[guest39538]

In general we think that to see an object the light reflected from the object must enter your eyes.

I would not disagree that light is needed to see, however I think that sight works slightly different than the present explanation.

Why would you need directly reflected light to be received by your eyes when your eyes and yourself are submerged in the light, in comparison to being underwater in a swimming pool?  In another words you are in the light rather than seeing reflective light  and you see the object directly through the light, sight having a passive ability by the use of the light. A coupling of matter to sight by the light.

Now to me, when I catch a glare off something, that is light being shined/reflected directly into my eyes through the constant-'constant of light.

In respect to reality, I believe this is a general observation for all, we see objects in their exact geometrical position, in an exact equilibrium synchronous time reference frame to the observer.

It is a fact that distance exists, whether we could see or not see this remains true. our eyes relatively cover distance in no time at all. 


What do you think?

[alancalverd]

If there is a brick wall between yourself and the object, you can't see it. Ergo something must be travelling in a straight line between you in order for you to see it.

Remarkably, this simple hypothesis has led to the entire science and industry of optics, from microscopes and spectacles to the Hubble telescope and observations of gravitational lensing. I rather think it has legs, and yours doesn't.   

[guest39538]

If there is a brick wall between yourself and the object, you can't see it.

That is because your line of sight is obstructed nothing un-obvious about that

Ergo something must be travelling in a straight line between you in order for you to see it.

How is that any different to you just have to be looking towards the object and have a line of sight?

Remarkably, this simple hypothesis has led to the entire science and industry of optics, from microscopes and spectacles to the Hubble telescope and observations of gravitational lensing. I rather think it has legs, and yours doesn't.

If we looked at it like an ocean we are submerged in, and the light like a pole between masses, I do not see how this changes anything in respect to invention, it is relatively the same thing but looked at in a different perspective. Light does not need to reflect into your eyes, you are already in the light, to see an object your eyes just simply have to be looking in the direction of the object within the light.


I admit and agree that light has to reflect/interact with an object before  it is illuminated, but this does not necessarily mean it reflects directly into our eyes, there is not a need for this, it just so happens that we have to have a line of sight.

Ever seen an eclipse?  we observe a black circle that is not reflecting or interacting with light, but we can still see it through the constant-'constant.  So according to the present information, I should not be able to see the circle of an eclipse.



There is clearly no reflection in this diagram but I can clearly see  the colourless object.  Please explain,

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

in this diagram I can still see the same object but it has blended in

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

If I was to add a laser dot, we can see the dot and clearly see the laser is not reflected to our eyes.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I can add a medium of smoke to the diagram to ray trace and clearly show no reflective rays in the direction of our eyes from a laser.

Please explain?

[Colin2B]

In general we think that to see an object the light reflected from the object must enter your eyes.

If an object is not a light source then it needs to be illuminated by a light source, and the light hitting it to be reflected into our eyes in order for us to see it.
We can see light sources, like the sun or a lamp, because the light goes straight into our eyes.

I can add a medium of smoke to the diagram to ray trace and clearly show no reflective rays in the direction of our eyes from a laser.

Please explain?

The laser is a light source directly illuminating (and burning out) your retina.

[guest39538]

In general we think that to see an object the light reflected from the object must enter your eyes.

If an object is not a light source then it needs to be illuminated by a light source, and the light hitting it to be reflected into our eyes in order for us to see it.
We can see light sources, like the sun or a lamp, because the light goes straight into our eyes.

I can add a medium of smoke to the diagram to ray trace and clearly show no reflective rays in the direction of our eyes from a laser.

Please explain?

The laser is a light source directly illuminating (and burning out) your retina.

Colin I did not and do not want to discuss Wiki and an answer or discussion that involves the present information which we all know, I wanted to approach sight from  a different angle and discuss that.  There is not anything set in stone when it comes to science.


