There was no word other than efferent that he could have used...
The word 'instantaneous' would have been better, seeing as how there's nothing efferent about his account.
I am only discussing whether we see in real time or delayed time. That's it.
Exactly. See above.
You are not in the position to give an unbiased judgment on what he had to say because you don’t really know whether his position is plausible.
We know that it's NOT plausible for the simple yet decisive reason that light cannot be somewhere before it can get there.
We also know that YOU KNOW it isn't plausible, based on your unrelenting and disciplined avoidance of this very simple point.
Spacemonkey, you're not the judge and the jury. Thank god I am not depending on your insights to tell me what is true and what isn't. If I did, we would be at war for another 1000 years. :grrr:
There you go again with the same old garbage. No substance in any of your posts because you don't have any.
I call it a "reply in kind", you don't post anything of substance, so My posts are like in quality. Just trying to point out how wrong you and Lessans are.
Peacegirl, why don’t you try posting honest answers to questions, and basing your claims on the real world, and see what happens. You might actually find some supporters.
Spacemonkey, you're not the judge and the jury. Thank god I am not depending on your insights to tell me what is true and what isn't. If I did, we would be at war for another 1000 years. :grrr:
Your problem is that you are preaching world peace to those who actually want it, but your solution is totally unrealistic. You need to take your message to those who have declared war on the rest of the world, and convince them to stop fighting.
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.
Sorry, that is not a clear answer. Try again. The answer is yes or no, but of course I appreciate if you motivate your answer.
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.
Again, it is a yes or no question. So?
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.
OK. I did not imply that you disagreed with that. I just wanted a clear statement.
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.
OK.
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?
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.
I asked you:
- Do the sun and the landscape appear simultaneously on the screen of the camera obscura?
- Do the sun and the landscape appear simultaneously on the retina of the eye?
- Do I see the sun and the landscape appear simultaneously?
All yes or no questions.
And to add: how does the information from the sun being turned on reach us?
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.
Huh? I see things under moonlight. You don't? Are you living in a big city, where it is never dark?
There was no word other than efferent that he could have used...
The word 'instantaneous' would have been better, seeing as how there's nothing efferent about his account.
I am only discussing whether we see in real time or delayed time. That's it.
Exactly. See above.
You are not in the position to give an unbiased judgment on what he had to say because you don’t really know whether his position is plausible.
We know that it's NOT plausible for the simple yet decisive reason that light cannot be somewhere before it can get there.
We also know that YOU KNOW it isn't plausible, based on your unrelenting and disciplined avoidance of this very simple point.
Spacemonkey, you're not the judge and the jury. Thank god I am not depending on your insights to tell me what is true and what isn't. If I did, we would be at war for another 1000 years. :grrr:
Hmm, what would be a fitting response here? Oh yes, how about this: "No substance in any of your posts because you don’t have any."
Spacemonkey is to blame for war! :lol:
There was no word other than efferent that he could have used...
The word 'instantaneous' would have been better, seeing as how there's nothing efferent about his account.[/qutoe]
That's a side-effect of how the eyes function. He had to explain that we are seeing reality, not virtual reality.
I am only discussing whether we see in real time or delayed time. That's it.
Exactly. See above.
That's not an explanation.
You are not in the position to give an unbiased judgment on what he had to say because you don’t really know whether his position is plausible.
We know that it's NOT plausible for the simple yet decisive reason that light cannot be somewhere before it can get there.
We also know that YOU KNOW it isn't plausible, based on your unrelenting and disciplined avoidance of this very simple point.
You are trying to compare a car that hasn't gotten to my house yet. It's not the same thing with the eyes because the direction the eyes see puts us within the landscape of the scene we're looking at instantly if the object meets the requirements of this account. You have never analyzed this correctly and you probably never will until it is recognized by other prominent people.
There you go again with the same old garbage. No substance in any of your posts because you don't have any.
I call it a "reply in kind", you don't post anything of substance, so My posts are like in quality. Just trying to point out how wrong you and Lessans are.
