The light is in our eyes...

The various light effect models do not provide a solution to the question being asked.

Quantum Quack said:
If it is as proposed by conventional theory that the light information has traveled from source and is actually in side our eyes then why do objects appear to be at a distance?
Click to expand...
 
OK ... I'll let it rest and think about the question some more and post a new thread later...maybe tomorrow or the next...
The problem isn't going to go away you know.....just because you don't like it...
 
Why is this thread closing?

Or is it being moved?

After I suffered a rottweiler attack I limped away to lick my wounds and reflect

I did make a incorrect quote (accidentally) and

would have apologised had it been brought to my attention

However my action was not pointed out to me

As a result I did not have the opportunity

I have taken the iggy button option

Since that leaves me optically challenge in the thread I may not be posting as much

Good luck to all the other posters

:)
 
Write4U said:
With respect, if you replace " why" with "how", you have already been answered.
Click to expand...
So others have been saying yet they fail to deal with why the answer is inadequate
in my words:
Quantum Quack said:
Science holds that the universe that we observe, is a metaphysical reconstruction or interpretation based on info delivered to the senses.
But has yet to provide empirical evidence to support such
Click to expand...

  1. To reconstruct a universe via interpretation and calculation is a monumental task that requires time to perform.
  2. There is no time lag in our view as we move our gaze or witness movement. This makes such a proposition inadequate as a solution.
  3. We observe vacant space with out the need of emitted light and this also would have to be calculated, interpreted or other in 3 dimensions ( volumes) and again this monumental task would take time to do, time which is not evidenced as you move your gaze or witness movement.
  4. There is no interpretation lag when observing a person running for example or for that matter many persons running and so on...N.B. we are not talking about comprehension.
  5. to consider our brains/eyes as some sort of 2 d camera apparatus is fallacious and misleading as our brains are not cameras.( although exhibiting some camera like features)
So I find the solution offered as being inadequate and un-evidenced in science.

To test this properly I suggested a rather simple "blind" study that involved presenting a panoramic view including star-scape to numbers of candidates that were blindfolded prior to observing that view and the time recorded as to how long they took for their brains to create an alleged illusion ready for them to start comprehending and then measure any lag, if any, as they moved their gaze over unfamiliar visage.
This could even be done using an MRI scanning set up to measure brain activity. I think you will find that they would find that no time is involved and no extraordinary processing is involved as the candidates observed their alleged illusion** view for the first time.

To me the above seems quite reasonable.

The other issue to come out of this is that we would be relying on subjective interpretative data, to observe data objectively, to interpret... which leads to a fallacy of logic.. ( which one exactly I am not sure.)
Example:
Ole' Romer must have interpreted his Io moon eclipse's by Jupiter and all the space between him and Jupiter as a metaphysical illusion before he actually measured the time discrepancies. ( subjective at best )

To use the success of one theory as evidence for another is a call to authority....in other words just because the conventional theories of light have terrific utility this does not imply that we must accept with out question obvious "collateral" failings of that theory.

**illusion - Metaphysical illusion
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
To reconstruct a universe via interpretation and calculation is a monumental task that requires time to perform.
Click to expand...
Of course it does! Everyone agrees with that.
There is no time lag in our view as we move our gaze or witness movement. This makes such a proposition inadequate as a solution.
Click to expand...
Of course there's a time lag.
We observe vacant space with out the need of emitted light and this also would have to be calculated, interpreted or other in 3 dimensions ( volumes) and again this monumental task would take time to do, time which is not evidenced as you move your gaze or witness movement.
Click to expand...
That's right we calculate and interpret. Of course this takes time.
There is no interpretation lag when observing a person running for example or for that matter many persons running and so on...N.B. we are not talking about comprehension.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. Making the same ignorant statements multiple times doesn't make it true.
  • to consider our brains/eyes as some sort of 2 d camera apparatus is fallacious and misleading as our brains are not cameras.( although exhibiting some camera like features)
    Click to expand...
One of the few accurate statements you have made; "our brains are not cameras".

What a stupid thread, 19 pages and you are as confused as ever.
 
origin said:
Of course it does! Everyone agrees with that.

Of course there's a time lag.

That's right we calculate and interpret. Of course this takes time.

Sure there is. Making the same ignorant statements multiple times doesn't make it true.
One of the few accurate statements you have made; "our brains are not cameras".

What a stupid thread, 19 pages and you are as confused as ever.
Click to expand...
Do you expect others to just take your word for it...?
 
