A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light is a mirror image...

And if a raven were a writing desk...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans never explained any mechanism....he explained vision in very childlike terms...we open our eyes and we see. We can't see when it's dark because it must be bright enough to see. We can't see an object when it is too far away or too small to be seen. We see it in real time because we are seeing, not gathering light to be interpreted as images in the brain. Voila! We can see what we can see when we can see it and we can't see what we can't see.

peacegirl has tried and failed to propose a mechanism or model of how it works.

Where in the book did he say we open our eyes and we see. We see only if the conditions of sight are met. If we are blind, we can't see either, even with our eyes wide open. We don't see in real time because we are seeing; that's a cop out LadyShea. And he is not proposing that light is not part of sight, which you seem to be implying by your response. This is a strawman.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the mirror image is made of photons, and this mirror image is located on the retina on Earth AND the light photons are still at the Sun 93 million miles away, you have magic.

Photons cannot "become" a mirror image located someplace other than where they are located.

No one is saying anything different. But the moment we see an object because it meets the requirements, including the Sun being turned on at 12 noon, our gaze is already within the optical range. The farther away the object is, the smaller it becomes. If the Sun was turned on but was too small or far away from us to be seen, then we would not see it because we would be out of optical range.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason you are so confused is due to your belief that light contains an image, or carries a pattern, without the actual object being present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not talking about images or patterns or vision at all (which, stupid strawman again, you really need to stop using that idiotic terminology)

No, it is not idiotic and it is the only way I can put what I'm trying to say into words. It is a pattern of light because it is not the full visual spectrum that is assumed to be traveling through space/time long after the source of that pattern is gone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am talking only about the physical locations of light photons, and when and how they come to be located there in the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon.

If you put the entire world that we see in this optical range; the range that allow us to see and for photons to be at the retina, you might be able to grasp this easier. I don't know at this point if it's even possible.

No one is saying that light is in two places at once.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, you are. The Sun is one location, the eye/retina is another location. The eyes cannot negate physical distance nor change the laws of physics, nor cause bilocation of photons

But the eyes can negate physical distance in the sense that light does not have to travel to the eye to bring an image. You are so quick to make this appear like magic that you will fail to see why this is not magic at all, just as you are failing to understand why Lessans proposition as to why man's will is not free is not a modal fallacy.

[But]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And if a raven were a writing desk...

I know one that goes like ..and if cats were horses, you could ride up the trees. (I think that sounds better in German)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And if a raven were a writing desk...

Perched upon your Bust of Pallas . . . .

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but we're talking about the eyes which can and do put light at the retina even though light has not reached Earth yet.

The eyes are passive. All they can do is receive the light that hits them. They do not have any magical powers by which they can reach out and move distant light or put it anywhere it has not yet traveled to. And if light is at the retina, and that retina is on Earth, then light HAS reached the Earth by definition. You can claim it didn't travel to get there, and you haven't explained how is reached the Earth, but you ARE saying that it has somehow got from the object (the Sun) to the retina on Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes are not changing the properties of light...

That directly contradicts your above previous claim. If the eyes can 'put' light anywhere that the light has not traveled to, then you are changing the properties of light. It is a property of light that it cannot be anywhere without traveling there or being emitted there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Although the light may not have reached Earth yet and therefore has not met the conditions for seeing each other, has met the conditions for seeing far away objects.

Meeting conditions does not explain how or why the satisfaction of these conditions makes what you are claiming physically possible. A set of necessary conditions is still neither a mechanism nor an explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels, but when it comes to sight, it's a different ballgame due to the fact that light does not have to travel to us for us to get a mirror image on the retina.

Light from the Sun which gets to be instantaneously at the retina on Earth without traveling through the intervening space or taking any time to get there is TELEPORTING LIGHT by definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to work this backwards from the eye, not from light... Light is constantly traveling, but assuming that we see the world in real time places any object that we see in the optic range. It also means that the light has to be at the retina the moment we see anything in the material world.

You are again beginning from the assumption that efferent vision is possible and telling us what has to be happening if this is the case, but then stopping at that point and assuming this is happening without explaining how it possibly could be. We know the light has to be at the retina. The problem is you can't get it there in real time without it either coming into existence there, traveling faster than light, or teleporting to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to explain to you that if the conditions are such that it meets the requirements of efferent vision, light is already at the retina only because light is a condition of sight, not a cause (which afferent vision presupposes), therefore it is not necessary for photons to travel with the pattern (which is assumed in afferent vision) to Earth in order for a mirror image to show up on the retina.

