The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Does sight work the way we think it works?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Does sight work the way we think it works?

  • 43 Replies
  • 11231 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Does sight work the way we think it works?
« Reply #40 on: 18/02/2016 07:41:21 »
Quote from: Ethos_ on 17/02/2016 23:39:48
Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2016 21:59:08

 you can observe clear light a length away between objects, vision is direct and faster than light.
Wrong, no action of any kind can exceed the speed of light.

No action can exceed the speed of light , really?

Why do we observe a photons at point B then that has not even entered our eyes?

How can we possibly be observing a planet or star in their past? 


A photon aimed directly at a moving body  miles away will certainly miss the intended target, any sniper will tell you this.


added - I drew it for you

 [ Invalid Attachment ]







* ethos.jpg (55.35 kB, 1152x648 - viewed 897 times.)
Logged
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Does sight work the way we think it works?
« Reply #41 on: 18/02/2016 07:45:24 »
Quote from: Arnie O'Dell on 17/02/2016 22:52:27
This is cool! The idea of seeing because there is no light! WOW! I noticed after reading this discussion that most of the responses describe how light travels to the eye of the observer but I think your initial diagrams try to convey "the big picture" and the discussion  should be about seeing what is there in the light and in the dark. With all in interest in dark matter and energy this is in my opinion pertinent. If I look through a telescope and see a shadow there must be light behind the shadow and then what could be that light? I learn something about the shadow and the light source behind it, two birds with one stone if you will. Could this be a classic EPR paradox? Mr. Box my world just got a bit larger. TY.

Your welcome, I do not know what a EPR paradox is so can't comment on that, at this time, sorry.   Alls I can say is just try to imagine that the clear light in space is really dark, BUT everything you observe that is dark is an element.

When you turn a dimmer switch up on a light bulb, all the other ''light bulbs'' become  brighter.

The 5th elements lol.

This may be hard to digest, consider that when in absolute darkness you can still see, BUT there is simply no ''light bulbs'' to see. That is why we got 5 senses I suppose.

To talk ''sciency'', we observe thermodynamic beacons through  the dark.

Try a laser in the dark, observe the dot, it is still dark, we know we can not observe the incident beam or reflective beam, add smoke, we can observe the beams in the dark, the particle thermodynamic  beacons of the smoke, identifying themselves through the dark, we do not observe any light in the smoke being directly directed to our eyes, we observe the space to be still dark, we only see the beam in the dark.

Now before you say , but we need light to enter our eyes to able vision, consider in the dark there is always the ''light'' of the CBMR, so ''light'' still floods into your eyes even in the dark.

I said to a snake it is dark tonight, the snake said, ''funny it looks light to me''











Logged
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5266
  • Activity:
    9.5%
  • Thanked: 436 times
    • View Profile
Re: Does sight work the way we think it works?
« Reply #42 on: 18/02/2016 09:48:51 »
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 07:41:21

Why do we observe a photons at point B then that has not even entered our eyes?
We don't.

You need to do a lot more thinking before you realise why this is so, and why the light (photons) from the sun do not miss earth.
However, I'm not convinced input from me will help you, you need to discover it yourself.

Just a hint. Bullet from a gun at a moving target, curved path, whose viewpoint?
Logged
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: Does sight work the way we think it works?
« Reply #43 on: 18/02/2016 13:25:25 »
Quote from: Colin2B on 18/02/2016 09:48:51
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 07:41:21

Why do we observe a photons at point B then that has not even entered our eyes?
We don't.

You need to do a lot more thinking before you realise why this is so, and why the light (photons) from the sun do not miss earth.
However, I'm not convinced input from me will help you, you need to discover it yourself.

Just a hint. Bullet from a gun at a moving target, curved path, whose viewpoint?

Bullet from  a gun fired directly into the sky a vertical axis, what curved path?

Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.11 seconds with 38 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.