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.The brain does not look out through the eyes, the eyes react to the light and send a signal to the brain, where the signals are interpreted as an image. Light doesn't bring an image, science doesn't say this, LIGHT IS THE IMAGE, the frequency and direction of the individual photons create the image. The eye does not work in reverse of what science has learned about the eye, the retina is composed of the ends of afferent nerves.
author="peacegirl" date="1432920697What you do not understand is that to us light consists of the wave(length)s that are received and registered by the retina. There is no such thing as seperate wavelengths and light. White light contains all the wavelengths of the visible spectrum. Any other wavelengths are not observable to us at all, but they also travel @ "c'. You may be confused with the term "standing waves" which do not stand still but travel @ "c". All energetic particles at every wavelength travel @ "c". You cannot escape "c", it is a constant. There is only one known instantaneous action and that is "quantum entanglement", but that has nothing to do with light or the propagation of light waves. Wiki,write4u 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).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.
Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.and
Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one one-hundredth of a percent of the light travel time between them.[7] According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly.[8][9] It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds[10] (see Faster-than-light → Quantum mechanics).If you do not disagree with existing scientific knowledge, you cannot argue that there is light which travels faster than light or exists as motionless particles observable just by looking.
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.The brain does not look out through the eyes, the eyes react to the light and send a signal to the brain, where the signals are interpreted as an image. Light doesn't bring an image, science doesn't say this, LIGHT IS THE IMAGE, the frequency and direction of the individual photons create the image. The eye does not work in reverse of what science has learned about the eye, the retina is composed of the ends of afferent nerves. The eye also has efferent nerves as well, to regulate the size of the pupil.
The optic nerve, or more precisely, the photosensitive ganglion cells through the retinohypothalamic tract, is responsible for the afferent limb of the pupillary reflex - it senses the incoming light. The oculomotor nerve is responsible for the efferent limb of the pupillary reflex - it drives the muscles that constrict the pupil.[1]
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.The brain does not look out through the eyes, the eyes react to the light and send a signal to the brain, where the signals are interpreted as an image. Light doesn't bring an image, science doesn't say this, LIGHT IS THE IMAGE, the frequency and direction of the individual photons create the image. The eye does not work in reverse of what science has learned about the eye, the retina is composed of the ends of afferent nerves. Doesn't matter how I phrase it, it is believed that light, being the image, travels to the eye and gets decoded in the brain, which was once a theory and unfortunately has graduated into fact. That's why people are so taken aback by this claim, which needs further investigation.
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. You're just a parrot that cannot think for yourself.
I am not disputing the fact that light travels Write4U. You see how difficult this is when you have no conception of what he's claiming? I know that white light contains all of the wavelengths of the visible spectrum. This isn't even a question in my mind.author="peacegirl" date="1432920697What you do not understand is that to us light consists of the wave(length)s that are received and registered by the retina. There is no such thing as seperate wavelengths and light. White light contains all the wavelengths of the visible spectrum. Any other wavelengths are not observable to us at all, but they also travel @ "c'. You may be confused with the term "standing waves" which do not stand still but travel @ "c". All energetic particles at every wavelength travel @ "c". You cannot escape "c", it is a constant. There is only one known instantaneous action and that is "quantum entanglement", but that has nothing to do with light or the propagation of light waves.write4u 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).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.
Wiki,Once again, this isn't what he was disputing.Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.andRecent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one one-hundredth of a percent of the light travel time between them.[7] According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly.[8][9] It is not possible, however, to use this effect to transmit classical information at faster-than-light speeds[10] (see Faster-than-light → Quantum mechanics).If you do not disagree with existing scientific knowledge, you cannot argue that there is light which travels faster than light or exists as motionless particles observable just by looking.
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. This is not harassment. It is discussion. We are on a discussion board. This is what we do here. You are free to leave at ay time. You say: "...the wavelength IS at the retina without the light having to travel to Earth first..." Two problems. Firstly, the wavelength is not thing, but is simply a measurable property of light, i.e. photons. So if it is at the retina at 12pm then so are the photons. Secondly, the retina is on Earth, so if the photons are at the retina at 12pm then they are on Earth at 12pm. Yet you say they didn't travel there, or at least haven't traveled there yet at 12pm. So where did these photons come from, and how did they get to the retina on Earth without traveling there? Your claim here is not consistent with your admission that all light travels, and you are back to claiming light (photons) can be somewhere without getting there and/or before it has had time to get there. This is the kind of batshit crazy stupidity that people rightly make fun of you for.
