I am not disputing this. That's the problem; you think I'm reinventing what scientists have already established. I am not doing that. I am only saying that these wavelengths that show up at the retina did not take time to get there. They were there instantly in this accurate account, calling into question this accepted belief that we see in delayed time.peacegirl, That is true. You would see the Sun before you would see each other. This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false.Well, that remains to be seen, the same applies to you. The only requirements for seeing my neighbor is that the light of the sun strikes him at nearly the same time it strikes me. a) depending who stands closer to the sun at that moment. If my neighbor stands between me and the sun, its light would strike him before it strikes me. Even as a silhouette I would see him before I see the sun, because he is closer to me than the sun. Thus the only object without light on my side would register on my eyes at exactly the same time as I observe the dark silhoutte when I see the light from the sun in my eyes. This difference would be measured in nano seconds. b) If he were to stand at an angle from the sun, I would see my neighbor's reflected light at nearly the exact time, again depending on who the sun strikes first. It is possible that the angle of reflection would create a greater distance for the light to travel as compared to a straight line light In any case that would be measured in nano seconds. c) if I am standing between him and the sun, but looking backwards to my neighbor, my neighbor would see my silhoutte before I see his reflection back to me from the same light. Again, this delay would be measured in nano seconds. d) light does slow down in a medium, such as in water or in the interior of a sun. It may take a photon from the interior of the sun a 1000 years to reach the surface of the sun, but then the total time for that photon to reach the earth is but 8 1/2 minutes. This delay is not caused by a slowing down of the photon ("c"), but trillions of other particles in its way prevent it from traveling in a straight line. e) it takes but nano seconds for that photon to penetrate our atmosphere (another medium) So where on earth did Lessans come up with the notion that I cannot see my neighbor until 8 1/2 minutes after I see the sun? The photons I see as light coming from the sun is the same light that reflects off my neighbor. The reverse is true also for my neighbor. 8 1/2 minutes is the time it takes for photons (light) traveling from the sun to register on our eyes and reflect of me as well as everything in my field of vision. Any measurable delay in time would be counted in nano seconds. From wiki,A nanosecond is equal to 1000 picoseconds or 11000 microsecond. Because the next SI unit is 1000 times larger, times of 10−8 and 10−7 seconds are typically expressed as tens or hundreds of nanoseconds.andLight travels approximately 29.98 centimeters in 1 nanosecond. This is equivalent to 11.8 inches, leading to some to refer to a nanosecond as a "light-foot"12" per nano second should sound familiar, now do the math how long it would take for you to see the reflected light from your neigbor standing 8.5' from you. btw, below is a list of different wave lengths of "light" all traveling @ "c", penetrating to the earth's surface or being absorbed by the earth's atmosphere. Notice the small band in the middle makes up our visible spectrum (white light).
So it's not relevant how efferent vision could possibly work? It's not relevant how the photons YOU claim will be at the retina could possibly have gotten there? Do you have an alternative definition of 'relevant' that you'd like to share with us?No, I don't have to have an alternative definition. The word is used correctly in the way I'm using it. Photons traveling are not relevant Spacemonkey. The proof that is necessary to confirm Lessans' hunch (call it whatever you want) will be from understanding the eye, not light. It's relevant because it proves efferent vision to be impossible. That's why you refuse to face up to the problem. You need photons to be at the retina before they have had time to get there. It doesn't matter what else you think may prove him right, as the photon problem has already proved him incontrovertibly wrong. Game over. You lose. Game is far from over Spacemonkey. If you think so, then please move on. You never answered my question as to why you follow me around?
This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false.The requirements for vision are that light is either emitted from or reflected from an object, and travels to the eye. Your instant vision (efferent vision) is false, because vision doesn't work that way. Says the master himself! What a joke you are!!
Game is far from over Spacemonkey...Sure it is. You are refuted. If you disagree, then address the problem: Did the light at the retina at 12 o’clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take?
Game is far from over Spacemonkey...Sure it is. You are refuted. If you disagree, then address the problem: Did the light at the retina at 12 o’clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take? No no no, I already explained that this is irrelevant. What you are doing is shifting the problem to what you believe negates the efferent vision proposition. It does no such thing.
