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?
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.
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... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As support for your so called superior knowledge.. then dodge when it is questioned... derailing this thread with BS basically.... credibility zero
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. 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.
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.
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...
Do you know how silly it sounds when you ask how silly that sounds? You are not even trying to understand basic optics. 11 years you say??
no... you are falsely representing science... and thus making science to appear BS. google ray tracing
Humor Here ---> So, Dave . . . . . . "Good lord"? (re: another thread!) . . . . .You ARE a closet theist! (HAHA!) <---Humor Here
What if eyes did trace light in straight lines ? What would be the consequence upon clearity of anything ?
"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.
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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mea culpa. I thought you would get the idea without having to be led by the hand to it. In the future I'll do my best to not assume you understand the basics of optics.
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?