[quote=peacegirl;1092338]
Quote:
|
It is not gobbledygook. You're trying to make it look that way.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
It is, and you yourself provide the proof of that:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
"Visual field" needs to be defined before it become meaningful, and all the definition you give it is "When it is visible"... so what you are really saying there is "We should see the plane before we see it", which is complete nonsense.
|
|
I never said that.
|
No, you are mixing up quotes. It looks like a very feeble attempt to deliberately confuse things too. Ah well.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Why is it nonsense? In photography they use the term "visual field" or "field of view".
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Yes indeed - but that is not how you use it. It would be great if you could! But you don't. You use it to describe distance as well as the amount of degrees left and right from dead centre that we capture through a lens. That is why the field of view is given in degrees... not as a measure of distance.
|
So change the word. Is visual range okay? You are harping on the word, as if this changes the facts. 
|
These words are important if you want to be understood! Field of view is OK when you want to talk about the direction someone is looking in. Range is ok if you are talking about distance.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
To determine how far out an object can still trigger a single receptor - in some cases, the smallest object that can be seen - is determined by how many receptors are covering what kind of field of view. For instance, if we have a very wide field of view - say, when we are using a lens with a focal length of 30 mils, we can not see the detail of the masonry on a building that is a hundred yards away. If, however, we use a 300 mil lens, we can! We take a smaller field of view, and project this smaller area on to the same number of receptors as before.
|
I have no problem with this explanation, but it doesn't change the concept.
|
You know, it rather does? Because all of this is only relevant if the information that ends up in the image comes from the light alone.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You use "field of view" as not just to denote how much to the left, right, top and bottom of dead centre we can see, but as something that also shows distance.
|
If you don't like the word because it doesn't agree with your understanding of the word, I'm okay with changing it. What word would you like to use instead?
|
"field" for direction. "range" for distance. Please. For clarity's sake.
Quote:
Quote:
|
That's true because the light is traveling faster than sound. But I'm not talking about light, I'm talking about objects. The reason I brought up the airplane is because it doesn't always follow in that order (sight first, sound second). We sometimes hear an airplane before we see it, even though there are no obstructions or haze blocking our view.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We always do - if we are looking at the right spot. Every time.
|
There is no right spot if the airplane is heard, but is nowhere to be seen because it has not entered our visual range.
|
I don't think that ever happens... except when there is some kind of obstruction. We can see an airplane from way farther out than the sound even reaches.
What determines what is in visual range in efferent vision? I can explain why something is or isn't in normal vision.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But I am glad to see you are now saying that we would see light from an object limited by the speed of light, but we see the object instantly. If this is the case, how come we do not see light being reflected off planets somewhere different from where we see the planets themselves?
|
I never said that we see light being reflected off planets somewhere different from where we see the planets themselves. We would see the planet, but it would be smaller depending on how far away or how close it was to us. This distance would then reflect the amount of light striking our photoreceptors.
|
That does not make any sense. Light coming from that planet would be delayed, because the speed of light is finite. The image would arrive instantly, and be positioned where the object is
now, not where is
was... which is where the light would be coming from.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Also - how come cameras do not see something else than the eyes? There is nothing in a camera that looks out?
|
They don't see something else than the eyes because a camera is using the same light that the eyes are seeing. The only difference is that we are seeing a mirror image on the film, whereas the eyes see the actual object in real time.
|
Ermmm... what? The eyes, in your theory, do not "see" the light. They merely require it as a condition. And what do you mean that we are seeing a "mirror image" on the film? The film (or sensor) merely records what light it detects...
You are not making any sense here.