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. This is not harassment. It is discussion. We are on a discussion board. This is what we do here. You are free to leave at ay time. Yes we are on a discussion board, but you have already made up your mind that this account is impossible, so why are you hounding me? It's not like you're new to this thread. :-S
You say: "...the wavelength IS at the retina without the light having to travel to Earth first..."That is true but only in the efferent account which would put the object's wavelength at the eye instantly as the person gazes in the direction of said object. But this can only occur if the requirements of brightness and size are met. It wouldn't make sense in the afferent account, which you are constantly referring to.
Two problems. Firstly, the wavelength is not thing, but is simply a measurable property of light, i.e. photons. So if it is at the retina at 12pm then so are the photons. Secondly, the retina is on Earth, so if the photons are at the retina at 12pm then they are on Earth at 12pm. Yet you say they didn't travel there, or at least haven't traveled there yet at 12pm. So where did these photons come from, and how did they get to the retina on Earth without traveling there?There you go again using the fact that photons travel to the eye, which is believed to be the only way we can get an image of the external world. But according to Lessans, this is incorrect. This claim needs to be tested further. If people are that upset because the claim goes against everything they have been taught, then they are more interested in being right at all costs than in knowing whether there is something to this claim.
Your claim here is not consistent with your admission that all light travels, and you are back to claiming light (photons) can be somewhere without getting there and/or before it has had time to get there. This is the kind of batshit crazy stupidity that people rightly make fun of you for.It is consistent when it is understood that the distance between a large celestial body or object and the observer is not dependent on distance or time in this account.
Speaking about parroting.
An old lady has a parrot and all it can say is “who is it”.
She goes shopping and in the mean time the plumber comes to the house and knocks on the door.
Parrot: “who is it”?
Plumber: “It’s the plumber”
Parrot: “who is it”?
Plumber, louder: It’s the plumber!"
Parrot: “who is it”?
Plumber, yelling at the top of his voice: “IT"S THE PLUMBER”!!! , and drops dead from a heartattack.
Old lady returns from shopping, sees the body and exclaims, "oh my god, who is it?
Parrot answers, “it’s the plumber”!..
Speaking about parroting. An old lady has a parrot and all it can say is "who is it". She goes shopping and in the mean time the plumber comes to the house and knocks on the door. Parrot: "who is it"? Plumber: "It's the plumber" Parrot: "who is it"? Plumber, louder: It's the plumber!" Parrot: "who is it"? Plumber, yelling at the top of his voice: "IT"S THE PLUMBER"!!!! , and drops dead from a heartattack. Old lady returns from shopping, sees the body and exclaims, "oh my god, who is it? Parrot answers, "it's the plumber"!.....That was funny! Nice comic relief. :)
That was funny! Nice comic relief. :)You still don't get it. Peacegirl, YOU are the comic relief.
Yes we are on a discussion board...Then start discussing, instead of whining and complaining that you're being harassed whenever someone asks you a question.
That is true but only in the efferent account which would put the object's wavelength at the eye instantly...If the wavelength is there then so is the light. Where did this light at the retina come from, and how did it get there?
There you go again using the fact that photons travel to the eye, which is believed to be the only way we can get an image of the external world. But according to Lessans, this is incorrect...So give us your alternative. How did the photons at the eye get there if they didn't travel there?
It is consistent when it is understood that the distance between a large celestial body or object and the observer is not dependent on distance or time in this account.No, it is not consistent. Either all photons travel, or some of them don't. You can't have it both ways. And you've just here claimed that distance is not dependent upon distance. How retarded is that? Do you have any idea what you are even saying?
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. This is not harassment. It is discussion. We are on a discussion board. This is what we do here. You are free to leave at ay time. Yes we are on a discussion board, but you have already made up your mind that this account is impossible, so why are you hounding me? It's not like you're new to this thread. :-S
You say: "...the wavelength IS at the retina without the light having to travel to Earth first..."That is true but only in the efferent account which would put the object's wavelength at the eye if the requirements of brightness and size are met. It wouldn't make sense in the afferent account, which you are constantly referring to. Wrong! The object's wave emissions (at every wavelength) has to travel from the source to the eye first. Your requirements call for opening your eyes after the light is already striking you. But that requires the sun to be shining before you open your eyes. And that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to you in a constant stream thus when you open your eyes the light that strikes the retina has already traveled 8 1/2 minutes from the sun to you. Can you see the sun for 8 1/2 minutes after it has ceased to exist? Yes, that is true and is exactly the same as observing a distant star which has since gone nova. but that is not your scenario at all. Your claim is that you can see the sun @ noon when it is turned on @ noon, and before its light has traveled 8 1/2 minutes before it strikes your retina.
Two problems. Firstly, the wavelength is not thing, but is simply a measurable property of light, i.e. photons. So if it is at the retina at 12pm then so are the photons. Secondly, the retina is on Earth, so if the photons are at the retina at 12pm then they are on Earth at 12pm. Yet you say they didn't travel there, or at least haven't traveled there yet at 12pm. So where did these photons come from, and how did they get to the retina on Earth without traveling there?