You don't know how wrong he is. You know nothing about his discovery. I have heard your answers for 3 years, and you are in the same place you were back then.
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.
Sorry, that is not a clear answer. Try again. The answer is yes or no, but of course I appreciate if you motivate your answer.
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.
Again, it is a yes or no question. So?
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.
OK. I did not imply that you disagreed with that. I just wanted a clear statement.
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.
OK.
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?
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.
I asked you:
- Do the sun and the landscape appear simultaneously on the screen of the camera obscura?
- Do the sun and the landscape appear simultaneously on the retina of the eye?
- Do I see the sun and the landscape appear simultaneously?
All yes or no questions.
And to add: how does the information from the sun being turned on reach us?[
It doesn't have to reach us as the word "reach" implies travel time. The photons are at the camera because the camera is taking a picture of the real object so it works exactly the same way as the eye. There is no discrepancy between cameras and eyes. They work the same way. In other words, if the Sun were just turned on and we took a picture at that second (before the light had 81/2 minutes to reach Earth) we would be getting a real time photograph of the Sun, not a delayed photograph.
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.
Huh? I see things under moonlight. You don't? Are you living in a big city, where it is never dark?
That only means that the light of the moon is being reflected off of these objects because the photons are striking these objects, which is a requirement.
If the Sun was just turned on (having the brightness and size that would be necessary for sight without having to travel 81/2 minutes), and there were other celestial bodies nearby that were being illuminated by the Sun's photons, this landscape would appear on the camera obscura or the retina simultaneously assuming the landscape was within the observer's field of view.
There you go again with the same old garbage. No substance in any of your posts because you don't have any.
I call it a "reply in kind", you don't post anything of substance, so My posts are like in quality. Just trying to point out how wrong you and Lessans are.
You don't know how wrong he is. You know nothing about his discovery.
I have heard your answers for 3 years, and you are in the same place you were back then.
If you're saying that after reading what Lessans has written, and I still disagree that he is correct, then yes, I'm at the same place I was when I first read one of your posts. How ever yours and Lessans drivel has attracted much data, and that has been a learning experience for me, there has been a lot of good information posted by those proving that Lessans didn't know what he was writing about. I know what Lessans was claiming, and I know that there was no discovery, just a lot of fantasy. And it was somewhat amusing to read that anyone could possible believe it.
There you go again with the same old garbage. No substance in any of your posts because you don't have any.
I call it a "reply in kind", you don't post anything of substance, so My posts are like in quality. Just trying to point out how wrong you and Lessans are.
You don't know how wrong he is. You know nothing about his discovery.
I have heard your answers for 3 years, and you are in the same place you were back then.
If you're saying that after reading what Lessans has written, and I still disagree that he is correct, then yes, I'm at the same place I was when I first read one of your posts. How ever yours and Lessans drivel has attracted much data, and that has been a learning experience for me, there has been a lot of good information posted by those proving that Lessans didn't know what he was writing about. I know what Lessans was claiming, and I know that there was no discovery, just a lot of fantasy. And it was somewhat amusing to read that anyone could possible believe it.
You know nothing.
If you're saying that after reading what Lessans has written, and I still disagree that he is correct, then yes, I'm at the same place I was when I first read one of your posts. How ever yours and Lessans drivel has attracted much data, and that has been a learning experience for me, there has been a lot of good information posted by those proving that Lessans didn't know what he was writing about. I know what Lessans was claiming, and I know that there was no discovery, just a lot of fantasy. And it was somewhat amusing to read that anyone could possible believe it.
You know nothing.
the funny part is that Lessans wrote a joke, spoofing everything that he knew nothing about. The sad part is that you believed that he was serious about what he was writing.
You don't know how wrong he is.
On the contrary, I do know how wrong he was. The pity is that he is not around to explain the joke to you.
