You are not even grasping what Lessans is saying. He never disputed that light has to be at the eye and that objects absorb light depending on their properties. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with traveling photons that reach the eye after long distances through space/time that are then interpreted or decoded in the brain. This is a theory only and for people to give it the status of fact is bad science.Is it a theory only that light can't be somewhere before it's had time to get there? Is it a viable alternative theory to say that there can be light at the retina that both did and did not travel to get there? That's not the case Spacemonkey, that light at the retina has to be there through millions of miles of travel. THIS IS ONLY DUE TO EFFERENT VISION, which you've never understood and have no desire to understand. Are you saying that the light at the retina at 12 o'clock traveled millions of miles to get there? Spacemonkey, there's no point in discussing this with you anymore. Your belief that light travels and brings the information to the brain to be decoded is so entrenched that the questions you ask don't even make sense in view of this new claim, therefore anything I say you will reject on the spot.
Are you saying that the light at the retina at 12 o'clock traveled millions of miles to get there?Spacemonkey, there's no point in discussing this with you anymore. Your belief that light travels and brings the information to the brain to be decoded is so entrenched that the questions you ask don't even make sense in view of this new claim, therefore anything I say you will reject on the spot. Why are you evading again? It was a simple and relevant question, presupposing nothing at all about how information gets to the brain. You said: "That’s not the case Spacemonkey, that light at the retina has to be there through millions of miles of travel." Again, are you saying that the light at the retina at 12 o'clock traveled millions of miles to get there?
Spacemonkey, there's no point in discussing this with you anymore. Your belief that light travels and brings the information to the brain to be decoded is so entrenched that the questions you ask don't even make sense in view of this new claim, therefore anything I say you will reject on the spot.Translation, - Peacegirl hasn't got a clue about how this could happen, but Lessans wrote it so it must be true. Peacegirl wants to throw out all the research, tests, and experiments that have been done over the years as biased, and have scientists conduct fresh biased tests and experiments to prove Lessans version of efferent vision. Any test or experiment that proves Lessans wrong must have been faulty, and only the ones that confirm his idea will be accepted as accurate.
But your assumption is completely false.Really? I don't think so. Maybe one of the other who read your father's book can comment on it?
You cannot prove this.I do not have to prove anything. I asked you a few questions: 1. Do you agree that the picture of the candle can only be seen when the light of the candle reaches the screen on the backside of the camera obscura? 2. When the sun is turned on, do we see the sun and the rest of the landscape see simultaneously appearing on the screen of the camera obscura? 3. We know that an image of the environment is projected by the lens of the eye on the retina. Do you agree? (If you don't, go to a slaughterhouse and see if you can get a cow's eye, and then then dissect it. 4. Do the light of the sun and of the landscape touch the retina at the same moment?
This remains a theory GdB and all you are doing is parroting what science has claimed is fact.I am afraid that with the experiences I have with optics, photography, and as spectacles-wearer, I have enough proof that what science says is correct. It seems to me somebody else is parroting... You see, I do not have all my knowledge through books and thinking on my own. During my study, I did several experiments, and I understand very well on which the knowledge of science is based. You, and your father, don't seem to have a clue.
But if we look a the sun and the landscape directly, we see the sun immediately, right? How do you explain this difference? Why do the landscape and the sun appear at the same time at the screen, after 8 minutes, but not if I directly look to the landscape and the sun?Show me this data. How can you prove this when the light from the Sun has already reached Earth and the stream of light coming from the Sun is not broken? Which data? I asked you questions.
He never disputed that light has to be at the eye and that objects absorb light which leaves the nonabsorbed photons at the retina.OK. Then I have another question: in the 'sun thought experiment', if the light did not reach my environment yet, did it already reach my retina before?
Are you saying that the light at the retina at 12 o'clock traveled millions of miles to get there?Spacemonkey, there's no point in discussing this with you anymore. Your belief that light travels and brings the information to the brain to be decoded is so entrenched that the questions you ask don't even make sense in view of this new claim, therefore anything I say you will reject on the spot. Why are you evading again? It was a simple and relevant question, presupposing nothing at all about how information gets to the brain. You said: "That’s not the case Spacemonkey, that light at the retina has to be there through millions of miles of travel." Again, are you saying that the light at the retina at 12 o'clock traveled millions of miles to get there? That's not what I'm saying and you know it. How many times do I have to repeat that time is not a factor if efferent vision turns out to be correct? You are blocked to such an extent that even if this claim was verified you would still be asking the same questions over and over and over again.
