A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They have to get there, because photons cannot be somewhere without getting to be there somehow. That is an impossibility.

This is the claim you are being asked to explain. How is the mirror image "there"? Where is "there" and how do the photons come to be located "there"?

We're not waiting for the light to reach us through space/time. If an object is in our field of view, and we see that object because the light surrounding it is bright enough (which is a requirement for sight), then we know that the light is instantly at the retina as a mirror image because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise. We are not waiting for light to reach us. Our eyes are already in the optical range anytime we see anything in the material world. The pattern (frequency/wavelength) is instantly at the retina as an upside down mirror image because efferent vision is a reverse process. You have to think light and object as one unit, not light as separate from the object.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're not waiting for the light to reach us through space/time. If an object is in our field of view, and we see that object because the light surrounding the object is bright enough (which is a requirement), then we know that the light is instantly at the retina as a mirror image because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise. We are not waiting for light to reach us. Our eyes are already in the optical range anytime we anything in the material world. The pattern (frequency/wavelength) is instantly at the retina as an upside down mirror image because efferent vision is a reverse process. You have to think light and object as one unit, not light as separate from the object.

Once again, you have light located at the retina, but no mechanism for how it gets there. Light cannot just be somewhere without getting there. Light is separate from the object. This is a fact that must be explained in your model. You keep saying light has the same known properties and the laws of physics hold in efferent vision, then making statements that require light to have different properties and that there be other laws of physics instead.

What part are you not understanding? You keep failing to address this simple point. It makes you look like a dishonest weasel, or a very stupid person. If you are neither, then answer the question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So what would that look like?

We don't see mass, but we see matter which is physical substance. The Sun looks exactly as we see it. Everyone perceives it differently but to me it looks like a fiery ball in the sky.

[Vivisectus]

We're not waiting for the light to reach us through space/time. If an object is in our field of view, and we see that object because the light surrounding it is bright enough (which is a requirement for sight), then we know that the light is instantly at the retina as a mirror image because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise. We are not waiting for light to reach us. Our eyes are already in the optical range anytime we see anything in the material world. The pattern (frequency/wavelength) is instantly at the retina as an upside down mirror image because efferent vision is a reverse process. You have to think light and object as one unit, not light as separate from the object.

Classic PG gobbledygook. Roughly translated: If the idea of efferent vision is correct, then it is not incorrect, so it works somehow.

It is on a par with: The book must be correct, because my daddy was a huge genius, so if he had made a mistake, he would have spotted it, so it must be right. Which, incidentally, she actually said at one stage.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again, you have light located at the retina, but no mechanism for how it gets there. Light cannot just be somewhere without getting there. Light is separate from the object. This is a fact that must be explained in your model. You keep saying light has the same known properties and the laws of physics hold in efferent vision, then making statements that require light to have different properties and that there be other laws of physics instead.

What part are you not understanding? You keep failing to address this simple point. It makes you look like a dishonest weasel, or a very stupid person. If you are neither, then answer the question.

That's why this conversation is at a dead end. You are failing to understand that we are not separating light fromt the object if the eyes are efferent. That's why the second we see an object, we're already in the optical range. You are separating photons from the object, as if photons bring the image all by itself whether the object is present or not. In the afferent view, it makes no difference. In the efferent view, it makes all the difference. That's where you're getting confused and I can't make it any clearer. And please stop calling me names just because you don't get it. It's such a cop-out. You are very difficult sometimes.

[LadyShea]

Light is separate from the object because it is. This is a fact. It doesn't matter which direction we see.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to think light and object as one unit, not light as separate from the object.

And here is where you stray from the known laws of physics, light and an object are not one unit. Light (Photons) are either reflected from an object or they are absorbed by the object. These 2 possibilities are what is known by physics and to be accepted you must explain how it can be otherwise, and hopefully demonstrate it.

It would also be nice if you would explain how the brain/eye can be instantly in proximity with the image of the object, at the object, over great distances.

[LadyShea]

as if photons bring the image all by itself

Nobody is talking about images being broughten or carried. We are talking about photons and what properties they have and what laws they follow.

Photons travel. Photons are separate from the source that is emitting or reflecting them.

They cannot suddenly appear on distant restinas or camera film, yet you have the located there instantly. How did they get there?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't see mass, but we see matter which is physical substance. The Sun looks exactly as we see it. Everyone perceives it differently but to me it looks like a fiery ball in the sky.

If the Sun was not emitting visible light, what would the matter look like?

