turned on at 12:00, according to the efferent account, we would get a mirror image of the sun instantly, but it would take 8 minutes for light to travel to Earth, so we would not be able to see each other until 12:08.

Stop weaseling. Your response has nothing to do with my question. I asked you a simple Yes or No question, and you haven't answered it.

Did the light at the retina on Earth (composing the mirror image, and which is supposedly there before any light has arrived on Earth) travel to get there? Yes, or No?

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1096603]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has to get to the location in ANY account where light has a specific location. You must account for how the light came to be located there.

I have been trying to tell you that the efferent account changes everything because we're not talking about photons traveling to bring the image to the eye without the object, which is what is being disputed.

No, this dusty old beat up strawman is not part of my arguments at all, and not under discussion

We're talking about the eye seeing the object which means the object must be present. This presence allows the light to form a mirror image at the retina. This has nothing to do with light traveling through space/time. Once you get that straight, we can talk further. We're on a merry-go-round, and we're not getting anywhere. I really don't know if the people in this thread are going to get the concept or not. All I can tell you is that it is scientifically sound, even if you don't see it right now.

You are weaseling again.

You have made claims about light, specifically that light can be located on the retina even if it is not located on the retina. Defend or retract these statements.

If light has a specific location in your account, you must provide the physical mechanism by which it came to be located there in your model, otherwise your idea is disproven by the laws of physics.

An object being present is not a physical mechanism by which light can come to be located on Earth and not on Earth at the same time...let alone "allow" it.

So answer the question. If light is located on the retina, either impinging on it, or in the form of a mirror image, you must account for how the light came to be located there...what is the mechanism? How did it get there?

[thedoc]

It seems that what everyone wants to know is that how can photons, that are surrounding an object, also be at the retina of an eye that is some distance away. How can a photon be at an object and at the eye, at what seems to be at the same time, this seems to be in opposition to the laws of physics, please explain.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the light from the object is fading because of dispersion, the object would appear smaller and smaller since less and less light is at the retina.

And if the light hasn't arrived, it's not at the retina at all. It's physically impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly in keeping with optics.

You have no idea what that word means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the sun was turned on at 12:00, according to the efferent account, we would get a mirror image of the sun instantly

Lessans said nothing about mirror images. You pulled that silliness out of your own prodigious ass. In Lessans' account of that hypothetical, we see the sun even though no light is anywhere near our eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but it would take 8 minutes for light to travel to Earth, so we would not be able to see each other until 12:08.

The only function light has in your dumbass father's account is illuminating objects. In his view, no light need enter the eye for vision to occur, even though physiologically the eye is just a light detector.

Seymouron was roaring fool, but even he would have laughed at your preposterous contention that the exact same light illuminating an object light years away is simultaneously making physical contact with retinas here on earth.

Also highly amusing is your acknowledgement upthread that the image "impinging" on the retina is composed of light. So then, after hundreds of posts contending that light does not bring images to the brain through the eyes, you're now contending that light does bring images to the brain via the eyes. Congratulations! You have surpassed Seymouron in assheadedness.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the light at the retina didn't get there by traveling there, then how did it get there?

Space magic!

[Vivisectus]

He said that light needs to be surrounding the object and the object needs to be large enough and bright enough to be seen by the person looking.

But that is just another way of saying "Objects need to be visible to be seen"

If you ask me to explain how sound works, and I say "A sound needs to be loud enough to be heard", have I explained anything about sound? Of course not! I have merely stated "To be heard, a sound must be audible". There is no information in that sentence.

If the light from the object is fading because of dispersion, the object would appear smaller and smaller since less and less light is at the retina.

But dispersion is something that light does as it travels... something that takes time and that does not happen in your version.

This is exactly in keeping with optics.

No, you have taken a term from the field of optic and used it even though it is not valid within the framework of your idea. Just like you keep using "field of view" without understanding that it describes an arc, not distance.

If the sun was turned on at 12:00, according to the efferent account, we would get a mirror image of the sun instantly,

What does this "Mirror image" consist of, and how did it get there?

but it would take 8 minutes for light to travel to Earth, so we would not be able to see each other until 12:08.

But then a sensor that just measures and detects light would have to wait 8 minutes too: it does not detect "mirror images"... it just measures light, and it needs the light to be there to do so. Whoops! We ran into those pesky cameras again

[Vivisectus]

Double poast!