''If an object is not a light source then it needs to be illuminated by a light source, and the light hitting it to be reflected into our eyes in order for us to see it.
We can see light sources, like the sun or a lamp, because the light goes straight into our eyes.''


Ok in saying that let us discuss your sentence.


I am now looking at my wall, I can see my wall reacted with the light, I can not observe a direct reflection of light into my eyes from the wall. The light propagating through the space is invisible compared to the spectral visible colour.= of my wall.

Please provide proof/evidence that there is light reflecting directly into my eyes from my walls?

Please provide evidence that I am not just seeing directly through the light as if it were a clear stationary mist?

Please do not respond with observer effect such has a single reflective beam off a mirror, evidence of the whole please.

When we have a new idea we are asked to provide evidence, so I ask science to provide their evidence. We say so , is not evidence.






 

[alancalverd]

Here is a simple experiment. I've filled in the expected results. If you find something different, fame and fortune await.

Go into a really, really dark room - say a coalmine - and switch on a light bulb. Can you see it? {YES} Where is the light coming from if not the bulb? You didn't switch the entire universe on, so it must be coming from the one thing that you controlled.

Now look at some other object, not a light bulb, in the room, and switch the light bulb off. Can you still see the object? {NO}

So the object must have been reflecting light from the bulb.

[alysdexia]

The ancients believed seeing works when the eye itself shone at the seen object.  WtF were wrong with them too?

[Colin2B]

Colin I did not and do not want to discuss Wiki

We are not discussing Wiki, I haven't a clue what Wiki says on this.
What I'm taking about is knowledge I've gained actually doing the experiments. I've served my time on the optical benches and I'm telling you about my experience and knowledge of what happens.

[guest39538]

Here is a simple experiment. I've filled in the expected results. If you find something different, fame and fortune await.

Go into a really, really dark room - say a coalmine - and switch on a light bulb. Can you see it? {YES} Where is the light coming from if not the bulb? You didn't switch the entire universe on, so it must be coming from the one thing that you controlled.

Now look at some other object, not a light bulb, in the room, and switch the light bulb off. Can you still see the object? {NO}

So the object must have been reflecting light from the bulb.

I have never said once that light did not emit from the element of the light bulb and neither did I say that matter does not  reflect light.

What I said is that if you took away all the matter from the Universe except one star and yourself, and you turned your back to the sun and was looking away from the sun, light would be in your eyes still but it would look dark to you.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[guest39538]

Provable on earth also

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[evan_au]

Please provide proof/evidence that there is light reflecting directly into my eyes from my walls?

Stare at your wall.
Then put a sheet of paper between your eyes and the wall.

The wall now disappears, because the paper is blocking the light that was reflected for your wall.

QED

[guest39538]

Please provide proof/evidence that there is light reflecting directly into my eyes from my walls?

Stare at your wall.
Then put a sheet of paper between your eyes and the wall.

The wall now disappears, because the paper is blocking the light that was reflected for your wall.

QED

Yes I agree, but also the paper is an obstruction to the line of sight, the paper is opaque in  the constant-'constant,

The paper now reflects light, but this does not change you are submerged in an ocean of light, provable by shadows and angles,

Remove the paper and remove the wall, light will still be in your eyes whether or not it is reflected because you are submerged in the light,

Light enters your eyes no matter where you look, example, look into space at a reference point with  no stars, a ''black spot''  you can perceive distance although the black spot is not reflecting light into your eyes .

[Colin2B]

What I said is that if you took away all the matter from the Universe except one star and yourself, and you turned your back to the sun and was looking away from the sun, light would be in your eyes still but it would look dark to you.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

As your diagram shows, with your back to the sun you are bathed in light, but with nothing to reflect light back into your eyes there is no light on your retina, so it looks dark.

[Arnie O'Dell]

What a truly beautiful thought, being immersed in an ocean of light. It needs to be immortalized in an epic poem. I like your question but need some help in focusing my response. In talking about "how we see" I get the direct and reflected light into the eye, but I think you are asking for something else. I would like to discuss quantum  effects and the visual centers in the brain with respect to the cones and rods in the retina but am unsure it would be relevant to the discussion. Please advise.