Again, that it is necessary for efferent vision does NOT explain how light can be at the retina instantaneously without having traveled there or teleported there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but we're talking about the eyes which can and do put light at the retina even though light has not reached Earth yet.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The eyes are passive. All they can do is receive the light that hits them. They do not have any magical powers by which they can reach out and move distant light or put it anywhere it has not yet traveled to. And if light is at the retina, and that retina is on Earth, then light HAS reached the Earth by definition. You can claim it didn't travel to get there, and you haven't explained how is reached the Earth, but you ARE saying that it has somehow got from the object (the Sun) to the retina on Earth.

This is not about moving distant light Spacemonkey. This is about light that is instantly at the eye because the conditions are met that allow this phenomenon to occur. If the eyes see objects in real time, and light is just a condition, not a cause (it doesn't travel and bring the image to us), then it follows that if the Sun was turned on and we were able to see the object, the light would have to be at the eye by virtue of us being able to see said object. You have to work this backwards in order to understand how this model is possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes are not changing the properties of light...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That directly contradicts your above previous claim. If the eyes can 'put' light anywhere that the light has not traveled to, then you are changing the properties of light. It is a property of light that it cannot be anywhere without traveling there or being emitted there.

The eyes are not putting the light anywhere. The eyes are falling into the optical range anytime we see something in the external world. The only reason Lessans brought up the example of the Sun is to show that we're not waiting for light to travel through space/time in order for an object to be seen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Although the light may not have reached Earth yet and therefore has not met the conditions for seeing each other, has met the conditions for seeing far away objects.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Meeting conditions does not explain how or why the satisfaction of these conditions makes what you are claiming physically possible. A set of necessary conditions is still neither a mechanism nor an explanation.

If you can think about the efferent model as a complete reversal of what you have been taught, you might be able to see the plausibility of real time vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels, but when it comes to sight, it's a different ballgame due to the fact that light does not have to travel to us for us to get a mirror image on the retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light from the Sun which gets to be instantaneously at the retina on Earth without traveling through the intervening space or taking any time to get there is TELEPORTING LIGHT by definition.

You're just not getting it, just like you're not getting why the satisfaction principle proves that we are under a compulsion during every moment of our existence. Light from the Sun gets to be at the retina because of how the eyes work. Light is still traveling at 186,000 miles a second, but this does not automatically make efferent vision impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to work this backwards from the eye, not from light... Light is constantly traveling, but assuming that we see the world in real time places any object that we see in the optic range. It also means that the light has to be at the retina the moment we see anything in the material world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are again beginning from the assumption that efferent vision is possible and telling us what has to be happening if this is the case, but then stopping at that point and assuming this is happening without explaining how it possibly could be. We know the light has to be at the retina. The problem is you can't get it there in real time without it either coming into existence there, traveling faster than light, or teleporting to get there.

That's not true if you're looking at this backwards, which you're not doing. If you think in terms of the eyes alway being in optical range because what we're seeing meets the definition of brightness and size, it is not difficult to understand why light is at the eye instantly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to explain to you that if the conditions are such that it meets the requirements of efferent vision, light is already at the retina only because light is a condition of sight, not a cause (which afferent vision presupposes), therefore it is not necessary for photons to travel with the pattern (which is assumed in afferent vision) to Earth in order for a mirror image to show up on the retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, that it is necessary for efferent vision does NOT explain how light can be at the retina instantaneously without having traveled there or teleported there.

Because light without the object does not bring the pattern to the eye. It does not bounce off of objects and independently travel through space/time with the frequency/wavelength that would allow us to see a past object that no longer exists. That is the big fallacy if Lessans turns out to be right, and it is too easy to dismiss this as hogwash before the verdict is in.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If [the object] was too small or far away from us to be seen, then we would not see it...

C'mon people, this is so simple! If we can see it, it can be seen. If we can't see it, it cannot be seen. Viola! What's so hard to grasp here?! You all just cant stand thinking that Lessans might have understood the see-ability of see-able things!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but we're talking about the eyes which can and do put light at the retina even though light has not reached Earth yet.

So, the eyes create this light, in situ?

Or do they reach out into space, acquire the light somehow, and instantly transport it back to the retina?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about moving distant light Spacemonkey. This is about light that is instantly at the eye because the conditions are met that allow this phenomenon to occur.

