It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eye Static, Auras ...

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Hey guys! I just got done pretty much reading the entire post, on this board, titled "Am I seeing Energy?". I thought I would post a new thread to, hopefully, clarify a few things and explain what this "eye static" that people are seeing, is.

The eye has two major components that the brain relies on to break up and bring in light information for the brain to process. These are the cones and the rods.

The cones are the receptors for the "color" information of light. Like the cells in the picture tube of the pre-LCD, plasma and Hi-def screens, these cones are divided into 3 groups that are sensitive to the three basic components of light, the colors of red, blue and green. To those of us in the CG field as well as some print media, this is lovingly known as RGB. Like the cells in the old tv's, the differing intensities of RGB in a cell would give us not only red, blue and green, but the intermediate colors such as yellow, orange and purple. Black was the absence of light and white would be an equal intensity of red, blue and green. But you must keep in mind, you are not "seeing" "colors"! Your brain is processing various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation

RGB are the primary components to visible or white light, similar to red, yellow and blue being the primary components to "physical" color.

The human eye is more receptive to the color of green, red, then thirdly blue. The reasons are evolutionary, the green cones (which are the most abundant) evolved as the need to feast on green vegetation did. The red cones developed in response to the need for hunting fruit. If you think about it how many fruits and vegetable are blue? Most are red, yellow, orange or green. The blue cones evolved out of the green cones. We have the least of the blue cones because seeing blue never really was a nesecity to our evolution. Example... some of the newer Christmas light out are these, almost a hyper blue light. You'll know what I mean when you see them, your eyes will have a hard time trying to focus on the. Reason being in that our eyes don't have enough "blue" cones to handle the intensity of that blue light wave, sort of like when the eye doctor shines that light in your eye and tells you to "stare at the light" while you are trying to keep your eyeball from rolling back into your socket. I'm sure yo know what I mean.

OK, you're probably wondering, "What the heck does this have to do with 'eye static'"?!?! Well hold on Kiddies, I'm getting to it...

The second part of you eye that assists in bringing light information to your brain are the rods. The rods are the receptors that are similar to the brightness/contrast controls on your computer screen of TV. The rods interperate the information of brightness, darkness and night-vision. The rods do NOT see color, only varying intensities of light. Actually varying intensities of photons... yes... photons. Yes, you heard me right, the rods register photon intensities. When photons hit a rod, the rod fires off. This is where you get the "eye static" from, from photons interacting with the rods in your eyes. The less photons (lower intensities of light) less rods are getting hit with photons, some are getting hit, some are not, some on, some off, hence, the perception of static. The static is most noticable in when looking at an object of solid color (only one color) and in average to zero light.

Rods are where we get our night-vision from, as crappy as human night-vision is, we still have it and works in pretty much the same way as regular night vision goggles, the only difference is that NVG magnify the incoming photons to provide an enhanced illuminated environment. If you ever seen an image looking through real NVG on TV, the image has a similar "static" look (albeit green). HOLD ON... GREEN?!?!?! What did I say above about us seeing green, we have more cones for the interpretation of that wave length...




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
"An NVG phosphor screen is purposefully colored green because the human eye can differentiate more shades of green than other phosphor colors."

Taken from a military explanation why NVG are green.

Now as for shapes that you see in static, only one can say. You may be seeing actual "waves" of photons as they bombard the rods, or the rods may be receiving visual information that photons are being blocked by "objects" that can't be seen in our visual spectrum... oooooohh =). Also, "seeing" blues and purples would not be to surprising, if you think about it. Being in low to no light, your cones might pick up some low wave EM wave registering in the blues and purple... the low end of our visible EM field.

Pretty cool aye?? Also, the problem with rods, is that they do not have the ability to pick up small to fine detail, just general, overall detail.

Now, why such a long discussion on how light is received by the brain!! Well, the rods and the cones are central to seeing auras and being able to exercise your rods and cones is key. This is not a plug for a book or anything, but I bought this book about 15 years ago and did it's exercises and it worked!!! But of course when you don't exercise a muscle. Unfortunately, I can't find the book, I think it's...

Aura Reading for Beginners: Develop Your Psychic Awareness for Health & Success
Richard Webster

but when I find it, I will post. If you are interested let me know.

=]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I really liked your write up, though I am not interested in reading auras.

I have best vision in low light conditions and under blue/UV light.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I have noticed a 'pixelation' effect, when looking at a lawn and an expanse of snow. This was not the same as 'heat shimmer'



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I found the book..

"How to See and Read the Aura" by Ted Andrews

It has several exercises in it for training the cones and the rods of your eyes.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by menjo2000
Hey guys! I just got done pretty much reading the entire post, on this board, titled "Am I seeing Energy?". I thought I would post a new thread to, hopefully, clarify a few things and explain what this "eye static" that people are seeing, is.

The eye has two major components that the brain relies on to break up and bring in light information for the brain to process. These are the cones and the rods.