Why are you evading again? It was a simple and relevant question, presupposing nothing at all about how information gets to the brain. You said: "That’s not the case Spacemonkey, that light at the retina has to be there through millions of miles of travel." Again, are you saying that the light at the retina at 12 o'clock traveled millions of miles to get there?That's not what I'm saying and you know it. No, I don't know it. That appeared to be exactly what you were saying. What did you mean then when you said "that light at the retina has to be there through millions of miles of travel"? How else did it get there if it didn't travel to get there? Do you have any idea what you were trying to say?
But your assumption is completely false.
Really? I don't think so. Maybe one of the other who read your father's book can comment on it?No thank you.
You cannot prove this.
I do not have to prove anything. I asked you a few questions: 1. Do you agree that the picture of the candle can only be seen when the light of the candle reaches the screen on the backside of the camera obscura?The image of the candle is at the backside of the camera because the wavelength/frequency is at the backside of the camera, but the question is the same for the eye as for a camera. If efferent vision is true it works the same way.
2. When the sun is turned on, do we see the sun and the rest of the landscape see simultaneously appearing on the screen of the camera obscura? We would see the Sun and the rest of the landscape if the light from the Sun had already arrived 81/2 minutes later. We would not if the Sun was just turned on. 3. We know that an image of the environment is projected by the lens of the eye on the retina. Do you agree? (If you don't, go to a slaughterhouse and see if you can get a cow's eye, and then then dissect it. I agree. I never disagreed with this. 4. Do the light of the sun and of the landscape touch the retina at the same moment? Yes, the light of the Sun and of the landscape would touch the retina at the same time because the wavelength/frequency from the Sun and the landscape would both be within optical range as we look in that direction.This remains a theory GdB and all you are doing is parroting what science has claimed is fact.I am afraid that with the experiences I have with optics, photography, and as spectacles-wearer, I have enough proof that what science says is correct. It seems to me somebody else is parroting... You see, I do not have all my knowledge through books and thinking on my own. During my study, I did several experiments, and I understand very well on which the knowledge of science is based. You, and your father, don't seem to have a clue.That's only because you are misunderstanding him.Why do the landscape and the sun appear at the same time at the screen, after 8 minutes, but not if I directly look to the landscape and the sun?We cannot look at the Sun and get a different view than the landscape because the light coming from the Sun is already here, which is a condition of sight. You are missing the point of his hypothetical example. Show me this data. How can you prove this when the light from the Sun has already reached Earth and the stream of light coming from the Sun is not broken?
Which data? I asked you questions.Never mind.
He never disputed that light has to be at the eye and that objects absorb light which leaves the nonabsorbed photons at the retina.
OK. Then I have another question: in the 'sun thought experiment', if the light did not reach my environment yet, did it already reach my retina before?No, only the Sun's light, being bright enough would be at the retina due to this mirror image (for lack of a better word) effect in the efferent account, so we would be able to see the Sun instantly (which you will fight me on if you don't understand why this is possible) but not be able to see anything in the environment since the light has not arrived, and the condition for sight is that the object has to be bright enough for us to see it. That's why we can't see each other at night but we can see the moon.
duplicate
No, only the Sun's light, being bright enough would be at the retina due to this mirror image (for lack of a better phrase) phenomenon in the efferent account of sight, so we would be able to see the Sun instantly but not be able to see anything in the environment since the light has not arrived, and the condition for sight is that the object has to be bright enough or we can't see anything. That's why we can't see each other at night.You still haven't explained HOW the light at the retina got there on your account.
Be aware that all of this stuff was discussed with peacegirl many, many, many times, both at FF over a span of three and half years and before that at the old iidb.
The camera obscura was discussed. The moons of Jupiter were discussed (the first measurement of the speed of light; the light speed was obtained precisely because of the delay in seeing the moons.)
Also discussed:
The Fizeau wheel , which not only precisely measures the speed of light at short distances, but does so only because of the delay in seeing the light.
The incompatibility of the special theory of relativity with real-time seeing (if real-time seeing were true, the theory would never have been developed in the first place. The relativity of simultaneity just means that because of the invariance of light speed in all inertial frames, coupled with the delay in seeing the light until it reaches the eye, different observers in different frames will typically disagree on the temporal order of events).