Your 'because' is misplaced. Meeting conditions does not explain how light can be instantly at the eye without traveling or teleporting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes see objects in real time, and light is just a condition, not a cause (it doesn't travel and bring the image to us), then it follows that if the Sun was turned on and we were able to see the object, the light would have to be at the eye by virtue of us being able to see said object. You have to work this backwards in order to understand how this model is possible.

I am working backwards. The problem is that I won't just blindly accept that the things which need to be true for efferent vision to be correct really are true just because you need them to be. After working backwards to see what you need to have happening you still need to take the further step of working out how they could be happening.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes are not putting the light anywhere.

Flip-flop! That directly contradicts your last post where you said: "we're talking about the eyes which can and do put light at the retina".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just not getting it... Light from the Sun gets to be at the retina because of how the eyes work. Light is still traveling at 186,000 miles a second, but this does not automatically make efferent vision impossible.

'Because of how the eyes work' is not an explanation. Light from the Sun which is instantly at the distant retina without ever traveling through the intervening distance is TELEPORTING LIGHT by definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true if you're looking at this backwards, which you're not doing. If you think in terms of the eyes alway being in optical range because what we're seeing meets the definition of brightness and size, it is not difficult to understand why light is at the eye instantly.

The question isn't 'why' but 'how'. How does this light from the Sun get from the Sun to the eye in zero time and without traveling? Just saying it is there does not explain how this is possible. Saying that conditions have been met does not explain how it is possible. Saying it has to be true if efferent vision is correct does not explain how it is possible. Telling us to work backwards does not explain how it is possible.

At the exact moment the sun first ignites and begins to emit photons, you have photons present at the distant retina on Earth. The question you still cannot answer - and will never be able to answer - is this: Where were those same photons just one moment (say 0.0001sec) beforehand?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

C'mon people, this is so simple! If we can see it, it can be seen. If we can't see it, it cannot be seen. Viola! What's so hard to grasp here?! You all just cant stand thinking that Lessans might have understood the see-ability of see-able things!

Make fun all you want, because in the end I will get the last laugh.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about moving distant light Spacemonkey. This is about light that is instantly at the eye because the conditions are met that allow this phenomenon to occur.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your 'because' is misplaced. Meeting conditions does not explain how light can be instantly at the eye without traveling or teleporting.

Because you are thinking in terms of afferent vision even if you don't realize it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes see objects in real time, and light is just a condition, not a cause (it doesn't travel and bring the image to us), then it follows that if the Sun was turned on and we were able to see the object, the light would have to be at the eye by virtue of us being able to see said object. You have to work this backwards in order to understand how this model is possible.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am working backwards. The problem is that I won't just blindly accept that the things which need to be true for efferent vision to be correct really are true just because you need them to be. After working backwards to see what you need to have happening you still need to take the further step of working out how they could be happening.

I am not expecting you to blindly accept anything. I am just trying to how you the plausibility of this position.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes are not putting the light anywhere.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Flip-flop! That directly contradicts your last post where you said: "we're talking about the eyes which can and do put light at the retina".

But the eyes are not changing the properties of light Spacemonkey. If the eyes are efferent, it puts light at the eye anytime we see anything in the external world. Light in this account becomes a condition of sight, for without it, we could not see anything in the physical world, but light does not have a pattern that extends beyond the optical range.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just not getting it... Light from the Sun gets to be at the retina because of how the eyes work. Light is still traveling at 186,000 miles a second, but this does not automatically make efferent vision impossible.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

'Because of how the eyes work' is not an explanation. Light from the Sun which is instantly at the distant retina without ever traveling through the intervening distance is TELEPORTING LIGHT by definition.

No it really is not. If you can't accept this explanation, I hope there will eventually be another way to prove that the eyes are efferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true if you're looking at this backwards, which you're not doing. If you think in terms of the eyes alway being in optical range because what we're seeing meets the definition of brightness and size, it is not difficult to understand why light is at the eye instantly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The question isn't 'why' but 'how'. How does this light from the Sun get from the Sun to the eye in zero time and without traveling? Just saying it is there does not explain how this is possible. Saying that conditions have been met does not explain how it is possible. Saying it has to be true if efferent vision is correct does not explain how it is possible. Telling us to work backwards does not explain how it is possible.