Quantum Quack said:
So others have been saying yet they fail to deal with why the answer is inadequate
in my words:
To reconstruct a universe via interpretation and calculation is a monumental task that requires time to perform.
  1. There is no time lag in our view as we move our gaze or witness movement. This makes such a proposition inadequate as a solution.
Click to expand...
  1. The time lag is already there and you are looking at a past event. Thus movement has no (or undetectably small) influence on the time lag. However, there is a scientific discipline that deals with any variables in speed. *SR*.
  2. We observe vacant space with out the need of emitted light and this also would have to be calculated, interpreted or other in 3 dimensions ( volumes) and again this monumental task would take time to do, time which is not evidenced as you move your gaze or witness movement.
    Click to expand...
    We observe vacant space as black , because there is no emitted light observable by the naked eye.
  3. There is no interpretation lag when observing a person running for example or for that matter many persons running and so on...N.B. we are not talking about comprehension.
    Click to expand...
    see 1.
  4. to consider our brains/eyes as some sort of 2 d camera apparatus is fallacious and misleading as our brains are not cameras.( although exhibiting some camera like features)
    Click to expand...
    That's a false equivalence. An old camera records the photons directly on the film, whereas in humans photons are recorded on the retina, then translated into electro/chemical neural language, which is then sorted, transmitted, and re-translated by the MNS into a visual "experience". The input is processed by both afferent and efferent neural functions. The new electronic cameras also use these functions, but in binary language.
So I find the solution offered as being inadequate and un-evidenced in science.
Click to expand...
There are abundant articles describing the function of cameras, as well as how the eyes function. You may want to look up the terms *efferent* and *afferent* neurons.

To test this properly I suggested a rather simple "blind" study that involved presenting a panoramic view including star-scape to numbers of candidates that were blindfolded prior to observing that view and the time recorded as to how long they took for their brains to create an alleged illusion ready for them to start comprehending and then measure any lag, if any, as they moved their gaze over unfamiliar visage.
Click to expand...
If the star-scape is within the eyes' field of view, there would be instant observation of any light source, because the stream of photons was already there before the observer arrives. Light from a star may travel many millions light years before it arrives at the earth, but the observer will "see" it instantly in the observers "present".
This could even be done using an MRI scanning set up to measure brain activity. I think you will find that they would find that no time is involved and no extraordinary processing is involved as the candidates observed their alleged illusion** view for the first time.
To me the above seems quite reasonable.
Click to expand...
Right, the photons from all light emitting objects are instantly observable, because they were already arriving before you got to your point of observation. But the reverse is true also for both eye and camera. In our present we may observe arriving photons from a star which no longer exists at all, and in the case of the birth of a star, it's light may not be visible on earth for a billion years, depending on distance.

But at cosmic distances the stereo vision of the eye is hopelessly inadequate to measure any depth of field and all those twinkly lights appear as being close together. Little white windows in the dark sky. The"windows of heaven"

The photo you submitted as an example, presents a nearby point of reference, i.e. an *optical illusion by establishing a false horizon.

The other issue to come out of this is that we would be relying on subjective interpretative data, to observe data objectively, to interpret... which leads to a fallacy of logic.. ( which one exactly I am not sure.)
Example:
Ole' Romer must have interpreted his Io moon eclipse's by Jupiter and all the space between him and Jupiter as a metaphysical illusion before he actually measured the time discrepancies. ( subjective at best )
Click to expand...
Nahh, Ole' Romer would only see one object disappear from view.
Brrrrrrr....bad omen.

The visual observations of constellations give no hint as to their actual size and distance apart
Again, at extremely long distances our stereo vision is much too narrow for the triangulation of distances.
To use the success of one theory as evidence for another is a call to authority....in other words just because the conventional theories of light have terrific utility this does not imply that we must accept with out question obvious "collateral" failings of that theory.

**illusion - Metaphysical illusion
Click to expand...
I see no collateral failings, nor metaphysical illusions. You overlook the fact that we no longer need rely on our bare eyes and narrow triangulation which is only good up to a limited depth of field.

We now use arrays of telescopes placed hundreds or even thousands of miles apart, which allows us to see much further back in space and time!!!!!
But we always receive, process and experience the incoming signals in our "present".
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
If the star-scape is within the eyes' field of view, there would be instant observation of any light source, because the photons were already there before the observer arrives. Light from a star may travel many millions light years before it arrives at the earth, but the observer will "see" it instantly in the observers present.
Click to expand...
so...uhm you are suggesting that no processing is done to generate a star scape? ( in the present moment )
Honestly I have no idea where to start with your post... black space??? SR?? see instantly??? gosh....good try I guess...
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
so...uhm you are suggesting that no processing is done to generate a star scape? ( in the present moment )
Click to expand...
No, I think I clearly explained the thought processes, albeit in a condensed way.
Honestly I have no idea where to start with your post... black space??? SR?? see instantly??? gosh....good try I guess...
Click to expand...
Good, leave it alone then, unless you can improve on the science.
 
origin said:
Try spending 5 minutes on Google to educate yourself on this. Before looking up anything try to have an open and at least a partially engaged mind.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
try contributing to the discussion for once.. maybe you might actually enjoy doing so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top