[Vivisectus]

I have been trying to tell you that the efferent account changes everything because we're not talking about photons traveling to bring the image to the eye without the object, which is what is being disputed.

No, the plausibility of the "efferent account" is being disputed.

Your "efferent account" goes roughly like this: "The efferent account is true, so we see instantly and do not have to wait for light to arrive. Since cameras and the eyes see the same thing, somehow light must be triggering sensors without actually travelling to them."

You assume it's true first and then work backwards, which is why you keep coming up with such bizarre outcomes. If you simply ask yourself "Is efferent sight plausible" then the answer is quite clearly "No, not at all."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did the light at the retina on Earth (composing the mirror image, and which is supposedly there before any light has arrived on Earth) travel to get there? Yes, or No?

You are trying to make it seem as if this violates physics. It does not. I'm not answering your question because you are not using the efferent account which does not require photons to travel to earth for a mirror image to be present at the retina. You are basing your reasoning on the afferent account, which will make the efferent account look wrong.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to make it seem as if this violates physics. It does not.

Of course it does. Instantaneous causal interactions over any distance completely violates known physics, wrecking causality. Your description of how light behaves completely violates known physics, wrecking our understanding of how light (and by extension most of particle physics, cosmology and astronomy, etc.). You've been told this point repeatedly, and never defended yourself beyond mere assertion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this dusty old beat up strawman is not part of my arguments at all, and not under discussion

You are weaseling again.

You have made claims about light, specifically that light can be located on the retina even if it is not located on the retina. Defend or retract these statements.

I did not say that. I said that light is at the retina in the efferent account. This is not magic. The problem here is that there is a lack of understanding how this is physically possible in the efferent account. In the afferent account it would be impossible because light would have to travel (the pattern) to the eye over long distances.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If light has a specific location in your account, you must provide the physical mechanism by which it came to be located there in your model, otherwise your idea is disproven by the laws of physics.

The physical mechanism involves the eye's ability to see the physical world in real time. The actual distance to Earth has nothing to do with it if the object is in the physical space of someone's field of view. Light plays a completely different role if this claim is true (which I believe it is), but you're not seeing it because you don't understand how this mirror image is able to be created on the retina in this model. You are still coming from the afferent point of view which doesn't involve the object at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

An object being present is not a physical mechanism by which light can come to be located on Earth and not on Earth at the same time...let alone "allow" it.

An object being present in one's field of view creates the mechanism by which the eye can create a mirror image, regardless of how far away that object is. This has nothing to do with the speed of light or the idea that photons are teleporting.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So answer the question. If light is located on the retina, either impinging on it, or in the form of a mirror image, you must account for how the light came to be located there...what is the mechanism? How did it get there?

I told you that the actual distance to Earth is not necessary in order to create a mirror image if the object is in visual range. You said this doesn't matter, but it does matter only if the brain is using the eyes as a window. It wouldn't matter if the image was being interpreted in the brain. Somewhere along the line you are not getting it, and you're certainly not understanding that this does not violate physics. Until you do, you will continue to tell me that this is magic because you don't see how this can occur when light hasn't reached Earth yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course it does. Instantaneous causal interactions over any distance completely violates known physics, wrecking causality. Your description of how light behaves completely violates known physics, wrecking our understanding of how light (and by extension most of particle physics, cosmology and astronomy, etc.). You've been told this point repeatedly, and never defended yourself beyond mere assertion.

No Dragar, because this is not about light; this is about the eyes, and the eyes can form a mirror image in this way if the eyes work as Lessans observed. This is the source of the contention, and I'm telling you that this does not violate physics in any way. Until you see this, you will all continue to think this is hokey pokey nonsense.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Dragar, because this is not about light;

Bullshit; you're constantly talking about light. Your nonsense about "mirror images" is just that: nonsense. You're using words you don't understand again. A mirror image is all about light, after all.

But either way, relativity is not about light; it's about spacetime. You can't have instantaneous causal effects at a distance without wrecking causality.

Care to explain this contradiction with one of the most well established thoeries ever created?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have made claims about light, specifically that light can be located on the retina even if it is not located on the retina. Defend or retract these statements.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that. I said that light is at the retina in the efferent account. This is not magic. The problem here is that there is a lack of understanding how this is physically possible in the efferent account.

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

It's physically impossible for light to be at a specific location without coming to be at that location through a physical mechanism.

As you've never once explained this mechanism that would make it physically possible for light that is not on Earth to be located on a retina on Earth, it remains physically impossible...ie magic.

