“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[steve_bank]

you’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

Just learned two new words, efferent and afferent. Peacegirl is mixing sinence and philosophical terms lacking the science.

Yes it is an apparent violation.

Modern model based sicjence is about causality and causal chaikns. Where effect can not precede cause and effect occurs after a delay.

Tap one end of a metal rod with a hammer and there is a time delay before the effect reaches the other end.

Swtich on a flashlight and it takes tine for the light to reach and reflect off a rock and reach the eye lens. Models describe how the light gravel form flashlight to rock, how refection occurs, how the reflected light passes through the lens, how the retinaa reacts to the light, and how the the retina response is transmitted to the brain.

At each stage there is a finite time delay. There is a delay between the time the light reaches the photo receptors to change state.

The retina's time response, or how quickly it reacts to light, varies across its different parts and cells. While the fovea, responsible for sharp central vision, has a slower response time compared to the periphery, this slower response may enhance the reliability of visual information. Different types of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) also exhibit varying response latencies, which are influenced by the retinal circuitry

Look at an object at rest. If the object moves it takes time for you to perceive the change in position. Perception can not be instantaneous. When light arrives at the eye it take time for human brain to reprieve.

When you wtach video the display presents a series of still pictures. The slow response time of the eye makes it seem like continuous motion.

In fact the 50-60 hertz mains frequencies were in part selected to avoid perceiving the lightss as flickering.

The human eye can perceive flickering lights, but the frequency at which flicker becomes imperceptible varies. Generally, humans can detect flicker up to about 50-60 Hz, and some individuals may perceive it up to 90-100 Hz. However, some studies suggest that flicker can be perceived at higher frequencies, even up to 500 Hz, especially when there are spatial edges or rapid eye movements according to Nature and Admesy.

Visual perception is a comlex topic.

 

[peacegirl]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

 

[DBT]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

No, the eyes have nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance it takes to get from the source to the eye, which is not instant, and cannot be instant.

Light carries information about the source and cannot magically appear ''at the eye'' without travel time.

 

[steve_bank]

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

It could not have been an 'observation', he imagined it.

in physicss
s = distance
t = time
dt = change in time
ds - chage in distance
velocity = ds/dt mathematically called the first derivative
velocity = meters/second

You can not just dispense with distance.

C speed of light is approximately 300,000 meters per second. There can be no gaps where C does not apply, uncles it is science fiction or pseudo science.

Your father did not understand basic physics.

Basic theory of light

Light has both wave and parttcle like behavior, the wave particle duality. When propagatingg in space it acts like a wave, in a snese like a wave prorogation on a lake, peaks and valleys. It is measurable. The light wave is composed of discrete particles called photons. When light is interacting with photo receptor on the retina it is by photons.

Turn on a flashlight and imagine tiny balls called photons leaving the flashlight A photon leaves the flashlight and bounces off a rock then travels to an eye. The photon passes through the lens and eye fluid and hits a photo receptor on the retina. The receptor converts photons to electrical impulses, electrons.

There are no gaps where distance does not matter.

The optic nerve's propagation time, or nerve conduction velocity, refers to how quickly nerve impulses travel along the optic nerve. This speed is influenced by several factors, including axon diameter, myelination, and the presence and type of sodium channels. Myelination, in particular, significantly increases conduction velocity by allowing for saltatory conduction (where the signal jumps between Nodes of Ranvier).


Normal ranges vary depending on the nerve and its location, but generally fall within the range of 50-70 m/s.

It also takes time for the brain to react to optic nerve signals and create an image.

Your father had creativity and imagination, but lacked the necessary science.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

If you posted on other threads you would see that people can and do criticize each other, don’t take it personally. The way I criticize you is no different than how I would do back in the work environment, and no different than I would be criticized.

You do not appear up to the typical level of debate on the forum.

Your views based on the book on light, reflection, image formation, and how the eye works is more like pre 20th science metaphysics.

Metaphysical abstractions and concepts with no experimental basis in psychical reality.

Science gets light wrong? And you wonder why your father’s book went nowhere.

Chrtians and paranormal believers on the science forum have made the same claim, science is worng or science does not get it.

There is always a way to rationalize a way around science.

But this is not paranormal or Christian theology. You really need to look at this claim without muddying it by comparing it to other ideas that have no merit.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object.

From basic optics image size and brightness at the focal plane of a lens depends on the focal length and aperture size of the lens and distance to the object. Easily demonstrated. Geometric optics.

In optics you have to be careful using terms luminosity, brightens, intensity, and irradiance. They have specific definitions and units of measure and applications.

Look them up at your leisure.

There is nothing that disputes what he's talking about. The definitions remain and don't interfere with his claim other than that the eyes are efferent. The brain looks through them; the light with the picture (or wavelength) doesn't come to them.