[Ethos_]

It is a fact that distance exists, whether we could see or not see this remains true. our eyes relatively cover distance in no time at all. 


What do you think?

What we all think seems to make no difference to you Box but I'll give it the old college try anyway

Mr. Box, depth perception is a result of binocular vision and the learned ability of the brain to distinguish between near and far objects by recognizing learned information about shapes of familiar images. One doesn't see "distance", they only recognize the effect that perspective has upon the optic nerve and have learned that when a familiar object looks smaller, it's farther away. When it looks larger, it's closer. Simple!

And BTW, concerning another thread you posted "Does the sun reflect light?", I'm guessing it wasn't a "trick question" after all was it. Just another ill conceived image floating around in you brain.

[guest39538]

It is a fact that distance exists, whether we could see or not see this remains true. our eyes relatively cover distance in no time at all. 


What do you think?

What we all think seems to make no difference to you Box but I'll give it the old college try anyway

Mr. Box, depth perception is a result of binocular vision and the learned ability of the brain to distinguish between near and far objects by recognizing learned information about shapes of familiar images. One doesn't see "distance", they only recognize the effect that perspective has upon the optic nerve and have learned that when a familiar object looks smaller, it's farther away. When it looks larger, it's closer. Simple!

And BTW, concerning another thread you posted "Does the sun reflect light?", I'm guessing it wasn't a "trick question" after all was it. Just another ill conceived image floating around in you brain.

I do not do trick questions, but neither do I have ill thoughts. One does see distance, distance is an axiom and provable to be there, regardless of sight I can experience the distance  of space, by moving.

One see's a photon leaving and arriving simultaneously from an object,  (if photons really exist to begin with because obviously we not really observe photons as single photons , we observe the whole of light simultaneously)

[guest39538]

What a truly beautiful thought, being immersed in an ocean of light. It needs to be immortalized in an epic poem. I like your question but need some help in focusing my response. In talking about "how we see" I get the direct and reflected light into the eye, but I think you are asking for something else. I would like to discuss quantum  effects and the visual centers in the brain with respect to the cones and rods in the retina but am unsure it would be relevant to the discussion. Please advise.

Well my friend, all I can say is shine a flash light into the night sky and realise it was nether light to begin with, it is always dark and you just perceive it to be light by your extraordinary night vision.

[Ethos_]

One does see distance, distance is an axiom and provable to be there, regardless of sight I can experience the distance  of space, by moving.

Nope.....We only judge distance or measure it. Go out on a dark night and look up at the stars. Now, tell me which one's are closer to you and which ones are more distant?

(if photons really exist to begin with

So now you're questioning the existence of the photon?

[guest39538]

One does see distance, distance is an axiom and provable to be there, regardless of sight I can experience the distance  of space, by moving.

Nope.....We only judge distance or measure it. Go out on a dark night and look up at the stars. Now, tell me which one's are closer to you and which ones are more distant.

(if photons really exist to begin with

So now you're questioning the existence of the photon?

Huh, we measure lengths between two points, distance is a unmeasured length, yes we judge distance, but we certainly observe distance, I can certainly observe things in a distance, you say you can judge a distance, the distance needs to observed to be judged.  I think you are forgetting light is continuous from A to B and vice versus, a coupling to sight. We don't directly observe individual photons, we observe light as a whole.

[Ethos_]

I can certainly observe things in a distance, 

It's one thing to say; "seeing objects at a distance" and quite another to say; "seeing distance".

I think you are forgetting light is continuous from A to B and vice versus, a coupling to sight. We don't directly observe individual photons, we observe light as a whole.

Wrong........Evidently, you're not familiar with the photon counting mechanism. We can, as a matter of fact, detect single photons.