If we're not interpreting images in the brain, then we are seeing real objects. If the eyes can are efferent, and the reason we see objects is due to light, then light is just a conduit. It is not traveling toward the eye with that particular wavelength/frequency. I don't know what else I can say to help you see this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At the exact moment the sun first ignites and begins to emit photons, you have photons present at the distant retina on Earth. The question you still cannot answer - and will never be able to answer - is this: Where were those same photons just one moment (say 0.0001sec) beforehand?

They are traveling Spacemonkey, but we're talking about vision and seeing material objects. The Sun is a material object. It emits photons but it has mass. We would be able to see this solar mass as long as it was bright enough in the sky as it was exploding, for then we would get a mirror image on the retina. If it first ignited and it was not bright enough, which is one of the requirements, there would be no light at the retina and we wouldn't see anything.

[naturalist.atheist]

peacegirl, you really need to get help.

[koan]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...
Because light without the object does not bring the pattern to the eye. It does not bounce off of objects and independently travel through space/time with the frequency/wavelength that would allow us to see a past object that no longer exists. That is the big fallacy if Lessans turns out to be right, and it is too easy to dismiss this as hogwash before the verdict is in.

The verdict is already in. You've got your discovery time backwards. Emission theory is outdated. They can't and won't prove Lessans right because he's already been proven wrong. He started with an outdated theory and added stuff to it based on his common day observations and warped an old theory into a more complex version of an old theory and now you are left trying to fill in the gaps and explain it. You've spent ten years trying to convince people that eyes emit seeing rays (efferent vision) that bypass known physics because your dad self educated with science from the days of Plato. He didn't know any better but you should. He's not ahead of his time, he's way behind. His theory would have been interesting and new to Plato.

You're not waiting for science to catch up. They're waiting for you to catch up.

They won't listen to you or give you respect because you haven't given them the respect of studying the existing science first.

Here's what you are up against: They can actually monitor brain activity in response to stimulus so they can show a subject a visual and then, not only see how long it takes for the brain to respond, they see which part of the brain processes the information. It is a clear sequence of events.

To make your situation worse, they have discovered that beautiful faces (and it has been shown that beautiful faces are mathematically consistent) trigger the reward centre of the brain in the same way cocaine and money does. They see and then moments later they respond. Scientists have literally watched the sequence of events. So it's not opinion you are fighting on whether or not eyes are sense organs and whether or not beauty is "real"... you are fighting God/Nature. The brain literally responds to beauty like a drug.
Beautiful Faces Trigger Reward Center of Brain - ABC News

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you are thinking in terms of afferent vision even if you don't realize it.

Still the same copout excuse. Thinking in efferent rather than afferent terms does not affect what constitutes an explanation. Meeting conditions is not an explanation. You still have no explanation for how light from the object can be instantly at the retina without traveling and without teleporting. All you can do is keep repeating that the light has to be there instantly if efferent vision is true. But we all know that already, and you still can't explain how this can actually happen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not expecting you to blindly accept anything. I am just trying to how you the plausibility of this position.

But you aren't. All you're doing is telling us what has to happen without explaining how it could happen. How does light get from one place to another in no time and without teleporting? How is that plausible? How can it happen?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it really is not.

Yes, it really is. This is a simple function of what your words MEAN. Light from one place that gets to be instantly at another place without traveling there is TELEPORTING light. By definition. That is what the word means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are traveling Spacemonkey...

The fuck? The photons that DIDN'T travel to get there were previously TRAVELING to their present location? And were doing so BEFORE the Sun had even emitted them?

Are you serious? That is flat-out batshit insane. Do you even think about what you are writing, or do you not even care how idiotic your answers are, just so long as you can continue your charade of posting in this 'joke' of a forum?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The mechanism is efferent vision itself. You may think this is irrelevant, but it's the only reason that explains this phenomenon.

That's why discussing it this way won't work. There needs to be other empirical tests, otherwise, this knowledge will remain in obscurity.

A mirror image is not teleportation.

Photons are always being replaced. I told you this account does not violate physics.

Are you serious? That is flat-out batshit insane. Do you even think about what you are writing, or do you not even care how idiotic your answers are, just so long as you can continue your charade of posting in this 'joke' of a forum?

You don't understand. Photons travel, they never stop, but they do not have a pattern in them beyond the optical range. Only when we view the object does the pattern show up at the retina. Why don't you get what I'm saying? You are the one that is failing to grasp what I'm talking about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mechanism is efferent vision itself.

Horseshit. Efferent vision itself still has no mechanism to explain how light from the object can get to be at the distant retina without traveling there and without teleporting there. You are evading again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why discussing it this way won't work. There needs to be other empirical tests, otherwise, this knowledge will remain in obscurity.

