A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am sure you are copping out with your weaseling. Answer the questions, that will help decipher the efferent account, which you currently have as something from Wonderland.

Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time.

Are there photons located on retinas at 12:00:00? If yes, where did they come from? How did they get there?
Are there photons located on the Sun just being emitted at 12:00:00?

I didn't come back to get into this again. Light does not have to travel to Earth for light to interact with the retina in the efferent model. When we see an object, that indicates the photons are already at the retina. If the Sun was turned on, we would see it instantly but we would not see each other for 8 minutes. Anything that is seen in the external world indicates that the object is already within our optical range, but this does not mean that this wavelength/frequency bounces and travels. Light is a condition of sight; it does not cause sight. It allows the object to be seen in real time; it does not travel through space/time without the event or object present in some form. I told you that this explanation is no worse than the explanation given by scientists that try to explain the afferent model.

[Spacemonkey]

And she's back already. That didn't take long, and was predicted by everyone.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I couldn't help from coming back because you're so utterly mistaken koan.

No, that is not the reason.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused as to what efferent vision allows that you think you are right in your condemnation. But you are not right, and for you to act as if you do is a total sham LadyShea. Just admit that you aren't sure, and that would be a great leap toward deciphering what is actually true from what is THOUGHT to be true.

She's not as confused about efferent vision as you are. Have you worked out whether or not your instant mirror image photons came from the Sun yet? Will you admit that YOU are not sure about efferent vision and how it is supposed to work?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those questions again:-

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I will bet anything you care to name that you are not done at all, and that you will be back here posting again regularly. These questions will still be here waiting for you when you come back.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't come back to get into this again. Light does not have to travel to Earth for light to interact with the retina in the efferent model.

Then light has completely different properties in the efferent model. Why do you keep denying that this is the case?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a condition of sight; it does not cause sight. It allows the object to be seen in real time; it does not travel through space/time without the event or object present in some form.

In this scenario the object is the Sun, and it is present.

And light does travel through space and time. That is a known and empirically observable property of light.

So, please admit that for efferent vision to be true, light must have completely different properties than it is known and observed to have.

Also, you ignored the question:

Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't come back to get into this again.

Bad luck. So long as you are here you will be expected to answer questions about your claims. As long as you keep trying to defend efferent vision you will be expected to answer our questions about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does not have to travel to Earth for light to interact with the retina in the efferent model.

And yet the light does have to be there at the retina, so if it didn't travel there then where did it come from and how did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When we see an object, that indicates the photons are already at the retina.

Sure, but where did those photons come from and how did they get to the retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was turned on, we would see it instantly but we would not see each other for 8 minutes.

Yes, that's what Lessans said, even though you spent the last few days disagreeing with him by suggesting that the newly ignited Sun might not be bright enough to be seen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anything that is seen in the external world indicates that the object is already within our optical range, but this does not mean that this wavelength/frequency bounces and travels.

Wavelength/frequency is a property of all light. Light bounces off objects that it hits and travels away from them. Light cannot go anywhere without its wavelength/frequency.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a condition of sight; it does not cause sight. It allows the object to be seen in real time; it does not travel through space/time without the event or object present in some form.

So if the object is there, and light hits it and bounces off to begin traveling away from it, what happens to that traveling light when the object disappears? Does the traveling light just wink out of existence at the same time as the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that this explanation is no worse than the explanation given by scientists that try to explain the afferent model.

Yes, you've claimed this, but unfortunately it is obviously not true. Efferent vision is nowhere near as plausible. For starters, afferent vision can explain all of the evidence we've raised against efferent vision, and for which your best response has been that something else must be going on there but you don't know what. And the afferent account does not posit light anywhere without being able to explain where it came from or how it got there.


Those questions again:-

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that this explanation is no worse than the explanation given by scientists that try to explain the afferent model.

Um, it's much much worse because you have no empirical observations indicating efferent vision is at work, you can't explain existing empirical observations, and you have offered no plausible or possible mechanisms.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Take a simple magnifying glass and place it between a light and a flat surface. Most likely, you'll start out by seeing a blurry spot of light. If you move the magnifying glass back and forth, you'll see the spot of light changes from being blurry to being a reversed image of the light source.