I think I have solved peacegirl's problem with understanding the properties of light. I should have seen this long before now. She believes that "intensity of brightness" affects the speed of propagation of light, i.e. intense (emitted) "pure white" light travels faster than reflected (less intense) at different wavelengths than "white light". To Peacegirl this translates into me seeing the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light is reflected from my neighbor into my eyes and is the crux of the matter in her mind. Complicated stuff that, and of course entirely wrong. Let me reverse the scenario. Does my neighbor see the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light reflects off me into his eyes? If so, that would mean we both see each other 8 1/2 minutes after we have both observed the sun(light) 8 1/2 minutes before.That is true. You would see the Sun before you would see each other. This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false. :lol: Would you be so kind as to explain what those "requirements" that "would have been met" are, and why they are different for the sun as opposed to people on earth? :lol: After all, you failed to explain that simple thing for three and a half years at FF, to general amusement! :lol:
The light didn't have to travel to get there.
Light travels David.:coolsmile: Apparently, it travels. It just doesn't have to travel to get anywhere! :lol: Of course it does. Light takes 81/2 minutes to get to earth, so it does travel. Don't try to turn this into something it's not. It won't work this time. It takes the light eight and a half minutes to get to the earth, so the light travels. Agreed! So: please explain for the first time how, if it takes light eight and a half minutes to travel to the earth when God turns on the sun at noon, people see the sun instantly (according to you and Lessans) when the light from the sun will not have arrived on earth for eight and a half minutes? :lol: We have engaged in a bit of time travel into the past, where the very subject was already debated at great length. From Wiki,
Early history[edit] Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) was the first to claim that light has a finite speed.[103] He maintained that light was something in motion, and therefore must take some time to travelIt must be said that Lessans' theories has some early supporters. Of course this was some 2300 hundred years in the past.
Aristotle argued, to the contrary, that "light is due to the presence of something, but it is not a movement".and while,
Early Islamic philosophers initially agreed with the Aristotelian view that light had no speed of travelThey were refuted by,
Euclid and Ptolemy advanced Empedocles' emission theory of vision, where light is emitted from the eye, thus enabling sight. Based on that theory, Heron of Alexandria argued that the speed of light must be infinite because distant objects such as stars appear immediately upon opening the eyes.and finally,
. In 1021, Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) published the Book of Optics, in which he presented a series of arguments dismissing the emission theory of vision in favour of the now accepted intromission theory, in which light moves from an object into the eyehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Early_history Of course this all happened long before Lessans and we were born and consequently "if we don't learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it". New discovery?
I think I have solved peacegirl's problem with understanding the properties of light. I should have seen this long before now. She believes that "intensity of brightness" affects the speed of propagation of light, i.e. intense (emitted) "pure white" light travels faster than reflected (less intense) at different wavelengths than "white light". To Peacegirl this translates into me seeing the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light is reflected from my neighbor into my eyes and is the crux of the matter in her mind. Complicated stuff that, and of course entirely wrong. Let me reverse the scenario. Does my neighbor see the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light reflects off me into his eyes? If so, that would mean we both see each other 8 1/2 minutes after we have both observed the sun(light) 8 1/2 minutes before.That is true. You would see the Sun before you would see each other. This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false. :lol: Would you be so kind as to explain what those "requirements" that "would have been met" are, and why they are different for the sun as opposed to people on earth? :lol: After all, you failed to explain that simple thing for three and a half years at FF, to general amusement! :lol: If you don't know what the requirements are after 3 years, and why the requirements are different for the Sun as opposed to Earth in this hypothetical example, there's no hope in repeating it to you. Your memory must be shot. :lol:
The light didn't have to travel to get there.
Light travels David.:coolsmile: Apparently, it travels. It just doesn't have to travel to get anywhere! :lol: Of course it does. Light takes 81/2 minutes to get to earth, so it does travel. Don't try to turn this into something it's not. It won't work this time. It takes the light eight and a half minutes to get to the earth, so the light travels. Agreed! So: please explain for the first time how, if it takes light eight and a half minutes to travel to the earth when God turns on the sun at noon, people see the sun instantly (according to you and Lessans) when the light from the sun will not have arrived on earth for eight and a half minutes? :lol:
We have engaged in a bit of time travel into the past, where the very subject was already debated at great length. From Wiki,Lessans never said that light is not a movement. You are comparing this claim to a long ago theory that we know was wrong. You do this just so you can cause doubt in the minds of the listeners. This is typical of your subterfuge.Early history[edit] Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) was the first to claim that light has a finite speed.[103] He maintained that light was something in motion, and therefore must take some time to travelIt must be said that Lessans' theories has some early supporters. Of course this was some 2300 hundred years in the past.Aristotle argued, to the contrary, that "light is due to the presence of something, but it is not a movement".
