The light is in our eyes...

Quantum Quack said:
How long would it take to trace light rays as proposed by DaveC from a star, say, 100 light years away? Do you see the problem?
Click to expand...
I think you are being deliberately obtuse here.
You know that our eyeballs don't track light back to its source, and you know I know that.
Why pursue a tangent that no one purports?
 
Quantum Quack said:
It is amazing how you seem to so readily confuse categories (context), shifting from actual human sight to computer design techniques, to physics methods then claim that I am the one confused.
Click to expand...
The fact that basic optics is going over your head is certainly not my confusion.

Look, just do some basic reading. At least then we'll have some common terminology to discuss.

I can't teach you from the ground up here in this thread.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I think you are deliberately begin obtuse here.
You know that our eyeballs don't track light back to its source, and you know I know that.
Why pursue a tangent that no one purports?
Click to expand...
The evidence is there for any one to see... ( if they can trace the light ray of course...hee hee)
You posted an image that you agree with .. not me...
magnif-gif.1483

As support for your so called superior knowledge.. then dodge when it is questioned...
derailing this thread with BS basically....
credibility zero
 
Quantum Quack said:
The evidence is there for any one to see... ( if they can trace the light ray of course...hee hee)
You posted an image that you agree with .. not me...
magnif-gif.1483

As support for your so called superior knowledge.. then dodge when it is questioned...
Click to expand...
If you're not sure what I'm saying, ask me, rather than putting words in my mouth.

This is not a classroom. I can't teach you optics from first principles. You have a responsibility to know how basic optics works.

Quantum Quack said:
derailing this thread with BS basically....
Click to expand...
Mainstream science. Remember, this is the Physics and Math forum, not Alt Theories.
If you'd like to challenge mainstream science, this is not the place to do it.
 
It is irrelevant whether it be optics, computer graphics or plastic toilet seats ... the eyes do not trace the light rays back in straight lines and see a virtual image...

Credibility is a precious thing and you have virtually none IMO
 
Can we trace the light of a "search light" from a car dealership , also known as Klieg lights.
It's original use was for military purposes. Hence the name.
 
Quantum Quack said:
It is irrelevant whether it be optics, computer graphics or plastic toilet seats ... the eyes do not trace the light rays back in straight lines and see a virtual image...
Click to expand...
Correct. The eyes do not.

Where do I start? Grade 10? Grade 5?


Quantum Quack said:
Credibility is a precious thing and you have virtually none IMO
Click to expand...
I am actually OK with that,. You just called mainstream science "BS" too.
 
Write4U said:
We can't track distance that far away, we track the angle at which the light strikes our retina, which gives us the direction look in. What we see is the source where it was 100 years ago.

We can track the sun with sundials, by the angle of the shadow which will always be off by 8 minutes (time)
Click to expand...
do you have any idea how silly that sounds...?
Think about a star scape for a moment... millions of stars all in the sky then apply your rational again...
 
DaveC426913 said:
Correct. The eyes do not.

Where do I start? Grade 10? Grade 5?



I am actually OK with that,. You just called mainstream science "BS" too.
Click to expand...
no... you are falsely representing science... and thus making science to appear BS.
google ray tracing
Quantum Quack said:
"In physics, ray tracing is a method for calculating the path of waves or particles through a system with regions of varying propagation velocity, absorption characteristics, and reflecting surfaces. Under these circumstances, wavefronts may bend, change direction, or reflect off surfaces, complicating analysis. Ray tracing solves the problem by repeatedly advancing idealized narrow beams called rays through the medium by discrete amounts. Simple problems can be analyzed by propagating a few rays using simple mathematics. More detailed analysis can be performed by using a computer to propagate many rays." wiki
Click to expand...
 
Quantum Quack said:
It is irrelevant whether it be optics, computer graphics or plastic toilet seats ... the eyes do not trace the light rays back in straight lines and see a virtual image...

Credibility is a precious thing and you have virtually none IMO
Click to expand...

What if eyes did trace light in straight lines ? What would be the consequence upon clearity of anything ?
 
Quantum Quack said:
no... you are falsely representing science... and thus making science to appear BS.
google ray tracing
Click to expand...
"Ray tracing" is not what we are talking about. You are confusing two issues. Don't.

The operative word in the diagram is simply "tracing". Granted, it is a poor choice of words because of the obvious confusion. Our eyes don't "trace" anything.

Our brain interprets the source of the light as if light travels in a straight line. Thus, if the light is actually bent from some other source, our brains can't know it. All our brains know is the angle where on our retina it appears, and thus where in our field of view it appears to come from.

That's why, when you look into a swimming pool, it seems abnormally shallow. Our brains cannot see the process of refraction. So the bottom of the pool is interpreted as if the light came straight from the source, not refracted.
 
DaveC426913 said:
"Ray tracing" is not what we are talking about. You are confusing two issues.

The word in the diagram is simply "tracing". Granted, it is a poor choice of words because of the obvious confusion.

Our brain interprets the source of the light as if light travels in a straight line. Thus, if the light is actually bent from some other source, our brains can't know it. All our brains know is the angle where on our retina it appears, and thus where in our field of view it appears to come from.

That's why, when you look into a swimming pool, it seems abnormally shallow. Our brains cannot see the process of refraction. So the bottom of the pool is interpreted as if the light came straight from the source, not refracted.
Click to expand...

OK .. so you are suggesting as write4u is suggesting...

How many angles are we talking about? Using the image below as an example....How much processing time would it take to interpret the info as you are suggesting?
You are of course assuming that light is a particle and not a wave. What if light is a wave?

1.jpg
 
Quantum Quack said:
Using the image below as an example....How much processing time would it take to interpret the info as you are suggesting?
Click to expand...
Again, you claim to have been at this for eleven years, yet in all that time, you have never bothered to examine latency of visual processing.

It's kind of expected in this forum that you've done some homework.

How about I ask this thread be moved to Q&A, where you can ask all the questions you want, and we can answer them for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top