That's right. Discussing the insuperable problems with your ideas won't work for you, so you seek to instead evade the questions you cannot address. Again, how does light get from one place to another in no time and without teleporting?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is not teleportation.

For your conception of a 'mirror image', that is exactly what it is. Your incoherent notion of a mirror image entails light from a distant object getting from that object to the retina in zero time and without traveling the intervening distance. That is teleportation. By definition.

This is not the case for what the rest of the world means by 'mirror image', because for the rest of us a mirror image is composed of traveling light that takes time to get to any place that it ever gets to be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons are always being replaced. I told you this account does not violate physics.

You don't understand. Photons travel, they never stop, but they do not have a pattern in them beyond the optical range. Only when we view the object does the pattern show up at the retina. Why don't you get what I'm saying? You are the one that is failing to grasp what I'm talking about.

So again, the question is this: With respect to the specific photons comprising the mirror image at the retina at the very moment the Sun first ignites, where were these photons at the immediately preceding moment, say 0.0001sec beforehand?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where in the book did he say we open our eyes and we see. We see only if the conditions of sight are met. If we are blind, we can't see either, even with our eyes wide open. We don't see in real time because we are seeing; that's a cop out LadyShea. And he is not proposing that light is not part of sight, which you seem to be implying by your response. This is a strawman.

So what did he say? What mechanism did he offer other than we can see stuff that can be seen in real time?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the eyes can negate physical distance in the sense that light does not have to travel to the eye to bring an image.

Light does have to travel to the eye, or come into existence at the eye, in order for light photons to be impinging on the retina.

Nobody is talking about images. I am only talking about photons and where they are located and when they come to be located there and how.

[LadyShea]

Because light without the object does not bring the pattern to the eye. It does not bounce off of objects and independently travel through space/time with the frequency/wavelength that would allow us to see a past object that no longer exists.

Why do you continue to assert that your model does not violate the laws of physics, nor require that light has different properties than it is know and proven to have, when your model clearly requires the laws of physics and the properties of light to be very different than they are?

What you wrote above is a complete violation of light physics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes see objects in real time, and light is just a condition, not a cause (it doesn't travel and bring the image to us), then it follows that if the Sun was turned on and we were able to see the object, the light would have to be at the eye by virtue of us being able to see said object. You have to work this backwards in order to understand how this model is possible.

The light is being emitted by the Sun, so is at the Sun at noon when the Sun is turned on. It is somewhere between the Sun and Earth for 8 minutes as it travels. Light travels, it is an immutable property of light. Things that are traveling are physically moving through physical locations as they travel, this is a law of physics.

How does it get to the eye on Earth at noon if not by traveling? It's not possible without a physical mechanism, no matter how you work it.

How does your butt get to the chair to sit on it? Work backwards from your ass. And yes, it is identical. Light has physical properties just like your body. It has to get to places to be at places.

You don't just say your butt has to be in the chair by virtue of you sitting in the chair and leave it at that. That's a necessary condition of you sitting on a chair, but it doesn't explain how you got to the chair from someplace else.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes are efferent, it puts light at the eye anytime we see anything in the external world.

"Puts" is a verb. It means something is physically placed in a specific location by some outside force. It is a mechanism by which something comes to be located somewhere.

How does that mechanism work in this scenario? What outside force is doing this placement of light at the eye instantaneously and most importantly how?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light from the Sun gets to be at the retina because of how the eyes work.

So you are asserting that they eyes change the physical properties of light allowing light to violate the laws of physics by teleporting millions of miles to impinge on retinas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it really is not.

Yes, it really is. That is the definition of teleportation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Sun is a material object. It emits photons but it has mass. We would be able to see this solar mass as long as it was bright enough in the sky

What causes the solar mass to be bright? The light it is emitting. Without photons being emitted, we would see nothing.

Why can't we see black holes that have much more mass than our Sun, and are literally surrounded by very large stars emitting tremendous amounts of light?


In order for Lessans idea to be plausible, you must explain how the conditions necessary for efferent vision can plausibly be met within the framework of the laws of physics. Just stating the conditions over and over explains nothing.

[ceptimus]

Not understanding light isn't a crime. No one really understands it. We know that photons of light sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves and that when the photons pass through slits they do things that seem impossible in terms of 'normal' objects: we can show that individual photons can only pass through one slit, but they behave as though they have passed through all the slits at once (or at least 'felt out' all of the possible routes before deciding which way to go).