Shooting a laser at the moon. This simple experiment, first performed in 1962 if memory serves, flatly disproves real-time seeing.
Olbers’ Paradox. It can be demonstrated mathematically that at night, our eyes should always intersect with incoming starlight. Hence, the whole night sky should be white. It isn’t. Why? Because the universe is expanding. Beyond what is called the particle horizon, the light from stars can never reach us, so we will never see them, because of the expansion speed. If we could see in real time, the expansion of the universe would not prevent the light from reaching our eyes; hence, the surface temperature of the earth would be 10,000 degrees F and we would all be stone dead.
How NASA sends vehicles to other planets. A scientist proved to her mathematically that if NASA used real-time seeing to send vehicles to Mars, for instance, it would miss the planet by a wide margin, instead of hitting the target every time. Since NASA factors in delayed seeing to hit Mars and other targets, this is another disproof of real-time seeing.
The same scientist, a biologist, wrote her a 30-page paper, complete with diagrams, explaining how light and sight work down to the atomic level. She refused to read it.
We opened a thread for her on light and sight at the BAUT forum. She refused to read it.
How cameras work. How the Hubble telescope works. How telescopes work in general. How optics work in general. All rule out real-time seeing, of course.
There is more, too, but that should do to give you the picture. If anyone wants to chase her down the rabbit hole again, good luck. She will never, ever admit that Lessans was wrong about anything, no matter how many proofs you show her. Still, she changed his “molecules of light" in the Great Book to “photons," in a transparent effort to conceal his ignorance. But it’s not enough, because his views on light and sight reveal his ignorance all the same.
No, only the Sun's light, being bright enough would be at the retina due to this mirror image (for lack of a better phrase) phenomenon in the efferent account of sight, so we would be able to see the Sun instantly but not be able to see anything in the environment since the light has not arrived, and the condition for sight is that the object has to be bright enough or we can't see anything. That's why we can't see each other at night.You still haven't explained HOW the light at the retina got there on your account. It didn't have to get there. The wavelength/frequency is already there at our retina as we turn our gaze toward the object or landscape. This is why time is not a factor in this account but would be a factor if the eyes were afferent.
The wavelength is a property of light, and cannot be at the eye unless the light is there, anymore than you can taste food unless it is inside your mouth. You are talking your usual foolish, ignorant tommyrot that has been disproved again and again.
The entire discussion about your idiotic “model” (a “model” that differs from Lessans’ “model,” as I explained upthread) is pointless, anyway, since we don’t see in real time. Even if you had a coherent model, and you don’t, the discussion is superfluous.
Be aware that all of this stuff was discussed with peacegirl many, many, many times, both at FF over a span of three and half years and before that at the old iidb. The camera obscura was discussed. The moons of Jupiter were discussed (the first measurement of the speed of light; the light speed was obtained precisely because of the delay in seeing the moons.)This was a conclusion they came to and assumed it was right based on their present theory of sight. It was never questioned. If Lessans' claim turns out to be right, then their conclusion is false.
Also discussed: The Fizeau wheel , which not only precisely measures the speed of light at short distances, but does so only because of the delay in seeing the light.THE FIZEAU WHEEL DOES NOTHING TO PROVE REAL TIME VISION. IT ONLY PROVES THAT LIGHT TRAVELS AT A CERTAIN SPEED.
The incompatibility of the special theory of relativity with real-time seeing (if real-time seeing were true, the theory would never have been developed in the first place. The relativity of simultaneity just means that because of the invariance of light speed in all inertial frames, coupled with the delay in seeing the light until it reaches the eye, different observers in different frames will typically disagree on the temporal order of events).Photons and charged particles from lightning are two different things. We would not see these charged particles at the same time as someone else in a different frame of reference. This does not prove Lessans wrong.
Shooting a laser at the moon. This simple experiment, first performed in 1962 if memory serves, flatly disproves real-time seeing.Testing to see how fast light travels does nothing to disprove real time seeing, which is what you're comparing. They are two different things.
Olbers’ Paradox. It can be demonstrated mathematically that at night, our eyes should always intersect with incoming starlight. Hence, the whole night sky should be white. It isn’t. Why? Because the universe is expanding. Beyond what is called the particle horizon, the light from stars can never reach us, so we will never see them, because of the expansion speed. If we could see in real time, the expansion of the universe would not prevent the light from reaching our eyes;hence, the surface temperature of the earth would be 10,000 degrees F and we would all be stone dead.You are assuming that we are only seeing starlight and not the actual star, which is why you need another theory regarding an expanding universe. If we are seeing the star in real time we do not need another theory because we would not burn up. The star is too far away. Those stars that are too small to be seen would not have enough light for us to see them, is all.
