The light is in our eyes...

been doing a little research in to latency of visual processing...
what seems like a good article :
Simon Thorpe, Denis Fize and Catherine Marlot Published: Nature 6/June/1996
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...-of-Processing-in-the-Human-Visual-System.pdf

also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_N1
and
http://www.brainfacts.org/sensing-t.../articles/2012/vision-processing-information/


All links refer to processing information but do not specify the primary reconstruction of our visual field but more about reaction time** to visual stimulus.( which can be to the order of 0.15 seconds according to the first article mentioned above.) That is to say there appears to be no insight offered in to the initial conditions that "backgrounds" the processing they speak of.

There is no information that I could find in any of the articles regarding the reconstruction of vacant space which fills a massive amount ( if not the majority) of our 3 dimensional visual field. Dealing almost exclusively with the reactions to light only.

It appears obvious that for the illusion to provide an external 3 dimensional field of view the ability to process vacant space or spacial data is essential.

** reacting to what has already been recreated as a sensory illusion that is ultimately implied as necessary, by conventional light theories.
 
Last edited:
Why do you keep talking about an article taking about "photons but not light waves" as though this has anything to do with whatever distinction you are trying to draw?

Why do you keep looking at "conventional light theories" when you know that you are never going to accept any convention theory of any kind as that is the antithesis of why you are here?

By the way, we see photons. They are associated with waves as well but when we measure we are measuring photons (not that this distinction has anything to do with your vacant space interest).

Of course you aren't going to find that kind of nonsense terminology in any actual scientific article.
 
Quantum Quack said:
if particles but not waves...
Click to expand...
Right, for that you need wave-receptors instead of photo-receptors, but they are all sold out.....:eek:
The Electromagnetic Spectrum. Visible light has wavelengths between 300 and 850 nanometers.
Click to expand...
ch32f19.jpg


Please, don't even think this has anything to do with the double slit experiment and wave interference patterns.
 
Seattle,
I want to follow up on my post # 388
The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (as in the classical Doppler effect), when taking into account effects described by the special theory of relativity.
Click to expand...
Am I too far out in left field here?
Seattle said:
Yes. :) There is nothing related to Special Relativity going on here. We aren't talking about space expanding and travelling at close to the speed of light. We're just talking about light itself and SR doesn't apply in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...
I was just trying to identify the Doppler effect (drop the SR part) and I may have found confirmation of that aspect.
This fact, called the Doppler effect, is common to all waves, including light waves. Imagine a light bulb giving off pure yellow light; when it moves towards you the light that reaches you eye will be bluer, when the bulb moves away form you the light reaching your eye will be redder. If you have a source of light of a known (and pure) color, you can determine its velocity with respect to you by measuring the color you observe. Qualitatively, if one observes a redder color (longer wavelength than the one you know is being emitted) then the source is moving away from you, if bluer (shorter wavelength that the one you know is being emitted) the source is moving toward you (see Fig. 8.2).
Click to expand...
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node106.html

Is that better?
 
Quantum Quack said:
do we? what do they look like?
Click to expand...
These observations are sources of insight into photoreceptor evolution. First, the green and red photoreceptors are clearly products of a recent evolutionary event (Figure 32.28). The green and red pigments appear to have diverged in the primate lineage approximately 35 million years ago. Mammals, such as dogs and mice, that diverged from primates earlier have only two cone photoreceptors, blue and green. They are not sensitive to light as far toward the infrared region as we are, and they do not discriminate colors as well. In contrast, birds such as chickens have a total of six pigments: rhodopsin, four cone pigments, and a pineal visual pigment called pinopsin. Birds have highly acute color perception.

ch32f28.jpg


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22541/#A4618
Click to expand...

Read it and be astounded by the knowlegde of the properties and functions of the eye, *the most important sensory organ", allowing for a visually cognition and experience (the patterns expressed) in and by a physical object or function..
As Carlin said; "I worship the sun. I can see the sun, duhh. And that kinda helps along the credibility." And it treats me just fine.[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
just have to keep looking I guess... any ideas DaveC? :p
Click to expand...
Well, that's the "unscientific method".

Get an idea in your head, then take years to sift through a bunch of data, throwing out any evidence that doesn't match your idea, and seizing upon misunderstandings that seem to support your idea.




I think what's most troubling is that you haven't availed yourself of the facts of mainstream optical science before going off and inventing your own ideas. So, when you ask 'why this and why that', your questions are poorly formed. That's one of the reasons why so many people are having trouble understanding you.

And for that reason, your own ideas can't be in contrast with science; they can't be outside the box, because you haven't checked to see where the box is.

As Pauli once put it to a student, who had his own malformed ideas, your ideas are "not even wrong".


Learn what science is telling you, before going and making up your own ideas.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Well, that's the "unscientific method".

Get an idea in your head, then take years to sift through a bunch of data, throwing out any evidence that doesn't match your idea, and seizing upon misunderstandings that seem to support your idea.




I think what's most troubling is that you haven't availed yourself of the facts of mainstream optical science before going off and inventing your own ideas. So, when you ask 'why this and why that', your questions are poorly formed. That's one of the reasons why so many people are having trouble understanding you.

And for that reason, your own ideas can't be in contrast with science; they can't be outside the box, because you haven't checked to see where the box is.

As Pauli once put it to a student, who had his own malformed ideas, your ideas are "not even wrong".


Learn what science is telling you, before going and making up your own ideas.
Click to expand...

QQ,

You have had a nice thread so far. Now it is at the verge of degeneration. DaveC12345 is not worth engaging. He will find fault with you not with your argument.
 
Seems like this would be a good time to finally stop feeding this troll. I suppose it is barely possible that he may not be a troll; he may just be, uh, challenged.
 
Seattle said:
To be a crank you have to do the opposite of what everyone else is doing.

You have a theory of light? They'll have a theory of dark.

You see objects? They see empty space between objects.

You try to pin them down to something defensible and they'll insist that they have already explained it to you or that you just can't understand with your conventional outlook.
Click to expand...
Oh God this is so true.
 
I think this says it all:
Quantum Quack said:
There is no information that I could find in any of the articles regarding the reconstruction of vacant space which fills a massive amount ( if not the majority) of our 3 dimensional visual field.

Dealing almost exclusively with the reactions to light only.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top