Note the image on the retina is upside down....that you perceive things right side up is a function of the brain.

In an experiment people were given glasses that inverted the image twice. At first people had trouble. Over time the brain adapted and they saw tings as they normally did.

Another example of experimental cognitive psychology exploring perceptions.

Perceptions definitely come into play if the brain gets confused, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with his claim Steve. It's okay if you are trying in the worst way to despute him, but the problem arises when, regardless of what he proves, you won't listen. Your ears and eyes are shut tight because you are so sure he is wrong. That's not science Steve, it's anything but.

 

[pood]

lol. Bear in mind, folks, that she has been peddling this light and sight nonsense on numerous message boards for about 25 years, including a stint here at iidb around 2008.

 

[steve_bank]

She argue science without any understanding.

There were many threads on the science forum where Chi stains tried to discredit science that disputes Christian theology, like Young Earth Creationism and god starting the human race with Adam and Eve.

Evangelical argue science is out to destroy religion.

On the forum Peacegirl argues pseudo science that conflicts with established scince.

Christians on the forum have have argued for pseudoscience like Intelligent Design to try to get around evolution science.

The book is pseudoscience.

I showed in as simplest terms as I can how light works and how there can be no conditions where distance does not matter

The next step for Peacegirl would be to try and refute it.

 

[peacegirl]

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

It could not have been an 'observation', he imagined it.

in physicss
s = distance
t = time
dt = change in time
ds - chage in distance
velocity = ds/dt mathematically called the first derivative
velocity = meters/second

You can not just dispense with distance.

C speed of light is approximately 300,000 meters per second. There can be no gaps where C does not apply, uncles it is science fiction or pseudo science.

Your father did not understand basic physics.

Basic theory of light

Light has both wave and parttcle like behavior, the wave particle duality. When propagatingg in space it acts like a wave, in a snese like a wave prorogation on a lake, peaks and valleys. It is measurable. The light wave is composed of discrete particles called photons. When light is interacting with photo receptor on the retina it is by photons.

Turn on a flashlight and imagine tiny balls called photons leaving the flashlight A photon leaves the flashlight and bounces off a rock then travels to an eye. The photon passes through the lens and eye fluid and hits a photo receptor on the retina. The receptor converts photons to electrical impulses, electrons.

There are no gaps where distance does not matter.

The optic nerve's propagation time, or nerve conduction velocity, refers to how quickly nerve impulses travel along the optic nerve. This speed is influenced by several factors, including axon diameter, myelination, and the presence and type of sodium channels. Myelination, in particular, significantly increases conduction velocity by allowing for saltatory conduction (where the signal jumps between Nodes of Ranvier).


Normal ranges vary depending on the nerve and its location, but generally fall within the range of 50-70 m/s.

It also takes time for the brain to react to optic nerve signals and create an image.

Your father had creativity and imagination, but lacked the necessary science.

You're just repeating the same old tired idea that science has convinced you needs no further questioning. You are part and parcel of the hypnotism that we are all inclined to fall under if we're not careful, not realizing that we have lost our ability to even question science when they have announced something is factual when, in reality, it is purely theoretical, nothing more.

 

[pood]

She argue science without any understanding.

There were many threads on the science forum where Chi stains tried to discredit science that disputes Christian theology, like Young Earth Creationism and god starting the human race with Adam and Eve.

Evangelical argue science is out to destroy religion.

On the forum Peacegirl argues pseudo science that conflicts with established scince.

Christians on the forum have have argued for pseudoscience like Intelligent Design to try to get around evolution science.

The book is pseudoscience.

I showed in as simplest terms as I can how light works and how there can be no conditions where distance does not matter

The next step for Peacegirl would be to try and refute it.

You are asking her to explain how her author’s version of light and sight actually works, which the author somehow omitted to do in a 600-page book. Here is one of her explanations from another board:

How many times do I have to say that light travels, but non-absorbed light (the light that provides the mirror image) does not get (N) reflected which would indicate that it travels in that pattern forever. You will not understand why this is so if you don't see this from the efferent standpoint. That's why you're getting confused.

Does that clarify matters?

 

[peacegirl]

She argue science without any understanding.

There were many threads on the science forum where Chi stains tried to discredit science that disputes Christian theology, like Young Earth Creationism and god starting the human race with Adam and Eve.

Evangelical argue science is out to destroy religion.

On the forum Peacegirl argues pseudo science that conflicts with established scince.

Christians on the forum have have argued for pseudoscience like Intelligent Design to try to get around evolution science.

The book is pseudoscience.

I showed in as simplest terms as I can how light works and how there can be no conditions where distance does not matter

The next step for Peacegirl would be to try and refute it.