How NASA sends vehicles to other planets. A scientist proved to her mathematically that if NASA used real-time seeing to send vehicles to Mars, for instance, it would miss the planet by a wide margin, instead of hitting the target every time. Since NASA factors in delayed seeing to hit Mars and other targets, this is another disproof of real-time seeing.I question whether leaving out the time/light delay calculation would actually cause them to miss the entire planet.
The same scientist, a biologist, wrote her a 30-page paper, complete with diagrams, explaining how light and sight work down to the atomic level. She refused to read it.I looked at it. It was quite specific, but it did not prove that impulses from light turn into images inside the brain. This still remains a theory.
We opened a thread for her on light and sight at the BAUT forum. She refused to read it.I read it, and people did not side with you. They probably didn't think it was a claim worth discussing, which is par for the course.
How cameras work. How the Hubble telescope works. How telescopes work in general. How optics work in general. All rule out real-time seeing, of course.These things do not rule out real time seeing. If anything, they support it.
There is more, too, but that should do to give you the picture. If anyone wants to chase her down the rabbit hole again, good luck. She will never, ever admit that Lessans was wrong about anything, no matter how many proofs you show her. Still, she changed his “molecules of light" in the Great Book to “photons," in a transparent effort to conceal his ignorance. But it’s not enough, because his views on light and sight reveal his ignorance all the same.He was not a physicist which is why he didn't use the right term. But this does not disprove his basic claim. Most people, including me, would trust someone in the field more than someone who was not whether it was in optics or physics so I empathize, but in this case he found this knowledge through the back door, so to speak. This knowledge would never have been found by a physicist because he would not have looked in the right place.
He was not a physicist which is why he didn't use the right term. But this does not disprove his basic claim. Most people, including me, would trust someone in the field more than someone who was not whether it was in optics or physics so I empathize, but in this case he found this knowledge through the back door, so to speak. This knowledge would never have been found by a physicist because he would not have looked in the right place.Lessans was not a lot of things, educated was one of them. His lack of education led to his fanciful ideas about the world, and his pool hall exposure led to a lot of wild ideas about how the world should be, according to a bunch of macho, uneducated pool hustlers. Lessans didn't make any discoveries because he didn't know where to look in the first place, so he took his learning from the reaction of billiard balls on a table, rather than from the real world. I would guess that "It's your shot" led to his "Right of Way" principle, each player gets his turn till he misses.
No, only the Sun's light, being bright enough would be at the retina due to this mirror image (for lack of a better phrase) phenomenon in the efferent account of sight, so we would be able to see the Sun instantly but not be able to see anything in the environment since the light has not arrived, and the condition for sight is that the object has to be bright enough or we can't see anything. That's why we can't see each other at night.You still haven't explained HOW the light at the retina got there on your account. It didn't have to get there. The wavelength/frequency is already there at our retina as we turn our gaze toward the object or landscape. This is what insanity looks like. It's hardly the first time you've tried this bogus non-response. Stating that the light is already there (at 12 o'clock) does not excuse you from the need to explain where it came from and how it got there (before 12 o'clock). How many times have we already explained this exact point to you?
No, only the Sun's light, being bright enough would be at the retina due to this mirror image (for lack of a better phrase) phenomenon in the efferent account of sight, so we would be able to see the Sun instantly but not be able to see anything in the environment since the light has not arrived, and the condition for sight is that the object has to be bright enough or we can't see anything. That's why we can't see each other at night.You still haven't explained HOW the light at the retina got there on your account. It didn't have to get there. The wavelength/frequency is already there at our retina as we turn our gaze toward the object or landscape. This is what insanity looks like. It's hardly the first time you've tried this bogus non-response. Stating that the light is already there (at 12 o'clock) does not excuse you from the need to explain where it came from and how it got there (before 12 o'clock). How many times have we already explained this exact point to you? It didn't have to get there Spacemonkey. How many times have I already explained this to you. >:( The wavelength/frequency is already emanating from the Sun. If we see the Sun, that means we are already within optical range due to the presence of light at our retina. This is due to efferent vision which is the complete opposite of the afferent theory. That is the only reason it's plausible, which you deny.