That is merely a statement of your belief, not an explanation of a physical mechanism making bi-location of light possible in opposition to the known laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The actual distance to Earth has nothing to do with it if the object is in the physical space of someone's field of view.

The actual distance has everything to do with the location of light photons. Light has properties and behaves according to the laws of physics and field of view does not effect the properties of light or the laws of physics.

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

Bi-location is not physically possible

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light plays a completely different role if this claim is true (which I believe it is), but you're not seeing it because you don't understand how this mirror image is able to be created on the retina in this model.

I am talking about the behavior and locations of light in your model, specifically in the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon but it is 12:02.

You are supposed to be explaining how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina".

Originally Posted by LadyShea

An object being present is not a physical mechanism by which light can come to be located on Earth and not on Earth at the same time...let alone "allow" it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An object being present in one's field of view creates the mechanism by which the eye can create a mirror image, regardless of how far away that object is.

And what is the mechanism? Explain how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

It's physically impossible for light to be at a specific location without coming to be at that location through a physical mechanism.

As you've never once explained this mechanism that would make it physically possible for light that is not on Earth to be located on a retina on Earth, it remains physically impossible...ie magic.

That is merely a statement of your belief, not an explanation of a physical mechanism making bi-location of light possible in opposition o the known laws of physics.

The actual distance has everything to do with the location of light photons. Light has properties and behaves according to the laws of physics and filed of view does not effect the properties of light or the laws of physics.

You said "light can impinge on the retina even if that same light has not reached Earth". That statement puts the same light in two locations

Location 1: On the retina, on Earth
Location 2: Someplace other than on Earth, so it can't be on the retina since the retina is on Earth

Bi-location is not physically possible

I am talking about the behavior and locations of light in your model, specifically in the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon but it is 12:02.

You are supposed to be explaining how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina".

And what is the mechanism? Explain how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina".

I cannot go through this entire post and make this thread revolve around your confusion. Give me one question at a time and I will answer. That's all I have to say.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Dragar, because this is not about light; this is about the eyes, and the eyes can form a mirror image in this way if the eyes work as Lessans observed. This is the source of the contention, and I'm telling you that this does not violate physics in any way. Until you see this, you will all continue to think this is hokey pokey nonsense.

The eyes cannot negate physical distance or change the laws of physics. If the mirror image is made of light, you are talking about light, if it is made of something else, what is that substance? How is it formed? By what mechanism does it come to be located on the retina?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course it does. Instantaneous causal interactions over any distance completely violates known physics, wrecking causality. Your description of how light behaves completely violates known physics, wrecking our understanding of how light (and by extension most of particle physics, cosmology and astronomy, etc.). You've been told this point repeatedly, and never defended yourself beyond mere assertion.

Noooooo Dragar, how clear can I get? This DOES NOT violate physics in any sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Dragar

But either way, relativity is not about light; it's about spacetime. You can't have instantaneous causal effects at a distance without wrecking causality.

I am not denying effects of light that travels through time, but when it comes to the eyes, it's a different animal.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Care to explain this contradiction with one of the most well established thoeries ever created?

Estabished theories just like established rules are meant to be broken. There is no contradiction if you understand the difference between the speed of light, which is not being contested, and the opposing view of the brain and eyes, which changes how seeing in real time IS not only possible, but ACTUAL IN SPITE OF YOUR RESISTANCE.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot go through this entire post and make this thread revolve around your confusion. Give me one question at a time and I will answer. That's all I have to say.

Weasel, you have nothing else to do, and it's basically one big question, and here it is: Explain how the mirror image is created, of what it is composed, and how that composition came to be at the location "on the retina". Do so in a way that does not violate any known laws of physics, and does not require light to have additional or different properties than it is known to have and you have yourself a plausible idea.

Just saying it exists is not an explanation. Just saying it works is not an explanation. Just saying it does not violate physics does not make it compliant..

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooooo Dragar, how clear can I get? This DOES NOT violate physics in any sense of the word.

I am not denying effects of light that travels through time, but when it comes to the eyes, it's a different animal.

Estabished theories just like established rules are meant to be broken. There is no contradiction if you understand the difference between the speed of light, which is not being contested, and the opposing view of the brain and eyes, which changes how seeing in real time IS not only possible, but ACTUAL IN SPITE OF YOUR RESISTANCE.

So you are ready to mount a challenge to the Theory of Relativity?

And yes, it does violate physics for all the reasons given.