and while,Well good, because light travels at a finite speed. Why are you lying through your teeth that this is what Lessans implied? You are a sneak on top of being a liar.Early Islamic philosophers initially agreed with the Aristotelian view that light had no speed of travel
They were refuted by,Once again, what does this theory have to do with what Lessans was claiming? Light being emitted from the eye, thus enabling sight? :ahhh:Euclid and Ptolemy advanced Empedocles' emission theory of vision, where light is emitted from the eye, thus enabling sight. Based on that theory, Heron of Alexandria argued that the speed of light must be infinite because distant objects such as stars appear immediately upon opening the eyes.
and finally,This is not even close to what Lessans' observations were, so there is no concern that this claim is a repetition. Thank you for clarifying that. :lol:. In 1021, Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) published the Book of Optics, in which he presented a series of arguments dismissing the emission theory of vision in favour of the now accepted intromission theory, in which light moves from an object into the eyehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Early_history Of course this all happened long before Lessans and we were born and consequently "if we don't learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it".
New discovery?No David, you are the baffoon. We are not talking about speed or time, so your refutation is invalid. You never tried to understand why efferent vision (assuming he was right in his observations, which will eventually be tested and proven correct) causes us to see the object --- if the requirements of efferent vision are met --- instantly without a delay.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
This is very interesting history, but it must be noted that none of it has anything to do with what Lessans claimed, and what peacegirl so incompetently defends (because it is indefensible). Lessans asserted two logically incompatible ideas -- that we would see the sun instantly if it were to be hypothetically turned on by God at noon, but that we would then have to wait eight and a half minutes for the photons to arrive, to see our neighbors. Nobody in history (except for Lessans) argued like this, because it is so manifestly stupid. Either light moves infinitely fast or it moves at some finite velocity. Either way, if God turned on the sun at noon, it's obvious that we would see it, and our neighbors, simultaneously, under either scenario. Either we would have to wait for the photons to arrive or they would arrive instantly, but in either case, we would see the sun and our neighbors at the same time. What Lessans proposed is incommensurable in its buffoonery, because he was a buffoon. You needn't watch peacegirl flail around trying to defend this idiocy; it's all at FF! :lol:
So it's not relevant how efferent vision could possibly work? It's not relevant how the photons YOU claim will be at the retina could possibly have gotten there? Do you have an alternative definition of 'relevant' that you'd like to share with us?No, I don't have to have an alternative definition. The word is used correctly in the way I'm using it. Photons traveling are not relevant Spacemonkey. The proof that is necessary to confirm Lessans' hunch (call it whatever you want) will be from understanding the eye, not light. It's relevant because it proves efferent vision to be impossible. That's why you refuse to face up to the problem. You need photons to be at the retina before they have had time to get there. It doesn't matter what else you think may prove him right, as the photon problem has already proved him incontrovertibly wrong. Game over. You lose. When looking out at the object, not waiting for light to bring the image, the wavelength IS at the retina without the light having to travel to Earth first. You can't get this because you have failed in your understanding of this reversal in how the eyes work which causes a complete 180 degree turnaround in what was believed to be true. If you believe the game is over, then please leave. Stop harassing me.
I think I have solved peacegirl's problem with understanding the properties of light. I should have seen this long before now. She believes that "intensity of brightness" affects the speed of propagation of light, i.e. intense (emitted) "pure white" light travels faster than reflected (less intense) at different wavelengths than "white light". To Peacegirl this translates into me seeing the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light is reflected from my neighbor into my eyes and is the crux of the matter in her mind. Complicated stuff that, and of course entirely wrong. Let me reverse the scenario. Does my neighbor see the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light reflects off me into his eyes? If so, that would mean we both see each other 8 1/2 minutes after we have both observed the sun(light) 8 1/2 minutes before.That is true. You would see the Sun before you would see each other. This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false. :lol: Would you be so kind as to explain what those "requirements" that "would have been met" are, and why they are different for the sun as opposed to people on earth? :lol: After all, you failed to explain that simple thing for three and a half years at FF, to general amusement! :lol: If you don't know what the requirements are after 3 years, and why the requirements are different for the Sun as opposed to Earth in this hypothetical example, there's no hope in repeating it to you. Your memory must be shot. :lol: Then please do explain it for the people here! :lol:
When looking out at the object, not waiting for light to bring the image …Light does not bring an image. :lol:
... the wavelength IS at the retina without the light having to travel to Earth first.How so, Einstein? Because you said so? That's not an explanation! :roll: Regardless of whatever fanciful "explanation" you care to dredge from your rear portal, your claim is empirically false and not worthy of consideration by anyone rational.
