the fact the proves reality illusion its pretty easy to see can i awake now plz?

[raaaid]

all right basically you see a wall where the wall is cause light rebounds on the wall and your eye caughts that rebounded light

from every point of the wall light will come like this V

the big question why when im far from the wall i dont see less light from the wall for im of the top of the V and when im close i recieve more light from being on the apex of the V of rebounded light of the wall

or put it other way what would you rather a sky fully covered by suns or a sky fully covered by stars?

[Verhängnis]

Why wouldn't you see the same amount of light? Actually, you would recieve slightly less direct light off the wall, as you put it, but at the same time you would be receiving more ambient or environmental light due to the increased 'scope' of what you are seeing further away.

[raaaid]

thats true if you consider light REFLECTED LIKE IN A MIRROR

but actually its not reflected but once it hits the object light expands like this V

i try to use basic logic

an object i see it cause emits light, light opens like this V, therefore halving distance to an object should appear 4 times brighter besides 4 times bigger(twice bigger in lenght 4 times in surface)

maybe actually colour light is different than sun light?

[Verhängnis]

The light you see, (the brightness) is based on how much light is reflected back into your eye - the same way a magnifying glass works - from dim focus, to intense focus which you would burn something with. There is ALWAYS the same packet of light being reflected. Imagine the Sun, and a mirror. You face forwards but the mirror is angled away - therefore you are not in the direct path of the mirror and cannot see it. - (In a perfect world of course)

Light isn't reflected in a V, you have confused yourself. It doesn't come back in both directions. It enters on the left of the V and leaves on the right or vv.
http://mathforum.org/mathimages/imgUpload/Pool_table.jpg

[Liz Lemon]

Well he is kinda right about having the distance and that causing light to appear 4 times brighter. Inverse square law and all.

Then again I'm replying to a raaaid thread, so what do I know.

[Roblex]

I wonder if he is also getting confused about what 'diffusion' is. He thinks a photon of light hits the wall and then gets 'spread' when it bounces off but that single photon still bounces off in one direction and stays the same brightness (ignoring particles in the air etc), just that as the wall is not a perfect mirror it does not bounce off at the same angle as it hit. However other photons that hit the wall at an angle that would not bounce towards his eye in a mirror, will bounce towards his eye because the wall is uneven so the wall looks uniformly lit rather than just showing a reflection of the light source in one place (assuming we are not using very shiny paint)

Inverse square law does not apply to photons; otherwise a candle would be invisible if you were more than a few feet away, hell everything would be invisible! :-) The falling off of light over (large) distances is diffusion and diffraction due to dust & water etc. in the atmosphere.

[Liz Lemon]

Inverse square law does not apply to photons; otherwise a candle would be invisible if you were more than a few feet away, hell everything would be invisible! :-) The falling off of light over (large) distances is diffusion and diffraction due to dust & water etc. in the atmosphere.

Oh, I guess I misunderstood what raaaid was saying.

[Wolf_Rider]

but actually its not reflected but once it hits the object light expands like this V



Considering that light is a frequency and travels as a wave, it is not as a V that light is reflected off any given object... how would think glare comes about?

[raaaid]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html

i think i know whats going on:

just the light that is meant to be seen exists, when you dont look at the moon it doesnt exist

like that light that rebounds in an object actually goes like this I not like this V for only the light that enter the eye exists :)

[Verhängnis]

All the light and every object it reflects off exists. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

[raaaid]

so if a tree is banned from the zoo and none is around does he really get banned?

the amazing is that thos nazi scientists who liked to kill kitten finally PROOF this ancient zen wisdom

even the most obnoxious rationalist scientist submits to light being wave when your not looking and particles when you look them

i call waves nothing and particales each own imagination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu57B1v0SzI

[WTE_Galway]

Postmodern worldview:


The facts, while interesting, are irrelevant.

[Verhängnis]

Postmodern worldview:


The facts, while interesting, are irrelevant.

:-P

[Wolf_Rider]

so if a tree is banned from the zoo and none is around does he really get banned?

the amazing is that thos nazi scientists who liked to kill kitten finally PROOF this ancient zen wisdom

even the most obnoxious rationalist scientist submits to light being wave when your not looking and particles when you look them

i call waves nothing and particales each own imagination





dontcha just love Koans?

