Neveos' Optical Theory Discussion

[Weird Theory]

You are all wrong...Things do actually get smaller the further away from you they are...We are in a shrinking universe...The further things are from you in time the smaller they are.....That is why when you approach something,the time it takes to reach it means that it retuns back to it's "normal" size relative to you.If we could approach something in the distance at the speed of light ie in "no time" It would actually be dwarfed by us.This is why a laser beam diverges into the distance.... and why it doesn't follow the earths curve into the distance...because at the speed it travels the beam you perceive is actually travelling into the past and the earth would have been bigger then....It's difficult to explain.

The further away something is,the further it is into the future relative to you,and because of this "universal shrinkage " and the time difference the smaller it appears .

[insane_alien]

yeah, thats just wrong on all levels.

[swansont]

Weird Theory, posting "alternative" science outside of the speculations forum, and in response to a science question are both contrary to the rules you agreed to follow when you joined. Please review them and refrain from such behavior.

[Neveos]

It does not seem correct to reason that further objects appear smaller is due to the fact that they somehow impress the retina less, because it only continues to beg the question, "why would increases in distance impress the retina less". Indeed, both considering and answering the question takes quite a level of abstraction as it seems very difficult to separate the notion of shrinking with the observer's distancing from something. Even though the poster, Weird Theory, seems to have been met with some degree of criticism, I am going to have to say that this is the only attempt to answer without restating the object in question.

[insane_alien]

its basic geometery, say you have an obect 1m square 1 meter away from your eye. there will be a certain angle between the two sides. if you move the object further away this angle will decrease assuming the object stays the same size. for it to appear the same size to our eyes it would need to get larger.

[Neveos]

its basic geometery, say you have an obect 1m square 1 meter away from your eye. there will be a certain angle between the two sides. if you move the object further away this angle will decrease assuming the object stays the same size. for it to appear the same size to our eyes it would need to get larger.

But, herein is precisely the problem, and why this is just a restatement of the object in question:

 

Your answer is:

"If you move the object further away, this angle will decrease"

 

This doesn't answer the question: Why is this the case?

 

and to say it is a basic fact, while possibly true, still is not an answer to this question.

 

Your answer is of a geometrical nature that actually rests on another question:

 

Why does the "field of view" increase in the distance? But this is answered by:

 

All objects appear to decrease in size in the distance.

 

Which simply brings us back to the question at hand.

 

While I do have an answer to this phenomenon, and I am surprised a moderator did not know enough about space-time to understand this, Weird Theory actually puts the most valid answer to this question when he believes the distance from observation shows representations of a different state of the Universe. One which he believes is shrinking, but one which I believe is expanding since light in transit represents the past and not the future. Thus the claim that they actually "are smaller", is under my view, "were smaller", and the expansion is doing a lot more than just this phenomenon, but even causing the appearance of "curvature" and "gravitation". I would write more, but seeing as to how the moderator considers this to be outside of the focus of science, I don't think they will actually allow me.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Neveos

[insane_alien]

i suggest you look up triangles.

 

lets say you have 2 points 1 meter appart. your eye is 1 meter away from them in a manner so if you joined the dots with your eye and the two points so you form an isoceles triangle.

 

the distance from your eye to either of the two points would be 1.25 meters and you would observe an angle of 53.1 degrees. (inverse sine of 1/1.25).

 

now, lets say you moved back to ten meters. the distance to each point from your eye would be 10.25m and the angle between them would only be 5.6 degrees.

 

the distance between the two points hasn't changed (there is no change in size as weird theory is suggesting) but the angle has got MUCH smaller. this means it will appear smaller as the area of retina detecting the object is smaller.

[Neveos]

i suggest you look up triangles.

 

lets say you have 2 points 1 meter appart. your eye is 1 meter away from them in a manner so if you joined the dots with your eye and the two points so you form an isoceles triangle.

 

the distance from your eye to either of the two points would be 1.25 meters and you would observe an angle of 53.1 degrees. (inverse sine of 1/1.25).