Could you explain to me, in terms of "efferent vision", what it is I'm seeing on that flat surface? In the "efferent vision" model, why is the image sometimes blurry, sometimes a reversed image in the light source? In the "efferent model" why is the image reversed? In the "efferent model" is the magnifying glass doing anything other than bending light?

I'd be curious is you can even explain this phenomenon, because in the scientific model of vision, this is explained perfectly.

Have you given any thought about how Lessans's ideas apply here? No one will take you seriously until phenomena like this are readily explainable in Lessan's model, because this is explained perfectly by the scientific model of vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does not have to travel to Earth for light to interact with the retina in the efferent model. When we see an object, that indicates the photons are already at the retina. If the Sun was turned on, we would see it instantly but we would not see each other for 8 minutes. Anything that is seen in the external world indicates that the object is already within our optical range, but this does not mean that this wavelength/frequency bounces and travels. Light is a condition of sight; it does not cause sight. It allows the object to be seen in real time; it does not travel through space/time without the event or object present in some form.
I told you that this explanation is no worse than the explanation given by scientists that try to explain the afferent model.

Then you need to explain how the retina and the photons at the sun, when newley ignited, can be in close proximity over 93 million miles.

Actually all the emperical evidence now demonstrates that light does travel through space and time, even if the object no longer exists. Astronomy can clearly demonstrate this.

The explination of efferent vision is totally lacking when compaired with the emperical evidence gathered from many years of observation and experimentation. Afferent vision is in complete accord with this evidence and observations of the real world.

Contrary to your's and Lessans opinion of scientists, any scientist worth his salt, would jump at the chance to demonstrate that information could be transmited faster than the speed of light. This has been a major goal of many scientists for many years and they are still trying. Efferent vision would be just the thing to make a scientist world famous, a celebrety, and guarentee a Nobel prize. If there were any chance that it were true, the whole scientific comunity would be putting all their effort into proving it possible, but so far every test and experiment points to afferent vision being true.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that this explanation is no worse than the explanation given by scientists that try to explain the afferent model.

This is complete and total 'Bullshit'. The afferent vision model works perfectly, and the efferent model doesn't work at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And she's back already. That didn't take long, and was predicted by everyone.

No, that is not the reason.

Spacemonkey, you are not a diagnostician. I came online and saw what koan wrote. She's so mistaken that I felt I had to correct her. I am not staying that long. Oh my gosh, do you sit around waiting for me all day? You seem to follow my every move.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused as to what efferent vision allows that you think you are right in your condemnation. But you are not right, and for you to act as if you do is a total sham LadyShea. Just admit that you aren't sure, and that would be a great leap toward deciphering what is actually true from what is THOUGHT to be true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She's not as confused about efferent vision as you are. Have you worked out whether or not your instant mirror image photons came from the Sun yet? Will you admit that YOU are not sure about efferent vision and how it is supposed to work?

Bump.

I told you that when the eyes are looking outward, the space between the object (which is large enough to be seen, and bright enough to be seen), is not millions of miles. All you're doing is thinking about traveling photons that have to cross this great distance, and I'm telling you that, although light energy travels, the mirror image shows up because of how efferent vision works. You keep thinking that the blue frequency travels before the red and, therefore, according to physical laws, the blue photons will strike the eye first, but you're reasoning is inaccurate. What more can I say Spacemonkey? Anyway, I'm not here just for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, it's much much worse because you have no empirical observations indicating efferent vision is at work, you can't explain existing empirical observations, and you have offered no plausible or possible mechanisms.

I have observed that dogs cannot recognize their owners from a picture or a video for that matter. This can easily be empirically tested, not that this is absolute proof that the eyes are not a sense organ, but it is a beginning. This bickering back and forth is not going to change anything LadyShea. You believe that the deep Hubble proves that we see the past, and I don't. More testing has to be done. End of sentence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Have you given any thought about how Lessans's ideas apply here? No one will take you seriously until phenomena like this are readily explainable in Lessan's model, because this is explained perfectly by the scientific model of vision.

I have never given much thought to this because the physics of light doesn't change just because of the direction we see. It seems to me that this phenomenon has to do with the focal point or focal length but how light works using mirrors or magnifying glasses has no bearing on the validity of this model.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you are not a diagnostician. I came online and saw what koan wrote. She's so mistaken that I felt I had to correct her. I am not staying that long. Oh my gosh, do you sit around waiting for me all day? You seem to follow my every move.