There you go again using the fact that photons travel to the eye, which is believed to be the only way we can get an image of the external world. But according to Lessans, this is incorrect. This claim needs to be tested further. If people are that upset because the claim goes against everything they have been taught, then they are more interested in being right at all costs than in knowing whether there is something to this claim.There YOU go again, Lessans claim has been tested ad nauseam and disproved every time.
Your claim here is not consistent with your admission that all light travels, and you are back to claiming light (photons) can be somewhere without getting there and/or before it has had time to get there. This is the kind of batshit crazy stupidity that people rightly make fun of you for.
It is consistent when it is understood that the distance between a large celestial body or object and the observer is not dependent on distance or time in this account.It would be consistent IF it is assumed that the distance between an object and the observer is not dependent on the distance traveled or the time it takes to traverse the distance. But it has been proven that it does depend on the distance between object and observer and the time it takes to traverse this distance. Therefore, the claim that it does not is FALSE. In science the test to prove if something is true or false is called "falsifying". All hypotheses must pass this test. Lessans hypothesis HAS been falsified by every scientist dealing with the physical functions of light and proven to be false. If you keep insisting that Lessans is correct, contrary to all of known science, you are making a fool of yourself and so far you are succeeding with remarkable persistence.
That is true but only in the efferent account which would put the object's wavelength at the eye instantly as the person gazes in the direction of said object. But this can only occur if the requirements of brightness and size are met. It wouldn't make sense in the afferent account, which you are constantly referring to.The afferent model of vision requires that the object be large enough and bright enough to be seen, it also requires that the object be in the line of sight when the light reflected or emitted from that object leaves that object. What property of the efferent model makes it possible for the photons to be at the eye without traveling there at c.
There you go again using the fact that photons travel to the eye, which is believed to be the only way we can get an image of the external world. But according to Lessans, this is incorrect. This claim needs to be tested further. It is consistent when it is understood that the distance between a large celestial body or object and the observer is not dependent on distance or time in this account.Photons traveling to the eye IS the only way to get an image of the external world. Lessans didn't know what he was talking about. Vision has been tested for many years and the results all point to afferent vision. Time and distance to a large celestial body doesn't change due to one persons pet theory.
There is an effect in astronomy called “gravitational lensing” where an object is behind a very massive object, and the gravity from that object bends the light around it so that now we can see that more distant object. If efferent vision were true we would not be able to see the distant object because it is behind another object and out of the line of sight. This effect is common in astronomy and very well known, and only possible if light travels from the object to the eye or telescope. Afferent vision is true and we only need to look at the sky to see the proof.
On FF you posted that science claimed that we should see an object after it had been removed from the line of sight.
First of all science never claimed that, science states that we will continue to see the object till all the photons reflected or emitted from that object have arrived, and for terrestrial objects that would be measured in nanoseconds.
If instant vision were true we would stop seeing the object the instant it was removed from the line of sight.
If delayed vision were true we would stop seeing the object when the light from that object is no linger arriving at our eyes. And we would not be ale to detect that the object had been removed from our line of sight, till the photons are no longer arriving at our eyes.
Ether way we would stop seeing the object when we could no longer see the object, Tautological and meaningless.
The moons of Jupiter are another proof of afferent vision.
From peacegirl’s voluminous writings on the topic of light and sight, I believe we now have the tools in place to explicate this discovery. Allow me to do so.
Spacemonkey and others get confused because they constantly come at this from the afferent account, which scientists assume to be true, but this is the very account that Lessans disputed. Under the efferent account, the brain looks out through the windows of the eyes, and projects slides onto an undeniable screen of substance. Because of this, if God turned on the sun at noon, then the wavelength would immediately be at the retina, where it would form a mirror image in a closed system. We see that this is true because of the inverse square law. Of course it would still take the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth so that we could see our neighbors, but this is because there is a difference between (N) photons and ( P ) photons. Consequently, we see that the scientific account in which images are carried on wings of light to the eye cannot be correct, since nothing impinges on the optic nerve, owing to the fact that the eye is not a sense organ. Under the efferent account, objects are reflected by light, which means that we see the object itself. As a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. It must be remembered that to be seen, an object must be big enough, and bright enough, to be seen. From this we may conclude that no object can be seen, which is not within our optical range. But if an object is big enough and bright enough to be seen, then we will see it with no time delay because in the efferent account, distance does not matter. In conclusion, then, under this account, once all the conditions for sight are met, voila, we see. It is important to remember that light is a condition, and not a cause, of sight.