scientist have it all wrong..... i think

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


If you can explain how differently it would be nice to understand your perspective in a little more detail.




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


Your not the only person in the world to think like this, so did Plato, Euclid and Ptolemy so your in good company.

It's a common misconception that our eyes send out some kind of superman like beam that interacts with the object somehow rather then being passive receivers. Children have this idea a lot and In fact people all the way up to college level still hold onto the misconception, it has been tested a few times like here


The results were startling. Between 41% and 67% of participants, depending on the exact way the question was asked, thought that the eye sent out some kind of ray or beam in order for us to see.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


You are correct. Even with close objects emitting light, there will be some delay in the light reaching your eyes. This delay may be nanoseconds, but a delay none the less and not noticeable. You will "see" the light as soon as it reaches the retina, your brain will take a few milliseconds to process it, and then you perceive the image.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


this is not about sound its about sight



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 


i dont think our eyes send out a beem or anything but if something is there it doesnt matter if it has reached you or not you can see it before it reaches you correct? isnt light particles?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


I understand what you are trying to say, but sight (with normal eyes) is only possible with some form of a light source. That light source emits light in the form of electromagnetic radiation in a range of frequencies that our eyes are sensitive to. When that light strikes the cones and rods in the retina, it is converted into electrical signals that the brain can use to form an image for us to "see".

The further away the light source is, the "further back in time" we are seeing because of the travel time of the light to cover the distance from the light source to our eyes. Although once we see the light, sight is almost instantaneous with the only delay being the brain processing time.

I hope that makes sense...
edit on 17-4-2012 by LevelHeaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


Take no notice of the spelling / grammar Nazis, they are just ignorant and small minded, they don't seem to realise that even some of the most intelligent people can have spelling issues. I'm sure it is against the T&C under manners and decorum anyway to blast you for a few incorrectly spelt words.

As for the OP, no, they have got it right. What you see is visible EM radiation, and the speed of light is how long it takes this radiation to travel from point A to B.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by davespanners
 


i dont think our eyes send out a beem or anything but if something is there it doesnt matter if it has reached you or not you can see it before it reaches you correct? isnt light particles?


C'mon guy, you've had it explained to you numerous times in this thread now and you just keep batting every explanation away. You're wrong, and now I think you're being intentionally stupid. Go back and read the replies then take the time to process them and understand that you are WRONG. It's OK to be wrong but it's not OK to disregard facts just so you can wallow in your own ignorance.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Druscilla
 


this is not about sound its about sight


Yes, of course. You are the mental juggernaut here, so, it's not possible in any way for there to be any correlation or similarity between sight and sound that can be demonstrated, and tested.

Your brain is just too big.
Someone please call the New York Times so this person can be interviewed about how they defeated all of science right here on ATS.

This is a historical moment folks.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Either we are just really bad at explaining things or hes wrong and just as bad at backing himself up.

which is more likely hmmmmmmmmm



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
OP is thinking Light and Sight are 2 different things... Sight is useless without light. Sight is there because of light.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Amadeo
 


well all i can say is if someone doesnt challenge the current understanding of things things will never change how many scientist have had rediculous theorys that turned out to be fact if your gonna be bashing me show me proof to where im wrong dont just tell me what someone else says is the truth. thats what pisses me off about people .how much do people actually know? unless they have experienced it there self reading allows you to know nothing but what someone else has written



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


if you reat the title of the post it says i think i just post things that come to mind sometimes isnt what this forum is for?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Amadeo
 


well all i can say is if someone doesnt challenge the current understanding of things things will never change how many scientist have had rediculous theorys that turned out to be fact if your gonna be bashing me show me proof to where im wrong dont just tell me what someone else says is the truth. thats what pisses me off about people .how much do people actually know? unless they have experienced it there self reading allows you to know nothing but what someone else has written


OP do you agree you can see in complete darkness(absolute, 0 light)?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


Its not a case of bashing, its a case of 100's of years of experimentation, testing, examination, theory and proof of how the eye works.

Im all for challenging common theories, but thats theories, not fact. The eye see's light when light enters the eye and since light has to travel (3x10^8m/s) then there will always be 'some' delay in the eye receiving the light, also a 1-3millisecond delay in recognition and cognitive processing within the brain, so even if light did reach the eye instantaneously there would still be a biological delay in processing what you see within the brain, meaning that no, you do not see things instantly


Hope that helps!



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Exactly, sight is a SENSE the same as all the other senses.

Light particles go into our eyes and we sense it

Odor particles come into our nose and we smell it

Sound waves go into our ears and we hear it

we are a sponge for types of energy and matter but we only sense them when they get to us, when you light that match a half mile away in the dark, you wont smell it without a breeze and you wont hear it being struck for a second and you will only see it if the light given off is concentrated enough at the range you are to see it.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


you explained it very well and i am familure with what scientist say about everything but remember scientist are mere men too



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


Mere men who have disected this, studied the cones/rods (cells within the eye) and how they react to light stimulus, im sure at some point in history the eyes have been tested for 'emitting' 'something', but there are no records for this im sure, since its not the case at all.

So, the fact that we understand how the eyes work by repeatable testing and examination means that what we do know is true. If the lights are off, we see nothing, turn the lights on (a source of EM energy and visible light) then we see, the eye picks up the photons of light, stimulates the rods/cones within the retina then passes the stimulus through bio-mechanical messaging to the brain for processing...



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


I understand what you are saying, and when I was younger I even wondered that myself.

But please believe me when I say, it is correct what they tell us.

Think of your eyesight like a camera sensor, it collects light and the image is formed. In low light, not enough light can be captured and less is seen, however, unlike your eyes, the camera can be adjusted to allow more light to enter, making darker scenes brighter.

But, as your eyes are just "sensors" this light needs to travel to them, that is why when it is dark, even though the object is still there, you can't see it as there is no light bouncing off it.

Think of an infrared (nightvision) camera, it has to send out infrared light to bounce off an object so the sensor can receive any IR light bounced back, however because the IR spectrum is not visible to our eyes, we need the cameras sensor to see it. The principle is the same though, just we can see the EM radiation that is light.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by EddyR3
 


everyone has missed my point i give up in this post





new topics




 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join