I told you that when the eyes are looking outward, the space between the object (which is large enough to be seen, and bright enough to be seen), is not millions of miles.

But it is millions of miles. Those miles exist and can be measured. You have them being magically removed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you're doing is thinking about traveling photons that have to cross this great distance, and I'm telling you that, although light energy travels, the mirror image shows up because of how efferent vision works.

How does it work? How are these millions of miles negated? You've never explained it at all, only asserted that it is so.


Also, you are still ignoring the questions.
Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have observed that dogs cannot recognize their owners from a picture or a video for that matter.

Even if that is absolutely true, it is just as easily explained by the standard model of vision as it much more likely related to cognitive processing differences.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This can easily be empirically tested, not that this is absolute proof that the eyes are not a sense organ, but it is a beginning.

There is no reason to think it has nothing to do with the eyes at all. You think it does because Lessans thought it did. There is nothing about that observation that brings the standard model into question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You believe that the deep Hubble proves that we see the past, and I don't. More testing has to be done. End of sentence.

You believe things on faith alone, and I don't, so why are you still trying to convince me to take Lessans word for anything when he had no evidence?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that when the eyes are looking outward, the space between the object (which is large enough to be seen, and bright enough to be seen), is not millions of miles.

The space between the object and what is not millions of miles? The retina is on Earth, 93 million miles away from the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you're doing is thinking about traveling photons that have to cross this great distance...

No, I'm asking you where the photons came from and how they got to the retina if they didn't travel across the intervening distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and I'm telling you that, although light energy travels, the mirror image shows up because of how efferent vision works.

'How efferent vision works' is not an explanation. You don't know how efferent vision works. How it works is precisely what we are asking you about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep thinking that the blue frequency travels before the red and, therefore, according to physical laws, the blue photons will strike the eye first, but you're reasoning is inaccurate.

I'm not saying anything about blue and red photons or which would arrive first. I'm simply asking you where your mirror image photons came from and how they got to the retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What more can I say Spacemonkey?

You could answer my questions. Here they are again:-

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have observed that dogs cannot recognize their owners from a picture or a video for that matter.

Then describe, in detail, how these observations were conducted. What were the controls in place, and how was the experiment conducted. what was the nature of the photograph, and how was it presented to the dog in the experiment. If these were random, uncontroled, events, then they are meaningless in a scientific setting. Without proper controls, no useful information can be gained from them.

More likely you are just lying again to cover your ass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then light has completely different properties in the efferent model. Why do you keep denying that this is the case?

Sorry, but light does not have completely different properties in the efferent model. Light energy travels; photons travel. The only thing that has changed is the direction we see. If it is true that the brain looks through the eyes, as a window to the world, that is what allows light to be at the retina even though light hasn't reached Earth yet. That's the crux of the problem; demonstrating that these photons are able to provide a mirror image at the retina, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second. You have to bear in mind that, according to this version of sight, the distance between the eye and the object is not as significant as the conditions that are required for us to see any substance in the external world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a condition of sight; it does not cause sight. It allows the object to be seen in real time; it does not travel through space/time without the event or object present in some form.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In this scenario the object is the Sun, and it is present.

And light does travel through space and time. That is a known and empirically observable property of light.

So, please admit that for efferent vision to be true, light must have completely different properties than it is known and observed to have.

No, I won't admit that because light does not have to have completely different properties. None whatsoever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, you ignored the question:

Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time.

Just like seeing a Supernova, if the Sun is large enough and bright enough when it first turned on (again, if it is not bright enough it will take time for us to see it; but this is not the same thing as seeing the Sun after the photons reach Earth) we will see it in real time because the conditions that are required for sight have been met, although the light being emitted from the Sun won't reach Earth for 8 minutes during which time we will be able to see each other.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but light does not have completely different properties in the efferent model.

But it must, for you are positing light at a location that is not a light source and which the light has not traveled to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it is true that the brain looks through the eyes, as a window to the world, that is what allows light to be at the retina even though light hasn't reached Earth yet.