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some we have detected are very large. They are surrounded by huge orbiting stars so plenty of light is present in the area. We can see things even further away and we can see the stars that are orbiting them so they are close enough.

And, they have mass. The supermassive ones have lots and lots of mass. Way more mass than our Sun and much more than the stars that are orbiting them.

So, why can't we see them? Which requirement for seeing is missing? Where does light need to be located in order to be "present" anyway?

Why is escaping light necessary to see mass? You said we see the Sun's mass, not it's light, correct? Why can't we see a black hole's mass? Isn't the light from the hundreds of stars orbiting the black hole enough light "present"? If not, why not??

That was my whole point. Why do we see the Sun's mass but not a black hole's mass?

We ONLY see light from the Sun, not it's mass.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Many years ago there was a concensus between scientists that people got pregnant from a snake bite.

Thanks, that was great. I mean the typo.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what you think. I don't care about your dares either. There was a time that people believed babies were born from a snake bite. If you don't believe me, research it. I'm not going to work any harder than you. This was the sign of the times. Why are you so resistant to the point that you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and you call yourself a scientific investigator?

You are a liar and an idiot. And a world-class hypocrite.

And you are an asshole.

Oh, and for the record, I did research it.

If that's true, what did you find? If you looked everywhere, what are you doing here?

In Ancient Greece, it was a common folk belief that a snake's bite could trigger a young girl's first menstruation. And it was a folk belief that women could get pregnant from copulating with snakes.


At no time was there ever any kind of scientific consensus that snakebite causes pregnancy.

At no time in Ancient Greece? At no time at all? What was the "scientific" consensus then? I think I remember that universal quantification is one of the cardinal sins, especially when creationists do it.

Given your total ignorance of all things science-related, I supposed that I shouldn't be surprised that I actually have to point out that folklore is not the same thing as science.

Explain the difference. In detail. Ready?

Go.

[thedoc]

Sorry Peacegirl, but it appears that your whole world is going down the drain. You have made numerous claims that you can neither support or explain. The coming 'Golden Age', which is an undeniable law of Nature and God, for some reason, that is also unexplained, needs everyone to agree to and sign off on to go into effect. It seems odd that we need to accept this undeniable law of nature for it to be in effect. It's almost like saying it is an undeniable law that all living things must eat to live, but if you don't agree you can live anyhow without eating. You need to agree with a law of natuere for it to work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again, you have light located at the retina, but no mechanism for how it gets there. Light cannot just be somewhere without getting there. Light is separate from the object. This is a fact that must be explained in your model. You keep saying light has the same known properties and the laws of physics hold in efferent vision, then making statements that require light to have different properties and that there be other laws of physics instead.

What part are you not understanding? You keep failing to address this simple point. It makes you look like a dishonest weasel, or a very stupid person. If you are neither, then answer the question.

There are no unusual properties. The fact that light is believed to be the only thing necessary to form an image on the retina, without the object, is fallacious, and that's why you will never understand why the EFFERENT account allows this phenomenon to occur. And this account does not violate the laws of physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're not waiting for the light to reach us through space/time. If an object is in our field of view, and we see that object because the light surrounding it is bright enough (which is a requirement for sight), then we know that the light is instantly at the retina as a mirror image because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise. We are not waiting for light to reach us. Our eyes are already in the optical range anytime we see anything in the material world. The pattern (frequency/wavelength) is instantly at the retina as an upside down mirror image because efferent vision is a reverse process. You have to think light and object as one unit, not light as separate from the object.

Again, that efferent vision requires light to be at the retina instantly does not make it possible, or excuse you from explaining how it gets there.

And if efferent vision does not separate light from the object, then it is wrong. Because light is separate from objects. They are not one unit.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can't get past questions you refuse to answer. If the light is already there, then how did it get there? If it didn't get there, was it always there or did it come into existence there?

So are these mirror image photons at the retina then not light from the Sun? 'From the Sun' means they were emitted from the Sun's surface, so if they are now at the retina then they had to somehow get there to the retina from the Sun's surface. Anything from A and now at B had to get from A to B. That's just what the words 'from' and 'get' mean. If they didn't have to get there, then these photons did not originate from the Sun, and were either always there at the retina or came into existence there as newly existing photons. Which is it?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the Sun was not emitting visible light, what would the matter look like?

We wouldn't be able to see the Sun if there was no light being emitted, just as we need light to see any kind of matter. Light is a necessary condition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, that efferent vision requires light to be at the retina instantly does not make it possible, or excuse you from explaining how it gets there.

And if efferent vision does not separate light from the object, then it is wrong. Because light is separate from objects. They are not one unit.