Ok, peacegirl, from your answers it is clear that your statements are “not even wrong”
From Wikipedia,
The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[1] Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'."[2] This is also often quoted as "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German. Peierls remarks that quite a few apocryphal stories of this kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched by him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau, "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not."[2]
The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science, and is considered derogatory
Make it so.
That's a side-effect of how the eyes function. He had to explain that we are seeing reality, not virtual reality.
He didn't explain how the eyes function, and no-one is claiming we only see virtual reality. Again there is nothing efferent in his account.
That's not an explanation.
It wasn't meant to be.
You are trying to compare a car that hasn't gotten to my house yet. It's not the same thing with the eyes...
I never made any such comparison. But as it happens, it is exactly the same. You are speaking of photons, and claiming that they will be at the eyes before they could possibly have gotten there. That makes no sense and is plainly impossible. Blithering about being 'put within a landscape' does nothing to address this problem, as you know perfectly well.
There you go again with the same old garbage. No substance in any of your posts because you don't have any.
I call it a "reply in kind", you don't post anything of substance, so My posts are like in quality. Just trying to point out how wrong you and Lessans are.
You don't know how wrong he is. You know nothing about his discovery.
I have heard your answers for 3 years, and you are in the same place you were back then.
If you're saying that after reading what Lessans has written, and I still disagree that he is correct, then yes, I'm at the same place I was when I first read one of your posts. How ever yours and Lessans drivel has attracted much data, and that has been a learning experience for me, there has been a lot of good information posted by those proving that Lessans didn't know what he was writing about. I know what Lessans was claiming, and I know that there was no discovery, just a lot of fantasy. And it was somewhat amusing to read that anyone could possible believe it.
You know nothing.
... John Snow.
There you go again with the same old garbage. No substance in any of your posts because you don't have any.
I call it a "reply in kind", you don't post anything of substance, so My posts are like in quality. Just trying to point out how wrong you and Lessans are.
You don't know how wrong he is. You know nothing about his discovery.
I have heard your answers for 3 years, and you are in the same place you were back then.
If you're saying that after reading what Lessans has written, and I still disagree that he is correct, then yes, I'm at the same place I was when I first read one of your posts. How ever yours and Lessans drivel has attracted much data, and that has been a learning experience for me, there has been a lot of good information posted by those proving that Lessans didn't know what he was writing about. I know what Lessans was claiming, and I know that there was no discovery, just a lot of fantasy. And it was somewhat amusing to read that anyone could possible believe it.
You know nothing.
... John Snow.
Never read or watched any of the "Game of Thrones", but I do like one of George RR Martins early works, "The Glass Flower", one of my favorite SF stories.
That's a side-effect of how the eyes function. He had to explain that we are seeing reality, not virtual reality.
He didn't explain how the eyes function, and no-one is claiming we only see virtual reality. Again there is nothing efferent in his account.
That's not an explanation.
It wasn't meant to be.
You are trying to compare a car that hasn't gotten to my house yet. It's not the same thing with the eyes...
I never made any such comparison. But as it happens, it is exactly the same. You are speaking of photons, and claiming that they will be at the eyes before they could possibly have gotten there. That makes no sense and is plainly impossible. Blithering about being 'put within a landscape' does nothing to address this problem, as you know perfectly well.
Actually it is correct. It is a closed system. The distance between the object and the observer works in the same way regardless of how far away an object is IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. The light would be at the retina instantly revealing the landscape that is within one's field of view.
Actually it is correct.
No, it clearly isn't. Light cannot be somewhere before getting there.
It is a closed system.
This doesn't mean anything.
The distance between the object and the observer works in the same way regardless of how far away an object is IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.
This also means nothing at all. And stating requirements is not to give an explanation. The distance is real, so you can't just state some requirements and then pretend it doesn't matter that you have no way of getting light from one place to another place 90 million miles away in zero time.
The light would be at the retina instantly revealing the landscape that is within one's field of view.
How did it get to the retina? Where did that light come from?
These are the two questions we both know you will never honestly answer.