The only way anything can be at X without reaching X is if it starts at X. Are you suggesting that the mirror image photons are newly existing photons that came into existence at the retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the crux of the problem; demonstrating that these photons are able to provide a mirror image at the retina, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

Yes, that is the problem you are refusing to address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just like seeing a Supernova, if the Sun is large enough and bright enough when it first turned on [...] we will see it in real time [...] although the light being emitted from the Sun won't reach Earth for 8 minutes during which time we will be able to see each other.

So the photons instantly at the retina were not emitted from the Sun? If the light emitted from the Sun won't be there until 8 minutes later, then the light which is already there cannot have been emitted from the Sun. So where did it come from?

And you didn't answer LadyShea's question, which was for you to name the locations of light at noon. Also:-

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but light does not have completely different properties in the efferent model. Light energy travels; photons travel. The only thing that has changed is the direction we see.

Then why did you say " Light does not have to travel to Earth for light to interact with the retina in the efferent model"?

The ability to physically interact with matter at a physical distance is not a property that light has.

If it is true that the brain looks through the eyes, as a window to the world, that is what allows light to be at the retina even though light hasn't reached Earth yet.

Interacting with matter at a physical distance is an unknown property of light. Sorry that's just a fact. If you can explain how this occurs without positing new properties of light or impossibilities, then do so, if you are just going to keep making assertions you can't support, what's the point of your "coming back"?

This statement contradicts previous statements. So you are contradicting yourself.

Light travels through space and time unless/until it is absorbed by matter it encounters. The emitting or reflecting object has nothing to do with this property of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just like seeing a Supernova, if the Sun is large enough and bright enough when it first turned on (again, if it is not bright enough it will take time for us to see it; but this is not the same thing as seeing the Sun after the photons reach Earth) we will see it in real time because the conditions that are required for sight have been met, although the light being emitted from the Sun won't reach Earth for 8 minutes during which time we will be able to see each other.

You ignored the question again.

Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The space between the object and what is not millions of miles? The retina is on Earth, 93 million miles away from the Sun.

You are not understanding why the conditions do not require photons to travel to Earth for the light to be at the retina in the efferent account. The whole demonstration is the opposite of the position you are coming from, and they will never meet. I said this before. All you're doing is repeating yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you're doing is thinking about traveling photons that have to cross this great distance...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm asking you where the photons came from and how they got to the retina if they didn't travel across the intervening distance.

You have to think in terms of the requirements of efferent sight, which allow us to see in real time. As I said before, distance is not the requirement. The requirement is brightness and size and it does not matter how far away something is. If it meets these requirements, we will be in optical range. The farther the object is, the less photons will be at the retina. The closer, more photons will be at the retina. Same exact thing as afferent vision except that there is no time involved because the non-absorbed photons are not traveling through space/time. Only the full spectrum is traveling through space/time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and I'm telling you that, although light energy travels, the mirror image shows up because of how efferent vision works.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

'How efferent vision works' is not an explanation. You don't know how efferent vision works. How it works is precisely what we are asking you about.

And I'm trying to explain to you precisely how it works without it looking like teleportation or magic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep thinking that the blue frequency travels before the red and, therefore, according to physical laws, the blue photons will strike the eye first, but you're reasoning is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not saying anything about blue and red photons or which would arrive first. I'm simply asking you where your mirror image photons came from and how they got to the retina.

What do you mean "where did the photons come from"? They came from the Sun. If I see an object, that MEANS the photons (or the mirror image which does not mean photons in two places at the same time) are already at the retina because there's no time lapse.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What more can I say Spacemonkey?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You could answer my questions. Here they are again:-

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

YES, but again the Sun won't be seen the very moment it is turned on unless it is so bright that would be within our visual range. If not, it would take time for this substance to be seen, but this has nothing to do with this same light having to travel to Earth first.

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

YES


If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

12:00

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Doesn't apply.

[LadyShea]

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

YES, but again the Sun won't be seen the very moment it is turned on unless it is so bright that would be within our visual range. If not, it would take time for this substance to be seen, but this has nothing to do with this same light having to travel to Earth first.

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

YES


If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

12:00

You are back to photons being two places at once. On the Sun and on the retina both at noon.

Those are two different locations no matter what direction we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did you say " Light does not have to travel to Earth for light to interact with the retina in the efferent model"?