He was not a physicist which is why he didn't use the right term. But this does not disprove his basic claim. Most people, including me, would trust someone in the field more than someone who was not whether it was in optics or physics so I empathize, but in this case he found this knowledge through the back door, so to speak. This knowledge would never have been found by a physicist because he would not have looked in the right place.Lessans was not a lot of things, educated was one of them. His lack of education led to his fanciful ideas about the world, and his pool hall exposure led to a lot of wild ideas about how the world should be, according to a bunch of macho, uneducated pool hustlers. Lessans didn't make any discoveries because he didn't know where to look in the first place, so he took his learning from the reaction of billiard balls on a table, rather than from the real world. I would guess that "It's your shot" led to his "Right of Way" principle, each player gets his turn till he misses. You are completely out the door doc. Your wild ideas about my father are laughable, truly laughable!! In fact you are one big joke!! :lol: :lol:
This is what insanity looks like. It's hardly the first time you've tried this bogus non-response. Stating that the light is already there (at 12 o'clock) does not excuse you from the need to explain where it came from and how it got there (before 12 o'clock). How many times have we already explained this exact point to you?It didn't have to get there Spacemonkey. How many times have I already explained this to you. >:( The wavelength/frequency is already emanating from the Sun. If we see the Sun, that means we are already within optical range due to the presence of light at our retina. This is due to efferent vision which is the complete opposite of the afferent theory. That is the only reason it's plausible, which you deny. Lunacy. If you state that light is at the retina at 12 o'clock then you owe us an explanation of where it came from and how it got there. The only way it could be there without ever getting there is if it came into existence at the retina, and you have denied this to be the case. If the light at the retina previously existed and was not always at the retina, then it had to somehow get from where it was to where it is now located. What part of this amazingly simple point do you still not get? How can light be at the retina at the very same moment that light is only just beginning to emanate from the surface of the Sun?
This is what insanity looks like. It's hardly the first time you've tried this bogus non-response. Stating that the light is already there (at 12 o'clock) does not excuse you from the need to explain where it came from and how it got there (before 12 o'clock). How many times have we already explained this exact point to you?It didn't have to get there Spacemonkey. How many times have I already explained this to you. >:( The wavelength/frequency is already emanating from the Sun. If we see the Sun, that means we are already within optical range due to the presence of light at our retina. This is due to efferent vision which is the complete opposite of the afferent theory. That is the only reason it's plausible, which you deny. Lunacy. If you state that light is at the retina at 12 o'clock then you owe us an explanation of where it came from and how it got there. The only way it could be there without ever getting there is if it came into existence at the retina, and you have denied this to be the case. If the light at the retina previously existed and was not always at the retina, then it had to somehow get from where it was to where it is now located. What part of this amazingly simple point do you still not get? How can light be at the retina at the very same moment that light is only just beginning to emanate from the surface of the Sun? It's lunacy to you because you have a big block just like you have a big block regarding the incompatibility between determinism and free will (the compatibilist fake definition). BTW, I said that we would see the Sun assuming it was bright enough. If it was just emanating it may not be bright enough, so we wouldn't see it. This was a hypothetical example to stress the fact that light would not have to travel 81/2 minutes for us to see the object (in this case the Sun) as long as the the necessary requirements of efferent vision were met.
He was not a physicist which is why he didn't use the right term. But this does not disprove his basic claim. Most people, including me, would trust someone in the field more than someone who was not whether it was in optics or physics so I empathize, but in this case he found this knowledge through the back door, so to speak. This knowledge would never have been found by a physicist because he would not have looked in the right place.Lessans was not a lot of things, educated was one of them. His lack of education led to his fanciful ideas about the world, and his pool hall exposure led to a lot of wild ideas about how the world should be, according to a bunch of macho, uneducated pool hustlers. Lessans didn't make any discoveries because he didn't know where to look in the first place, so he took his learning from the reaction of billiard balls on a table, rather than from the real world. I would guess that "It's your shot" led to his "Right of Way" principle, each player gets his turn till he misses. You are completely out the door doc. Your wild ideas about my father are laughable, truly laughable!! In fact you are one big joke!! :lol: :lol: Then explain how my ideas are wrong, failing that, they stand for all the thousands and thousands of lurkers who are reading this thread, or did you forget about them and the effect your failing to answer will have on their impression of you? So far they will see me as the more sane and sensible one of this dialogue. I don't resort to abuse when I don't have the answer.