It’s a Small World After All

#1
I take it for granted and I could be wrong about this but I’m thinking since every thing is distant then whatever I see is a miniature version of its real self. The entirety of my visual field (my universe) consists of objects bigger than they actually appear. I’m pretty sure the curvature of my eye/lens has a lot to do with it. Sight has more to do with angles if not mistaken. I’ve seen the word subtend before and its importance when viewing distant objects.

What would it be like to have a flat eye? Would the night sky be lit up if stars were seen actual size or would it even be possible to view an entire star? If I were to see in 2D would everything look the same or at least be difficult to differentiate from one another? 

Then there’s reality. Or should I say 3D reality? I don’t think I have to go any further than my 3D perspective to say the world (universe) is not really as I view it. By some strange twist, do I need to see the world not as it really is in order to philosophize about it? (Maybe Astro can help there)
Reply
#2
Newton formulated the inverse-square law of gravity based on how small things appear to get with distance. So the gravity of a distant massive object affects you the same as an object right next to you the same size (and density) as the distant massive object appears. IOW, the physics would be same if things are actually at a distance or if they just literally shrank.

None if it has anything to do with the curvature of your eye. It's not an effect of one of those rear view mirrors. 9_9


And I see you decided to permanently make ignorant broad generalities about religion, in your signature. :/
Science was started by religion.
Reply
#3
(Mar 10, 2019 01:50 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: What would it be like to have a flat eye? Would the night sky be lit up if stars were seen actual size or would it even be possible to view an entire star? If I were to see in 2D would everything look the same or at least be difficult to differentiate from one another? 


With flatland vision (arguably 1D rather than 2D), you'd be kind of like those old video camera tubes that scanned images line by line (excluding any interlaced patterns). In your case, directing your head back and forth, up and down, to scan objects or scenes line by line in order to recognize what they were (obviously short-term memory retention would play a big role).

With respect to our normal 2D stereopsis vision... It's difficult to eliminate depth perception even with one eye (though it certainly detracts from the visual field, and supposedly the success rate at threading a needle). In fact, I notice so little loss of the 3D structural appearance of objects after closing the other eye that it's amazing the traditional appeal to monocular cues alone can account for the continued effect. I mean, if the latter can compensate that well then it seems to erode the importance of binocular vision's contribution or necessity.

###
Reply
#4
The appearance of single-eye depth perception is a trick of the brain, as tasks that actually require depth perception show. This perception can be aided by parallax if there is any motion.
Reply
#5
(Mar 11, 2019 03:50 PM)Syne Wrote: The appearance of single-eye depth perception is a trick of the brain, as tasks that actually require depth perception show. This perception can be aided by parallax if there is any motion.

Goofy thoughts: If I look at something directly in front that is moving towards me, is there a point where I can tell that it's a lot bigger than I thought and I better get out of the way? Would this point be different for every person, perhaps a difference between life & death? 

More goofiness: I recently flew on a jet. From 35000 feet I can't see any body on the ground. I have trouble finding vehicles on a highway. I'm able to pick up a boat's wake but spotting the actual vessel is tough. As we descend there seems to be a point where  I can discern objects like buildings, vehicles, etc. This made me wonder if something microscopic was able to get close enough to my eyes, whether I could see it or not without a visual aid? If not, do you think it theoretically possible to implant a lens similar to that of a microscope's to allow one to see more of the microscopic world?

Found this:

https://sciencing.com/cells-can-seen-hum...25247.html
Reply
#6
(Mar 11, 2019 05:52 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: This made me wonder if something microscopic was able to get close enough to my eyes, whether I could see it or not without a visual aid?


Technically, a single photon can excite a rod photoreceptor cell in the eye. But since the photon would be the advance "messenger" itself, it couldn't advertise its approach ahead of its own absorption. (Not to mention the speed of its approach outrunning chemical reactions, nerve transmissions, and cognitive activity.) It actually requires a few more photons than just one over a microseconds period to get a signal through to the brain or ensure processing of it, even if a loner was sufficient to activate the rod.

The light "reflected" from an object smaller than a photoreceptor cell (and probably to some extent even slightly larger) wouldn't provide detail of what the object was. Kind of like if a doorbell button is pressed -- it announces presence to the occupants inside, but no structural information for identification.

###
Reply
#7
I'm thinking pressed flowers. Also creepy kids - I blame CC for that. A while back I was doing a thing with interference patterns. Rather than point the CMOS (digital) camera) at a screen with the interference patterns on a screen I took the lens off the camera and looked at the interference pattern directly on the photoreceptors of the camera - it worked very well.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)