The ability to physically interact with matter at a physical distance is not a property that light has.

Interacting with matter at a physical distance is an unknown property of light. Sorry that's just a fact. If you can explain how this occurs without positing new properties of light or impossibilities, then do so, if you are just going to keep making assertions you can't support, what's the point of your "coming back"?

There is no physical distance in this account. It's not like shaking hands across the internet. That's what I'm trying to tell you. But you can't see this because you are thinking in terms of light instead of the eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a condition of sight; it does not cause sight. It allows the object to be seen in real time; it does not travel through space/time without the event or object present in some form.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In this scenario the object is the Sun, and it is present.

And light does travel through space and time. That is a known and empirically observable property of light.

So, please admit that for efferent vision to be true, light must have completely different properties than it is known and observed to have.

No, I won't admit that because light does not have to have completely different properties. None whatsoever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This statement contradicts previous statements. So you are contradicting yourself.

The only difference is that non-absorbed light, as opposed to absorbed light, does not get reflected and travel through space time. The physics of light remains the same.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels through space and time unless/until it is absorbed by matter it encounters. The emitting or reflecting object has nothing to do with this property of light.

Yes it does. It provides the light at the retina which allows us to see said object. The only difference is the misunderstanding that this non-absorbed light travels in this wavelength/frequency until it strikes another object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, you ignored the question:

Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time.

Just like seeing a Supernova, if the Sun is large enough and bright enough when it first turned on (again, if it is not bright enough it will take time for us to see it; but this is not the same thing as seeing the Sun after the photons reach Earth) we will see it in real time because the conditions that are required for sight have been met, although the light being emitted from the Sun won't reach Earth for 8 minutes during which time we will be able to see each other.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You ignored the question again.

Name all the locations of light photons at noon in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and being able to see the Sun at noon. In case you missed it, the time is one time 12:00:00. According to Lessans the Sun was just ignited, and it can be seen at this time

I already answered this. The photons would be at the eye when the Sun is just turned on at noon if there was a strong ignition. If it was ignited but grew in size, then we would not see it instantly. Lessans was trying to make a distinction between seeing the sun according to the requirements of efferent vision, and seeing the Sun only after the photons traveled for 8 minutes and reached Earth.

[LadyShea]

If it meets these requirements, we will be in optical range. The farther the object is, the less photons will be at the retina. The closer, more photons will be at the retina. Same exact thing as afferent vision except that there is no time involved because the non-absorbed photons are not traveling through space/time. Only the full spectrum is traveling through space/time.

You seem to be describing some kind of bubble of non-absorbed photons surrounding the object and not traveling, just sitting there like an atmosphere around the object, and when you enter this "atmosphere" you can see the object and if you are not in the bubble there is only white light outside of it and you can't see what is in the bubble.

Is that an accurate description of what you think is the case?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean "where did the photons come from"? They came from the Sun. If I see an object, that MEANS the photons (or the mirror image which does not mean photons in two places at the same time) are already at the retina because there's no time lapse.

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

YES, but again the Sun won't be seen the very moment it is turned on unless it is so bright that would be within our visual range. If not, it would take time for this substance to be seen, but this has nothing to do with this same light having to travel to Earth first.

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

YES

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

12:00

Thank you for finally answering my questions. You are now saying that at 12:00 when the newly ignited Sun is first ignited, there will be photons present at the retina on Earth which came from the Sun, and were located at the Sun at the exact same time of 12:00. That means you have these photons at two places at once. At 12:00 they are located both at the retina and at the Sun. That is what you have just told me. Yet this directly contradicts your above claim that photons will not be in two places at the same time. Can you resolve this contradiction?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are back to photons being two places at once. On the Sun and on the retina both at noon.

Those are two different locations no matter what direction we see.

No, they are not the same photons. They are traveling, but as they strike the object some get absorbed and some don't. So I don't know where you are imagining that I am saying that the photons are in two different places at the same time. What allows the mirror image to occur is the fact that when we look out at the world, we see the object as the photons are in motion. We are not waiting for the photons to travel and strike the retina.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the non-absorbed photons are not traveling through space/time

BTW, non traveling light = very different property of light. You contradicted yourself again.