Light travels. Light strikes an object, and it obeys the law of reflection.
Earlier you said light does not bounce off an object
Well, obviously it does both. It bounces off and does not bounce off, depending on what you are trying to prove at the time.
What?
He did not say light bounces off and doesn't bounce off. Light is always traveling. The only thing that he disputes is that it does not take the object's wavelength with it. When we look at the object, in efferent vision, the light there, which allows us to see the object in real time. Here is that excerpt again. Read it or don't read it.
Decline and Fall of All Evil
p. 115 They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other respects, which is false, although it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound, the fainter it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from a plane, even though we can’t see it on a clear day, tells us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria with the naked eye, either, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason 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. To paraphrase this another way, if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would, which brings us to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been turned on, but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star, the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light diminishes before it gets to us.
Upon hearing this explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon? Once the light is here, it remains here because the photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the Earth rotates on its axis so that the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again, this does not mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us, because these photons are already present. And if the sun were to explode while we were looking at it, we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light-years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes less time for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when it is five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light. If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the Earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars.
To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice?
And before you say "that's a contradiction", just think - do you really want people to continue to suffer, just so that you can point out contradictions?
The TruthTM doesn't care about mere contradictions.
There are no contradictions, bilby.
'Our eyes see stars, not detect light.'
Semantics. In general conversation I say I see stars. Talking about physiology I say the eye dtetercts light. Both are true and are contextual.
'We see stars because they are there to be seen when enough light is present, according to this account.'
Ok, but so what? Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side.....obviously.
As to the quoted text by Lesssans, I believe that nails it down. Light is no more instant than sound. That is an experimental fact. To be pedantic light is a traverse wave and siound is a longitudinal wave.
Tie one end of a long rope to a wall. Sttretech out the rope and move the free end up and down. The disturbance propagates 90 degrees(transverse) to the line of travel. A slinky p[raes as a longitudinal wave, in the line of travel. Concessional wave.
Note that in general usage light also refers to radio signals. Visible light waves and radio waves are both part of the same electromagnet spectrum. Both are electromagnet waves, with different wavelengths and both travel at the same speed.
The above book section is debunked, there is no debate.
If that is the great secret or part of it then the entire thesis is falsified.
Pg you keep saying the book does not violate physics but it clearly does.
He did not say light bounces off and doesn't bounce off. Light is always traveling. The only thing that he disputes is that it does not take the object's wavelength with it. When we look at the object, in efferent vision, the light there, which allows us to see the object in real time. Here is that excerpt again. Read it or don't read it.
An object has a de Broglie wavelength, but that is another matt6er. In terms of visible light each color of visible light has a discrete wavelength. It is art of the wave particle duality problem.
Visible light and radio waves are the same phenomena and travel and reflects in the exact same manner.
www.eckankar.org
en.wikipedia.org