The great Issac Newton said that light seemed to have, 'fits of easy transmission and reflection' - that was his way of trying to reconcile both the particle and wave nature of light. Newton knew he was on dodgy ground and phrased those parts of his writings in terms of questions rather than statements. Later scientists joked that light behaved like particles on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and like waves on the other days.

But here is the difference between peacegirl and Newton. Newton was able to separate out fact from theory.

When light shines past an opaque object it casts shadows; when light passes though a lens or pinhole onto a screen it produces an image; when light shines through raindrops it creates a rainbow... these are facts and we don't get to change them, no matter how strongly we argue.

Then there are our theories to explain the facts. Today we have a very accurate theory of light - we do the mathematics and the theory correctly predicts all the observed behaviour of light - even the weird behaviour when it passes through slits or half-silvered mirrors or polarizing filters. Our theory may not have a satisfying easy-to-understand explanation of why light is like that, but it does correctly explain all the observed facts.

Is our theory correct and complete? No. Is our theory likely to be replaced by a better, even more accurate, theory in the future? Almost certainly. Will the facts change when the theory changes? No.

The problem with the Lessans/peacegirl theory is that it requires the facts to change: peacegirl likes to say things like, 'Future empirical observations will show that he was correct.' No. No. No! That's not going to happen. We know that the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter prove that we don't see Jupiter in real time; we know that we can accurately land robots on distant planets and so on. Future empirical observations will enable us to measure these phenomena more accurately but they're never going to change these facts.

Any theory that requires the facts to change is, from a scientific point of view, useless. You might get away with new theories like that if you're a politician, a cleric, maybe even a historian, but if you're a scientist you'll abandon the theory. Lessans' efferent vision theory requires that many well-established facts are incorrect, so it's wrong and will never ever be right. In science and in reality, facts trump theories every time.

[ceptimus]

Duplicate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light does have to travel to the eye, or come into existence at the eye, in order for light photons to be impinging on the retina.

Nobody is talking about images. I am only talking about photons and where they are located and when they come to be located there and how.

No, not with efferent vision LadyShea. Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Not understanding light isn't a crime. No one really understands it. We know that photons of light sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves and that when the photons pass through slits they do things that seem impossible in terms of 'normal' objects: we can show that individual photons can only pass through one slit, but they behave as though they have passed through all the slits at once (or at least 'felt out' all of the possible routes before deciding which way to go).

The great Issac Newton said that light seemed to have, 'fits of easy transmission and reflection' - that was his way of trying to reconcile both the particle and wave nature of light. Newton knew he was on dodgy ground and phrased those parts of his writings in terms of questions rather than statements. Later scientists joked that light behaved like particles on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and like waves on the other days.

But here is the difference between peacegirl and Newton. Newton was able to separate out fact from theory.

When light shines past an opaque object it casts shadows; when light passes though a lens or pinhole onto a screen it produces an image; when light shines through raindrops it creates a rainbow... these are facts and we don't get to change them, no matter how strongly we argue.

Then there are our theories to explain the facts. Today we have a very accurate theory of light - we do the mathematics and the theory correctly predicts all the observed behaviour of light - even the weird behaviour when it passes through slits or half-silvered mirrors or polarizing filters. Our theory may not have a satisfying easy-to-understand explanation of why light is like that, but it does correctly explain all the observed facts.

Is our theory correct and complete? No. Is our theory likely to be replaced by a better, even more accurate, theory in the future? Almost certainly. Will the facts change when the theory changes? No.

The problem with the Lessans/peacegirl theory is that it requires the facts to change: peacegirl likes to say things like, 'Future empirical observations will show that he was correct.' No. No. No! That's not going to happen. We know that the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter prove that we don't see Jupiter in real time; we know that we can accurately land robots on distant planets and so on. Future empirical observations will enable us to measure these phenomena more accurately but they're never going to change these facts.

Any theory that requires the facts to change is, from a scientific point of view, useless. You might get away with new theories like that if you're a politician, a cleric, maybe even a historian, but if you're a scientist you'll abandon the theory. Lessans' efferent vision theory requires that many well-established facts are incorrect, so it's wrong and will never ever be right. In science and in reality, facts trump theories every time.

You're just not getting that sight is in a completely different category than how we measure and use light for various things. Until you see that there is no conflict, and that he is not trying to negate light physics, you will continue to mix these two phenomenons mixed up.