He did refute it by showing that the brain and eyes work differently than the other four senses. This is not about light. Why do you keep bringing this up, as if he is arguing that light does not travel at 186,000 miles a second? This IS science. He was not an evangelist so stop comparing him to this. You're being unfair.

 

[peacegirl]

She argue science without any understanding.

There were many threads on the science forum where Chi stains tried to discredit science that disputes Christian theology, like Young Earth Creationism and god starting the human race with Adam and Eve.

Evangelical argue science is out to destroy religion.

On the forum Peacegirl argues pseudo science that conflicts with established scince.

Christians on the forum have have argued for pseudoscience like Intelligent Design to try to get around evolution science.

The book is pseudoscience.

I showed in as simplest terms as I can how light works and how there can be no conditions where distance does not matter

The next step for Peacegirl would be to try and refute it.

You are asking her to explain how her author’s version of light and sight actually works, which the author somehow omitted to do in a 600-page book. Here is one of her explanations from another board:

How many times do I have to say that light travels, but non-absorbed light (the light that provides the mirror image) does not get (N) reflected which would indicate that it travels in that pattern forever. You will not understand why this is so if you don't see this from the efferent standpoint. That's why you're getting confused.

Does that clarify matters?

Light travels but to say it travels with the same pattern forever is a fallacy. It is only when we look at the object does the wavelength show up on our retina. His demonstration as to why he believed this was true starts on page 109. How dare you say that he omitted his observations regarding light and sight! You won't win by lying.

 

[pood]

She argue science without any understanding.

There were many threads on the science forum where Chi stains tried to discredit science that disputes Christian theology, like Young Earth Creationism and god starting the human race with Adam and Eve.

Evangelical argue science is out to destroy religion.

On the forum Peacegirl argues pseudo science that conflicts with established scince.

Christians on the forum have have argued for pseudoscience like Intelligent Design to try to get around evolution science.

The book is pseudoscience.

I showed in as simplest terms as I can how light works and how there can be no conditions where distance does not matter

The next step for Peacegirl would be to try and refute it.

You are asking her to explain how her author’s version of light and sight actually works, which the author somehow omitted to do in a 600-page book. Here is one of her explanations from another board:

How many times do I have to say that light travels, but non-absorbed light (the light that provides the mirror image) does not get (N) reflected which would indicate that it travels in that pattern forever. You will not understand why this is so if you don't see this from the efferent standpoint. That's why you're getting confused.

Does that clarify matters?

Light travels but to say it travels with the same pattern forever is a fallacy. It is only when we look at the object does the wavelength show up on our retina. His demonstration as to why he believed this was true starts on page 109. How dare you say that he omitted his observations regarding light and sight! You won't win by lying.

Why don’t you reproduce those observations here?

 

[peacegirl]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

No DBT, it is undeniable that light travels at a finite speed, but this does not translate to how we see, IF THE BRAIN AND EYES work the way he described. No matter how many times you say he was wrong doesn't make it so. This whole thing is so disturbing to me because this knowledge is important, as it allows us to see reality for what it actually is, not through words that have conditioned us, not through direct perception.

 

[pood]

He failed to describe how the eyes and brain work under his hare-brained claim.

 

[peacegirl]

She argue science without any understanding.

There were many threads on the science forum where Chi stains tried to discredit science that disputes Christian theology, like Young Earth Creationism and god starting the human race with Adam and Eve.

Evangelical argue science is out to destroy religion.

On the forum Peacegirl argues pseudo science that conflicts with established scince.

Christians on the forum have have argued for pseudoscience like Intelligent Design to try to get around evolution science.

The book is pseudoscience.

I showed in as simplest terms as I can how light works and how there can be no conditions where distance does not matter

The next step for Peacegirl would be to try and refute it.

You are asking her to explain how her author’s version of light and sight actually works, which the author somehow omitted to do in a 600-page book. Here is one of her explanations from another board:

How many times do I have to say that light travels, but non-absorbed light (the light that provides the mirror image) does not get (N) reflected which would indicate that it travels in that pattern forever. You will not understand why this is so if you don't see this from the efferent standpoint. That's why you're getting confused.

Does that clarify matters?

Light travels but to say it travels with the same pattern forever is a fallacy. It is only when we look at the object does the wavelength show up on our retina. His demonstration as to why he believed this was true starts on page 109. How dare you say that he omitted his observations regarding light and sight! You won't win by lying.

Why don’t you reproduce those observations here?

Nope. I've been there and done that. I'm not going through that again. If $1.95 for this ebook is too much money for them to part with, then nothing I say here will make a damn bit of difference.

 

[peacegirl]

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

You’re still not getting it. This does not violate physics. Light travels but if he's correct, and the eyes are efferent, not afferent, then the light from the object, regardless of how far away it is, is at the eye the second the object is seen, that is, if it is within the person's field of view. There is no gap between the light at the eye and the object seen, which would violate physics.

