we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present, and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon, although much larger, is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet at the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking and the object seen has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light; therefore, it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.
That is illogical. Let's see why that is so.
1. We see the moon because there is enough light present, and the moon is large enough to be seen. Okay.
2. The sun looks to be the same size as the moon despite being much larger than the moon, because the sun is much farther away. Okay.
3. Therefore, it is proven that distance has no relation to time because ... WHAT?!
There is no "because" which follows from the previous distance remarks. The conclusion or "proof" does not follow. Nothing is proven. As it stands, it is incoherent.
That wasn't his full explanation.
Can it be made sensible? Let's see.
The first matter to address is the fact that no one at all familiar with the study of light and vision thinks that images travel on waves of light. Because we have brains, it makes sense to think of light as carrying information about that from which it is emitted or that by which it is reflected with that information processed by our brains into an image. However, the real problem with the claimed "proof" is that it is not so much about images traveling as it is a denial of there being any traveling at all.
This is true, but only if the brain works the way he claimed, or it would not make sense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To understand this better, let us observe my granddaughter learning words.
It is obvious that this baby looks out through her eyes and sees various animals and people in motion, but she is not conscious of differences. She may be drawn to play with one animal in preference to another, or she may prefer to play with one toy over another, but as far as she is concerned, all she sees are a bunch of objects. By constantly hearing certain sounds in relation to specific objects, she soon knows that apple, orange, doll, dress, sun, moon, dog, cat, couch, chair, etc., mean the very things she sees with her eyes. These bits of substance are a definite part of the real world, and she knows this even before learning the words. She has experienced most of these with her four senses, and even though this cannot be done where the sun and moon are concerned, she still sees that something is there. Remember, however, that nothing from the external world strikes her optic nerve to allow her to see these various objects. She simply sees these things because she looks at them. A dog also sees these objects because he looks at them. He tastes, smells, and hears various things, but since nothing strikes his optic nerve, he must confirm what he is doubtful of with his sense of smell.
“But doesn’t the brain take a picture through the eyes of the differences that exist? I can see them through my eyes, why can’t a dog see them through his?”
Because he knows nothing of differences. He likes some toys more than others. He likes his master and dislikes strangers. He likes to eat certain foods, and he is drawn to certain females, but there is no way his brain can perceive differences because this involves words. Let us continue.
As my granddaughter’s eyes are focused on one of our canine friends, I shall repeat the word “dog” rapidly in her ear. When she turns away, I stop. This will be repeated until she looks for him when hearing the word, which indicates that a relation between this particular sound and object has been established, and a photograph has been taken. Soon, this relation is formed, which makes her conscious of a particular difference that exists in the external world. As she learns more and more words, such as cat, horse, bird, sun, moon, etc., she becomes conscious of these differences, which no one can deny because they are seen through words or slides that accurately circumscribe these various bits of substance. This is exactly how we learn words, only I am speeding up the process. Before long, she learns house, tree, car, chair, door, kitchen, television, airplane, moon, stars, nose, teeth, eyes, hair, girl, boy, and so on. She soon learns that these bits of substance are different, and that is why they have different names. Until she learns the word “cat,” she could very easily point to a dog when hearing that word because a negative of the difference has not yet been developed, just as a fox cannot be differentiated from a dog until a photograph of the difference has been developed.
She also learns the names of individuals: Mommy, Daddy, Linda, Janis, Marc, David, Elan, Justin, Shoshana, Adam, Jennifer, Meredith, etc. If a picture of her mother was flashed on a screen, she would automatically say mommy. She is able to identify her mother because the word is a picture that was taken when the relation was formed and exists in her mind, through which she looks at the differences that exist in substance. My granddaughter can identify her mother from hundreds and hundreds of photographs because the difference is a negative that not only reveals who her mother is, but who she is not. In other words, as she learns these names and words, her brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized, and when she sees these differences again, she projects the word or name, but the brain will not take any picture until a relation is formed. Consequently, these differences that exist in the external world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are related to words, names, or slides that we project for recognition. If we lose certain names or words, we will have amnesia because, when we see these ordinarily familiar differences, we are unable to project the words or names necessary for recognition.
That is the real claim: nothing related to vision travels from light/energy emitting or reflecting objects.
Pood kept bringing up the fact that light doesn't carry images. That is obvious and a strawman because that was not even the contention. Everyone knows light is light and has a frequency and wavelength, but it is assumed the wavelength/frequency, when it reaches the eye, is transduced into an image that was brought by that particular wavelength/frequency.
That is the absolutely necessary condition for the conclusion that "it takes no time". Since traveling certainly entails taking time, the taking no time requires that there be no traveling. So, the claim is either that light does not travel, or the claim is that light conveys nothing which contributes to the imaging process.
But that does not sensibly fit with the experience-based notion of light having a finite speed and being essential for vision.
There is another problem to address. You say:
I could see the Sun turned on, even though it is 93,000,000 miles away. That is because it would meet the requirements of brightness and size, not travel time.
You have gone from previously speaking in terms of luminosity to speaking in terms of brightness. Those are not interchangeable terms. The matter of distance traveled is a factor in the determining of apparent brightness which relates to visibility. Luminosity in itself does not relate to visibility. Luminosity only relates to visibility through apparent brightness, and brightness is apparent in accord with emitted or reflected energy (light, in this discussion) that travels, with traveling necessarily involving time.
The "takes no time" claim is not proven.
For that matter, even if light is not necessary for and contributes nothing to vision such that images were entirely products of brain activity, even that image construction takes time - once again establishing that the "takes no time" claim is not proven.
The supposed "proof" is not sensible; it is senseless and apparently irremediably so.
.