 

now, lets say you moved back to ten meters. the distance to each point from your eye would be 10.25m and the angle between them would only be 5.6 degrees.

 

the distance between the two points hasn't changed (there is no change in size as weird theory is suggesting) but the angle has got MUCH smaller. this means it will appear smaller as the area of retina detecting the object is smaller.

You are restating the object in question again, and I sympathize because I know this is hard, but look at your conclusion:

 

"the angle has got MUCH smaller. this means it will appear smaller as the area of retina detecting the object is smaller."

 

You are answering by assuming this fact is unquestionable:

 

The field of view increases in the distance.

 

If asked why, the answer is the object in question:

 

"Objects appear smaller (appear to converge) in the distance" ("allowing us to see more objects as FoV is increased")

 

This is circular, and thus the fault in that reasoning.

 

The reason we have the ability to ask this question is due to the separability of the concepts of distancing and spread of FoV (convergence of objects).

 

Have you ever looked up a tall radio tower or looked straight down along a tall building? It may frighteningly appear bent away from you causing you to question its weight distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KL2006.jpg

 

Convergence of horizontal angles, alone, simply would not explain this phenomenon, but convergence of angles in a 3 dimensional space would. Which means it is appearing to pinch not only in a horizontal sense, but also from front to back (top to bottom)... we just do not think we tend to witness this other pinch, but this other pinch is considerably independant of our view of the object's backside. This is the entire reason we have a concept of curvature.

 

Point being, a simple explanation that distant objects take up less of our FoV triangle is just rebegging the question. Why is it doing that?

 

If the observer is a point, and the point orbits around a circle looking at it the whole way around, all that is happening is that the observer is getting closer to points that were once farther away, and relative to only the observer/circle system, the point is travelling consistently in one diagonal direction, thus making the circle's path a straight line to the observer, and the observer is travelling along that line. The points further around the bend are exactly the same thing as if they had simply been further along a straight line, they exhibit distance from observer albeit different distances:

 

Consequently there is a reduction in size of further points to the observer in both scenarios, and thus the points around the circle are simply farther away than the points along a straight line. This is why travelling in what is commonly known as "straight" is considered simpler than travelling in what is known as "around". And this is why travelling straight through a circle to the other side is faster ("less distant") than travelling around the circle to the other side. It is all considerably flat, and all of this begs the question:

 

Why is there an association between distance from observation and reduction in size? One which I have previously provided an answer.

[swansont]

I would write more, but seeing as to how the moderator considers this to be outside of the focus of science, I don't think they will actually allow me.

 

You are free to start a thread in the Speculations section to pursue this

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Have you ever looked up a tall radio tower or looked straight down along a tall building? It may frighteningly appear bent away from you causing you to question its weight distribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KL2006.jpg

 

It's an optical illusion.

[Neveos]

It's an optical illusion.

Curvature? Yeah I agree.

[JillSwift]

Neveos: Your field of view is conical.

 

Let me draw you a picture...

[Neveos]

Neveos: Your field of view is conical.

 

Let me draw you a picture...

This is not a counter argument. Why is the "field of view" larger the further from the observer? Saying it's conical is not saying anything relevantly different in answering this question... It is an absolute restatement of the problem. Why is it conical, such that I am asking, why does it expand? Why are further things taking up less space in the field of view.

 

And don't bother telling me its because the viewing apparatus is a lens, therefore we get a cone, because even if the viewing apparatus was a bar or a globe, there would still be this same phenomenon whereby closer objects will impress the viewing apparatus greater than if they were further away.

 

Does no one see that obviously every instance of observation entails a condition whereby we have a relationship between distance, and the amount of time light takes to impress your eye from the object?

 

Light's representations of further things are older than they actually are, and this is a fact of physics. This is a true factor in every such case, and probably strongly suggests mine and Weird Theory's theory that further things are smaller than if they were closer things, and the difference is one of time.