How is instant vision/light at the eye even supposed to work?

It takes time for light to get to the eye and be processed by the brain.
It can't be instant, and even if it was, it does not relate to how humans interact with each other and the world at large.

This so called discovery makes no sense.

You don’t understand that if the brain uses the eye to see the outside world, as a window, this means that the distance of the object is less important than the size and luminosity of the object. You are so convinced it makes no sense that you will not entertain the possibility that he could be right. I don’t think you read his reasoning as to why he came to this conclusion. Seeing in real time does not mean we don’t take what we see and interpret it by our brain, just as we would if the light waves traveled through space/time to reach our eye. Nothing changes in that respect.

No, that's not it. Physics excludes the possibility of instant vision, and human behaviour is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc.

He is not denying that human behavior is driven by countless factors, environment, social values, life experiences, etc. All he is doing is showing that when the conditions of the environment change, and there is economic security and the absence of all authority and control (including government as we know it), the desire to strike a first blow of hurt, at the expense of others, will be eliminated.

That doesn't make sense. There is a gap between the object emitting or reflecting light and the eye that detects that light, which is distance of travel. Given that light has a finite speed, it takes time to travel between the light source and the eye.

That's simply how it works, physics, it's undeniable.

If the eyes were afferent, it would be violating physics because a gap would exist but if the eyes work like he described, there would be no gap. Light still travels at a finite speed but in this account, distance is not a factor. I hope you try to understand his observations and why he came to this conclusion. It didn’t come out of thin air. I reduced the book to $1.95. It would be worth your while to read it. Just put in Seymour Lessans in the search bar at Amazon, and Decline and Fall of All Evil will show up.

No, the eyes have nothing to do with the speed of light and the distance it takes to get from the source to the eye, which is not instant, and cannot be instant.

Light carries information about the source and cannot magically appear ''at the eye'' without travel time.

It's not about light magically appearing at the eye; the wavelength IS at the eye when we look at the object as long as the object is able to be seen due to its brightness and its size and location. Obviously, if it's outside of our field of view, we won't be able to see it; if it is not bright enough, we won't be able to see it; and if it's not large enough or too far away, we won't be able to see it. And, yes, if he is right, distance and time are not involved because light alone is not bringing the image or wavelength through millions of years to us, even though light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

 

[pood]

 

[peacegirl]

He failed to describe how the eyes and brain work under his hare-brained claim.

You are completely blocked. Nothing will sink in because you don't want it to.

 

[pood]

He failed to describe how the eyes and brain work under his hare-brained claim.

You are completely blocked. Nothing will sink in because you don't want it to.

Look in the mirror when you say that.

 

[steve_bank]

She argue science without any understanding.

There were many threads on the science forum where Chi stains tried to discredit science that disputes Christian theology, like Young Earth Creationism and god starting the human race with Adam and Eve.

Evangelical argue science is out to destroy religion.

On the forum Peacegirl argues pseudo science that conflicts with established scince.

Christians on the forum have have argued for pseudoscience like Intelligent Design to try to get around evolution science.

The book is pseudoscience.

I showed in as simplest terms as I can how light works and how there can be no conditions where distance does not matter

The next step for Peacegirl would be to try and refute it.

You are asking her to explain how her author’s version of light and sight actually works, which the author somehow omitted to do in a 600-page book. Here is one of her explanations from another board:

How many times do I have to say that light travels, but non-absorbed light (the light that provides the mirror image) does not get (N) reflected which would indicate that it travels in that pattern forever. You will not understand why this is so if you don't see this from the efferent standpoint. That's why you're getting confused.

Does that clarify matters?

Light travels but to say it travels with the same pattern forever is a fallacy. It is only when we look at the object does the wavelength show up on our retina. His demonstration as to why he believed this was true starts on page 109. How dare you say that he omitted his observations regarding light and sight! You won't win by lying.

It i a little more complicated.

Imagine light from a distant star. From Earth it looks like an isotropic radiator, meaning it radiates in all directions equally as an expanding sphere here around the star. As the sphere propagates the surface area expands and the energy density in watts per square meters goes down.

From Hygen's Principle all subsections on the traveling sphere, wavefront, contains all the information details.

When using a backyard Newtonian telescope when viewing a bright object a disk with a hole in it is put over the aperture. An aperture stop.

The object image dims, but all the details of the object are there.

The wavefront does go on forever, but energy density in watts/meter^2 goes towards zero. At some point it becomes undetectable by our instruments,.

A photon is either being created, propagating, or being absorbed. It has no rest state. It goes on forever unless it is boarded by something. No different than other quantum particles like electrons.

Put an electron charge on a metal surface and it stays there.

You first have to understand the wave-particle duality. It is fundamental. It is all based in experiment.

How would you know it is a fallacy?