You can't get this because you have failed in your understanding of this reversal in how the eyes work which causes a complete 180 degree turnaround in what was believed to be true.:lol:
Stop harassing me.:lol: You're free to leave at any time, and find yet another forum where everyone will point and laugh at this shit you post.
Hey, peacegirl, remember your immortal line at FF?
“I know it’s hard to understand how light can be at the eye before it gets there.”
Yes, it remains hard to understand. Please explain it for people here. :coolsmile:
I think I have solved peacegirl's problem with understanding the properties of light. I should have seen this long before now. She believes that "intensity of brightness" affects the speed of propagation of light, i.e. intense (emitted) "pure white" light travels faster than reflected (less intense) at different wavelengths than "white light". To Peacegirl this translates into me seeing the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light is reflected from my neighbor into my eyes and is the crux of the matter in her mind. Complicated stuff that, and of course entirely wrong. Let me reverse the scenario. Does my neighbor see the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light reflects off me into his eyes? If so, that would mean we both see each other 8 1/2 minutes after we have both observed the sun(light) 8 1/2 minutes before.That is true. You would see the Sun before you would see each other. This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false. :lol: Would you be so kind as to explain what those "requirements" that "would have been met" are, and why they are different for the sun as opposed to people on earth? :lol: After all, you failed to explain that simple thing for three and a half years at FF, to general amusement! :lol: If you don't know what the requirements are after 3 years, and why the requirements are different for the Sun as opposed to Earth in this hypothetical example, there's no hope in repeating it to you. Your memory must be shot. :lol: Then please do explain it for the people here! :lol: No, I told you I didn't even want to get into this, but of course you had every intention of hijacking the thread! I want to get back to determinism and read Perebloom's article so I can answer GdBs concerns.
When looking out at the object, not waiting for light to bring the image …Light does not bring an image. :lol:
... the wavelength IS at the retina without the light having to travel to Earth first.How so, Einstein? Because you said so? That's not an explanation! :roll: Regardless of whatever fanciful "explanation" you care to dredge from your rear portal, your claim is empirically false and not worthy of consideration by anyone rational.
You can't get this because you have failed in your understanding of this reversal in how the eyes work which causes a complete 180 degree turnaround in what was believed to be true.:lol:
Stop harassing me.:lol: You're free to leave at any time, and find yet another forum where everyone will point and laugh at this shit you post. No one will laugh when they finally realize that scientists got it wrong. They will wipe the smirk off of their faces which has been plastered on you since day one.
Hey, peacegirl, remember your immortal line at FF? "I know it's hard to understand how light can be at the eye before it gets there." Yes, it remains hard to understand. Please explain it for people here. :coolsmile:Yes, I can see why it's hard for people to grasp the concept of efferent vision when they have been brought up to believe the afferent account of how the eyes work; i.e., that light, after traveling through space/time, strikes the retina where the image is interpreted in the brain. Often theories are corrected at a later date, but this one has been around for so long that people just can't believe scientists could have been mistaken. So of course instead of taking the claim seriously, they scoff at anyone who would dare to challenge the theory that has graduated into fact, and make fun of the discoverer, as if this changes the truth. :-S
From wiki,I had worked it out on FF, but if I remember correctly, - If you could get a photon of light to orbit the Earth, it would make approximately 8.5 orbits in 1 second. Light travels rather fast, and to some would give the impression that vision is instantaneous.A nanosecond is equal to 1000 picoseconds or 11000 microsecond. Because the next SI unit is 1000 times larger, times of 10−8 and 10−7 seconds are typically expressed as tens or hundreds of nanoseconds.andLight travels approximately 29.98 centimeters in 1 nanosecond. This is equivalent to 11.8 inches, leading some to refer to a nanosecond as a "light-foot"12" per nano second should sound familiar, now do the math how long it would take for you to see the reflected light from your neigbor standing 8.5' from you. Explain to me why it should take 8.5 seconds to see my neighbor? btw, below is a list of different wave lengths of "light" all traveling @ "c", penetrating to the earth's surface or being absorbed by the earth's atmosphere. Notice the small band in the middle makes up our visible spectrum (white light).
Photons traveling are not relevant Spacemonkey. The proof that is necessary to confirm Lessans' hunch will be from understanding the eye, not light.Science already understands how the eye works, Lessans didn't have a clue, light is part of the understanding of how the eye works, try looking at TLR's essay on vision.
What Lessans proposed is incommensurable in its buffoonery, because he was a buffoon. You needn't watch peacegirl flail around trying to defend this idiocy; it's all at FF! :lol:No David, you are the baffoon. Oh No, now David's a balloon, and Peacegirl hopes he will just float away.