[Sayonara]

And yet "why is your field of view conical?" is still not the same question as "why do things further away look smaller?".

[JillSwift]

Let me draw you a second picture.

 

It's all about the lens in the eye and how it refracts light.

[StringJunky]

The reason distant objects appear smaller is a property of the lenses of our eyes and the apparent reflectance of the object being viewed. If the angle subtending an object through the lens on to the retina is large then the object will appear large. If the angle is small then it appears small. . Also, darker objects 'appear' smaller and more distant than lighter ones of similar dimensions...this property of tone (reflectance) is exploited all the time by artists and photographers to infer depth, magnitude. or both

 

At the end of the day. much of how we perceive distance and dimension in our visual environment is part physics (of the lens) and part mental construct by the brain (using visual cues, like reflectance and binocularity) working together to express the maximum amount of spatial/dimensional information about our immediate environment to aid our safety,...... which gives us a suvival advantage.

 

"Does no one see that obviously every instance of observation entails a condition whereby we have a relationship between distance, and the amount of time light takes to impress your eye from the object?"- Neveos

 

Neveos: I'm not quite sure what you are on about but the relative difference in the time it fakes for light to travel from a nearby object and an object further away, to our eyes, is fantastically negligible given that they have a capture rate of only 10 to 15 'frames' a second...it is subjectively 'instant'. Time is not a factor in our visual perception of things at earthbound distances....the speed of light is too fast. our brains are too slow and the distances are too short for your hypothesis to mean anything.

 

Apparent object size and distance is a function of the eye's lens and the way the brain interprets that information.

[Neveos]

And yet "why is your field of view conical?" is still not the same question as "why do things further away look smaller?".

Uh yes it is. If a thing travels further along the cone, what do you think happens to it?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Let me draw you a second picture.

 

It's all about the lens in the eye and how it refracts light.

I told you not to even mention this because it has nothing to do with a lens, look, "let me draw you a picture":

 

If my seeing apparatus is an impressionable bar on my robot eye:

 

==================================

 

And I see a dark object in the distance:

 

===============8==================

 

What do you think happens when I get close to it?

 

=======88888888888888888888=========

 

So the magically-too-complex explanation of "refraction" has nothing to do with why things further away impression a seeing apparatus less.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

"Does no one see that obviously every instance of observation entails a condition whereby we have a relationship between distance, and the amount of time light takes to impress your eye from the object?"- Neveos

 

Neveos: I'm not quite sure what you are on about but the relative difference in the time it fakes for light to travel from a nearby object and an object further away, to our eyes, is fantastically negligible given that they have a capture rate of only 10 to 15 'frames' a second...it is subjectively 'instant'. Time is not a factor in our visual perception of things at earthbound distances....the speed of light is too fast. our brains are too slow and the distances are too short for your hypothesis to mean anything.

 

Apparent object size and distance is a function of the eye's lens and the way the brain interprets that information.

No it isn't the lens, and see the above response I gave about an impressionable bar. Also, it isn't a categorization effect of the brain that it makes spatial/temporally distant things smaller, I am saying they -are- smaller if I am correct in believing that matter is expanding. So by the time light from a spatially/temporally distant object reaches our seeing apparatus, our seeing apparatus has grown making the distant object's reflected light impression it less. Edited October 11, 2009 by Neveos
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

Seeing as this is an unrelated subject to that of the original thread, and also is beyond mainstream physics, it was moved to speculation forum.

[Neveos]

Seeing as this is an unrelated subject to that of the original thread, and also is beyond mainstream physics, it was moved to speculation forum.

Is this really non-mainstream? It's probably more likely that the people who frequent the forum don't know much about space-time.

[JillSwift]

Is this really non-mainstream? It's probably more likely that the people who frequent the forum don't know much about space-time.

Well, that's easy enough to clear up. Fetch some independent, peer-reviewed articles studying the phenomena that backs up your interpretation.