The cones are the receptors for the "color" information of light. Like the cells in the picture tube of the pre-LCD, plasma and Hi-def screens, these cones are divided into 3 groups that are sensitive to the three basic components of light, the colors of red, blue and green. To those of us in the CG field as well as some print media, this is lovingly known as RGB. Like the cells in the old tv's, the differing intensities of RGB in a cell would give us not only red, blue and green, but the intermediate colors such as yellow, orange and purple. Black was the absence of light and white would be an equal intensity of red, blue and green. But you must keep in mind, you are not "seeing" "colors"! Your brain is processing various wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation

RGB are the primary components to visible or white light, similar to red, yellow and blue being the primary components to "physical" color.

The human eye is more receptive to the color of green, red, then thirdly blue. The reasons are evolutionary, the green cones (which are the most abundant) evolved as the need to feast on green vegetation did. The red cones developed in response to the need for hunting fruit. If you think about it how many fruits and vegetable are blue? Most are red, yellow, orange or green. The blue cones evolved out of the green cones. We have the least of the blue cones because seeing blue never really was a nesecity to our evolution. Example... some of the newer Christmas light out are these, almost a hyper blue light. You'll know what I mean when you see them, your eyes will have a hard time trying to focus on the. Reason being in that our eyes don't have enough "blue" cones to handle the intensity of that blue light wave, sort of like when the eye doctor shines that light in your eye and tells you to "stare at the light" while you are trying to keep your eyeball from rolling back into your socket. I'm sure yo know what I mean.

OK, you're probably wondering, "What the heck does this have to do with 'eye static'"?!?! Well hold on Kiddies, I'm getting to it...

The second part of you eye that assists in bringing light information to your brain are the rods. The rods are the receptors that are similar to the brightness/contrast controls on your computer screen of TV. The rods interperate the information of brightness, darkness and night-vision. The rods do NOT see color, only varying intensities of light. Actually varying intensities of photons... yes... photons. Yes, you heard me right, the rods register photon intensities. When photons hit a rod, the rod fires off. This is where you get the "eye static" from, from photons interacting with the rods in your eyes. The less photons (lower intensities of light) less rods are getting hit with photons, some are getting hit, some are not, some on, some off, hence, the perception of static. The static is most noticable in when looking at an object of solid color (only one color) and in average to zero light.

Rods are where we get our night-vision from, as crappy as human night-vision is, we still have it and works in pretty much the same way as regular night vision goggles, the only difference is that NVG magnify the incoming photons to provide an enhanced illuminated environment. If you ever seen an image looking through real NVG on TV, the image has a similar "static" look (albeit green). HOLD ON... GREEN?!?!?! What did I say above about us seeing green, we have more cones for the interpretation of that wave length...



the sky is blue
the oceans are blue

how do explain this? cones?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by EnemyCombatant74
 


I'm not sure what you're getting at? The reason we see the ocean and sky as blue, is that our cones that interpret blue are receiving the wave lengths of the Oxygen atoms, which have a visual frequency in the blue range.

Colors are just the way are brain interpret the wavelengths of EM frequencies that are visible to humans.

If we ever meet aliens, they might see blues as reds, oranges as purples, and yellows as some color we can't even think of.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by margaretr
 


What do you mean "pixelation"? Are you refering to the "static"? or is it something else?



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by menjo2000
reply to post by EnemyCombatant74
 


I'm not sure what you're getting at? The reason we see the ocean and sky as blue, is that our cones that interpret blue are receiving the wave lengths of the Oxygen atoms, which have a visual frequency in the blue range.

Colors are just the way are brain interpret the wavelengths of EM frequencies that are visible to humans.

If we ever meet aliens, they might see blues as reds, oranges as purples, and yellows as some color we can't even think of.


In the OP, you said blue evolved out of green:

"The human eye is more receptive to the color of green, red, then thirdly blue. The reasons are evolutionary, the green cones (which are the most abundant) evolved as the need to feast on green vegetation did. The red cones developed in response to the need for hunting fruit. If you think about it how many fruits and vegetable are blue? Most are red, yellow, orange or green. The blue cones evolved out of the green cones. We have the least of the blue cones because seeing blue never really was a nesecity to our evolution."

I mean, how do we know this to be the truth? Is there some literature that covered this as a legtimate study? I'm guessing you haven't seen this(edit note: having severe difficulties linking to video in post):


how do you get one color before the other 2 in the typical research sense of the word? To have an atom, you need to be observing 3 primary colors.



[edit on 12/1/2010 by EnemyCombatant74]


[edit on 12/1/2010 by EnemyCombatant74]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by menjo2000
 


It is a small chequerboard effect that wobbles.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by margaretr]



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by EnemyCombatant74
 


OH, there is PLENTY of documentation and studies done on this subject. Some of it has to do with the study of some primates and how their rods and cones receive the wave lengths and other material is on the actual physical make up of the eyes, you know, dissecting the eyeball. Don't think that this is something I am making up, or is just my thoughts on a concept. This is actual observable and quantifiable data.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

www.cis.rit.edu... 9/ch9p1.html

en.wikipedia.org...

faculty.washington.edu...

education.vetmed.vt.edu...