But it is at the retina. The distance that you are thinking from the celestial body to Earth is millions of miles. From the eyes to the object, it's not millions of miles. It's a relatively small distance, and our eyes fall within that optical range.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

In the case of efferent vision, nothing has to get anywhere. You are separating the photons from the object, which is causing the problem. When we see an object in real time, it is one unit. You cannot separate light from the object. It is true that light is always traveling and if the Sun exploded it would take 8 minutes for that light to get to Earth, or from A to B, but when it comes to sight it's a different story altogether because the eyes are instantly within the optical range as long as the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is at the retina. The distance that you are thinking from the celestial body to Earth is millions of miles. From the eyes to the object, it's not millions of miles. It's a relatively small distance, and our eyes fall within that optical range.

The distance from the Sun to the eyes on Earth is around 90 million miles. That is not something that can change under efferent vision. If efferent vision claims this distance is not millions of miles then it is factually wrong.

Nor does this post address either of the points you were replying to. You need to explain how the light at the retina gets there, and you need to acknowledge that light is separate from objects.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the case of efferent vision, nothing has to get anywhere. You are separating the photons from the object, which is causing the problem. When we see an object in real time, it is one unit. You cannot separate light from the object. It is true that light is always traveling and if the Sun exploded it would take 8 minutes for that light to get to Earth, or from A to B, but when it comes to sight it's a different story altogether because the eyes are instantly within the optical range as long as the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen.

Please stop weaseling and answer the actual content of my post. If efferent vision does not treat light and objects as separate, then it is WRONG. They ARE separate. The only way for photons instantly at the retina to not have to get there is if they are either always there or if they come into existence there. So which is it?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't see mass, but we see matter which is physical substance. The Sun looks exactly as we see it. Everyone perceives it differently but to me it looks like a fiery ball in the sky.

No, what would it look like to just see light from the Sun?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, what would it look like to just see light from the Sun?

If I wasn't looking directly at the Sun, light would appear as daylight. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please stop weaseling and answer the actual content of my post. If efferent vision does not treat light and objects as separate, then it is WRONG. They ARE separate. The only way for photons instantly at the retina to not have to get there is if they are either always there or if they come into existence there. So which is it?

Light and objects are not separate in efferent vision in the sense that light does not bring the image to the eye through space and time independent of the object. The very minute you say photons are red which come first, and then come blue, you've negated the efferent account because you've separated the photons from the object that is seen. If it's a red object, the non-absorbed photons will be red at the retina; if the object suddenly turns blue, we will not see red. The non-absorbed light will be blue at the retina. The only way this will ever be resolved is to show you that light does not have to reach Earth in order for it to show up as a mirror image on the retina in the efferent account. The other way is to test other aspects of his claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it is at the retina. The distance that you are thinking from the celestial body to Earth is millions of miles. From the eyes to the object, it's not millions of miles. It's a relatively small distance, and our eyes fall within that optical range.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The distance from the Sun to the eyes on Earth is around 90 million miles. That is not something that can change under efferent vision. If efferent vision claims this distance is not millions of miles then it is factually wrong.

No one has ever denied the actual distance between the Sun and Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nor does this post address either of the points you were replying to. You need to explain how the light at the retina gets there, and you need to acknowledge that light is separate from objects.

As long as you say "get there", there's no basis for communication because you believe that photons have to travel to the eye. I'm saying the photons are already at the eye the minute we can see an object. Light only provides the bridge to see that object. The wavelength/frequency does not bounce and travel through space/time, although white light does travel.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light and objects are not separate in efferent vision in the sense that light does not bring the image to the eye through space and time independent of the object. The very minute you say photons are red which come first, and then come blue, you've negated the efferent account because you've separated the photons from the object that is seen. If it's a red object, the non-absorbed photons will be red at the retina; if the object suddenly turns blue, we will not see red. The non-absorbed light will be blue at the retina. The only way this will ever be resolved is to show you that light does not have to reach Earth in order for it to show up as a mirror image on the retina in the efferent account. The other way is to test other aspects of his claim.

Again, please stop weaseling and address what I am actually saying. I have put your problematic claim in bold. You are stating light is instantly at the retina, but you still aren't explaining how this is possible. When I asked you how it gets there, you said it doesn't have to. But that would mean it is not light from the Sun. So where did it come from? And the only way for this light not to have to get where it is, is if it is either always at the retina, or if it came into existence there. If this light previously existed, and previously existed anywhere other than at the retina, then it does have to get from there to where it is now located.

Please at least try to address and answer what I am saying to you.