 

 

Also, here's a robot's "impressionable bar":

====================================

 

Here it is with a dark object in the distance:

====================================

 

(No differentiating of the light, because there's no lens to focus it.)

 

Here it is with the dark object closer:

************************************

 

(Less light, but still no differentiation.)

 

With he object practically touching (assuming the object is roughly cylindrical):

 

=----*****8888888MMMM888888*****----=

 

(Finally, some differentiation, as the light is partially blocked by the object and partly let by.)

 

Now, that's with "ambient light" - light reflecting off many surfaces.

However, if we back-light the object with a single bright point of light (like a bright light-bulb);

 

Here's the object at a distance, as seen by the "impressionable bar":

88888888888888888888888888888888888888888

 

As it gets closer:

===8888888888888MMMMM88888888888888===

 

Very close:

================8MMM8===============

 

 

Do the experiment - In a dark room with a single desk lamp on, cast your hand's shadow on the wall. See how the shadow gets "larger" when it's closer to the bulb, and "smaller" as it approaches the wall. With the wall representing the "impressionable bar".

 

Similarly, do the experiment outside in sunlight. There will be no shadow until you are very close to the wall, and it will appear "larger" than your hand until it's almost in contact.

Edited October 11, 2009 by JillSwift

[D H]

Is this really non-mainstream?

 

It's probably more likely that the people who frequent the forum don't know much about space-time.

Some reference material for you:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[Sayonara]

Uh yes it is.

No, it isn't.

[swansont]

While the questions are different, the underlying principle is the same: basic geometry. This was noted by insane_alien very early in the discussion.

[Neveos]

Also, here's a robot's "impressionable bar":

====================================

 

Here it is with a dark object in the distance:

====================================

 

(No differentiating of the light, because there's no lens to focus it.)

Why do you think focusing the light (which requires a distribution of light of certain ratios in the first place) to magically explain this phenomenon? If I line up a bunch of photo voltaic cells (without the use of any lenses, which for some reason makes this all better) along a line in an arc which are sensitive to blue light, and suppose a blue suited man is standing on the other side of a non-blue basketball court... how much blue light do you think I absorb with those cells further away, as opposed to closer to the man? Which cells do you think will absorb more? It is the ones closest to the man which have absorbed more at any given time.

 

And you are going on about how shadows get cast. And instead of thinking about these shadows, it is about reflected/emitted light. We are dealing with the same situation as a distancing light bulb. The further it is away, the darker it gets, and the closer it gets, the brighter. You are getting more lightbulb-light the closer it is to you, and no one is explaining why other than the fact that they are answering, "Well, more of it is taking up your seeing apparatus". Yeah, no shit, I know, did you not hear me ask the question?

 

Ready, scientists who put me in speculation forums:

 

Why:

 

farther ->

less impression ->

 

And my answer is, "Oh yeah":

 

farther ->

older ->

Therefore, matter-expansion

Therefore less impression from older objects

 

And yall's answer is:

 

less impression ->

farther ->

Therefore, increase in self-esteem for answering

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

While the questions are different, the underlying principle is the same: basic geometry. This was noted by insane_alien very early in the discussion.

Yeah, thanks for not adding anything while vaguely disagreeing with me. By the way, thanks for scaring off the only other person who knew what was going on. Welcome to what happens to the intelligence level of online forums.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

No, it isn't.

Oh really? Ok, put your hand around the sharp end of a cone, be careful not to cut yourself. Then slide your grasp down the cone, and oh!, look, your hand is having to open up to continue! Now your hand is at the base, and it is just wide open on the surface of a rounded side. Your hand was really big back at the beginning wasn't it!? You could wrap it around the whole thing!! But now you can't wrap it worth a shit!! Edited October 11, 2009 by Neveos
Consecutive posts merged.

[JillSwift]

So, is there any evidence we can show you that would convince you of the geometry involved?

[Neveos]

 

 

Some reference material for you:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

You know, I heard once that there are two kinds of idiots in the world: the one who believe everything they're told, and the ones who don't. Both don't require any thinking.