I have included some links for your reading pleasure =]

Thanks for the vid. I don't know what that guy is smoking, but I'd like to get some of that stuff LOL He draws to many conclusions based on thoughts in his own little world view. Nucleus stands for "New clay of us"?? That would be great is English were around, when the origin of the word is...

Latin nuculeus, nucleus, kernel, from nucula, little nut, diminutive

Atoms do have colors, they do not give off white light (combination of the 3 light colors RGB). Depending on the amount of electrons in the atom / particle, they will give off an electromagnetic frequency that our cones will interpret as color. Oxygen and nitrogen show as blue.

From what it sounds like, you think that there has to be white light or RGB present for there to be an atom? It's the other way around, there needs to be atoms in order to have light or any form of RGB EM frequency.



posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by menjo2000
reply to post by EnemyCombatant74
 


OH, there is PLENTY of documentation and studies done on this subject. Some of it has to do with the study of some primates and how their rods and cones receive the wave lengths and other material is on the actual physical make up of the eyes, you know, dissecting the eyeball. Don't think that this is something I am making up, or is just my thoughts on a concept. This is actual observable and quantifiable data.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

www.cis.rit.edu... 9/ch9p1.html

en.wikipedia.org...

faculty.washington.edu...

education.vetmed.vt.edu...

I have included some links for your reading pleasure =]

Thanks for the vid. I don't know what that guy is smoking, but I'd like to get some of that stuff LOL He draws to many conclusions based on thoughts in his own little world view. Nucleus stands for "New clay of us"?? That would be great is English were around, when the origin of the word is...

Latin nuculeus, nucleus, kernel, from nucula, little nut, diminutive

Atoms do have colors, they do not give off white light (combination of the 3 light colors RGB). Depending on the amount of electrons in the atom / particle, they will give off an electromagnetic frequency that our cones will interpret as color. Oxygen and nitrogen show as blue.

From what it sounds like, you think that there has to be white light or RGB present for there to be an atom? It's the other way around, there needs to be atoms in order to have light or any form of RGB EM frequency.




I appreciate you taking the time to reply, and especially for providing some background materials for my perusal! Very appreciated, and I look forward to checking out these materials as soon as time allows! I;m sorry if I gave the impression of not believing you, that was not my intention! My intention was to secure more background on this topic, and you have provided!


I will post any comments I may have as they come!



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by EnemyCombatant74
 


No prob... it's all groovy =] If you are interested in eye exercises to strengthen the rods and cones (this will help you to see auras) check out the book...

"How to See and Read the Aura" by Ted Andrews

You can get a copy from Amazon for $2 - $12





posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by menjo2000
reply to post by EnemyCombatant74
 


No prob... it's all groovy =] If you are interested in eye exercises to strengthen the rods and cones (this will help you to see auras) check out the book...

"How to See and Read the Aura" by Ted Andrews

You can get a copy from Amazon for $2 - $12




something to look into for sure! i have been trying exercising my eyes lately by changing the focal range while looking at an object, sometimes, close to me, sometimes far away! amazing what you can see when you try to see blur!

i'll look into it! uhhhh pun intended!





posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Very interesting post, menjo2000. Thanks for sharing it; I know the phenomenon you're describing well, and it has always puzzled me. That it's caused by the direct interaction of photons and the nervous system is fascinating to me.

I've always found the human sensory experience interesting; we take this raw physical information from our environments (photons, vibrations in the air, specific hydrocarbon chains, or pressure on our skin) and process it in this hugely complex and largely arbitrary fashion, resulting in an extremely rich experience of our environments. I feel that we take our perceptions for granted, though; I believe that there could be whole spectra of energy or forms of information extant in this Universe, of which we remain completely unaware due to our limited range of sensory faculties.

Perhaps there is an extraterrestrial species that reads barometric pressure the way we interpret sound, or perhaps their eyes perceive some rarefied form of radiation of which we are totally unaware; we lack the organs to see it, and therefore have never thought to build an artificial instrument capable of registering its presence.

All of our science is ultimately based on some extrapolation of the five most obvious human senses, but perhaps we are simply ignoring whole paradigms of experience, because our meat bodies did not evolve to perceive them. How could we know? Perhaps these unseen elements of the Universe contain obvious answers about the mechanisms of Creation, but are too subtle, or not directly useful enough to survival, to have been selected for in the parsimonious course of evolution.

Perhaps individuals claiming psychic powers, or diagnosed with certain forms of mental illness, are unwittingly (and perhaps catastrophically) receptive to some primitive interpretation of these unseen forces. Perhaps, now that we as a species are no longer beholden to the rigors and demands of day-to-day survival in the wild, we have begun the very first steps in evolving the mental faculties needed to perceive the Universe's subtler forces, as we now perceive light and sound.

But then again, perhaps not.

(sorry if this got kind of off topic, but it's a subject I find fascinating, and about which I have some passionate opinions.)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join