Schroedinger was a nazi?

south east asian geckos are a bit like that too

mmmmmm, kkkkk :s

[raaaid]

there are two things going on here:

a sun gets bigger closing by

a sun gets brighter closing by

so somebody should have qustioned me yeah things get brighter when you close by for they get bigger(oh i have to bring down my own argumentss here)

to which ill reply yeah they get bigger but they emit more light PER SQUARE ANGULAR METER

think of this your looking at a powerfull light far away at night and you close by and look and have to look away for you can tell if you kept on it would damage your eyes

and that brings the question why a powerfull light if looked at close it harms your eyes, like the sun,

is it because its a big light or a light with a lot of intensity for square m?

you know is this fact what falsifies the eye emitting light theory by plato?

if you project light from your eyes when you look at a close wall you should see it brighter than from far but you dont, for theres more concentrated light the closest to the wall

but this is like i dont know if time goes forward while gravity pulls or it goes backwards with gravity pushing, theyre the same if ones wrong both are wrong

this reinforces the idea we live in different universes with different words for equal things, seeing the equal things ddifferent , for only the light that enters each eye exists being the rest nothingness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k38FqXslgrg

[Verhängnis]

I wonder what would happen if we just agreed with him? :confused:

[raaaid]

take it this way:

tennisballs are shot in 180º from a spot with certain rate

twice the farther you get 4 times less balls

so you could multiply the shooters and cause the same effect

or it would not be the same effect?

when you get fire from 4 distant shooters at double distance you get same balls than from one closer half distance

but the 4 shooters are NOT IN THE SAME SPOT so if you make the tenisballs go though a hole and check the patern in a wall behind in 1st case there will concentrated fire while in the other disperse fire

btw what do you mean agree with me, galway kind of agrees with me, in fact was him he point me the scientist chose to kill a cat when he could just have given a dog a bone so there would be in superposition the dog with and without the bone, its up to the observer

its the same with the grandfather murder paradox, you see a psicopathic profile in these people who get to the top

or more likely according the program i watched, or dreamt who knows, on arthur c clarcke they get promoted to the top by theyir psycopathic and SUBMISSIVE profile

edit:

the idea is pretty simple yet mindblowing:

an scenary SEEMS equally iluminated in two cases, but then you cover the scenary with a dome cardboard with a pinhole and the truth unveils about the nature of light and how each case is totally different

edit:

hey i just figured out a way to obtain sun distance, maybe i was wrong after all

but in this case the sun would be different to a sun twice as big double far:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e222/raaaid/Imagen0347.jpg

[bongodriver]

I still don't get how this forum is strict on protecting 13 year olds from everyday profanity but not so strict on protecting them from the rambling a of this deranged looney.

[raaaid]

yeah of course not point protecting the youth from hate speech but from "dangerous" ideas on existence

bongo do you understand that without an observer light is waves, not material, and with an observer material

this is not looney stuff, well actually it is , but its an scientific fact

edit:

if i were cast to a desert island i would take besides a female dentist plenty of paper and pencil and would have not a moment of boredom, take this problem:

you have a samll dome with a small candle and a big dome with a big candle, the candle has a mirror in the bottom

your eyes see 180º that is all the dome

if all the light is on the dome and all the dome is on your eyes why doesnt the same candle iluminate the same however size of the dome

seem the bigger you make the dome the more light misteriously vanishes

edit:

also it would be posible we actually see a wall brighter when closer but we dont notice :

http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/images/puzzle10a.gif

edit:

i think im becoming a teacher, ill teach kids to think by themselves and pay attention to things like this

remember what i said about closer should be brighter?

in a pinhole camera its reversed to make things more confusing :)

http://betterphotography.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Clipboard04.jpg

edit:

here a simple how the observer makes reality:

observer on, light behaves as particles and focused light thorugh the lens hall is CONCENTRATED:

http://www.decamaras.com/imagen/articulos/optica/image001.jpg

observer off, light behaves like waves which disperses and focused light through the lens hall is UNIFORM and spreads

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/camera-diagram2.gif

edit:

guess the sroedinger transcedence in a supposed war man - machine:

without man theres nothing at all, no observer no material light,nothing at all, you wouldnt be able to burn a paper with a magnifier, of course how could you if you were not there

[Wolf_Rider]

image 3rd from top... focuses direct sunlight (light, heat and everything else which makes up direct sunlight, which can be refracted) to a point... hence the concentration of heat and the burning medium

image 4th from top... focuses reflected light onto a 'medium" - heat (and some other components of direct sunlight) is not part of that makeup. hence the image is captured (and it isn't focused to a point in photography)

[raaaid]

yeah you got it:

you focus the sun with a magnifying glass you get a small spot and all the rest dark

you focus the sun through the lens of the camera and it doesnt concentrate in a spot but reveal the sun,make a picture of the sun

both cases in focus, when looking at it spot when not looking circle, particle- wave depending if theres observer or not

[Wolf_Rider]

yeah you got it:

you focus the sun with a magnifying glass you get a small spot and all the rest dark

you focus the sun through the lens of the camera and it doesnt concentrate in a spot but reveal the sun,make a picture of the sun




mmmm noooo, the hotspot is brighter by far than the surrounding ambient light


focus the sun into a camera and you'll make a flare out on the film stock ;) and possibly (actually, will) damage your sight if using the viewfinder

[Liz Lemon]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbqg5q5V6l1riuh2bo1_400.gif

[Kongo-Otto]

I wonder what would happen if we just agreed with him? :confused:

:cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4-FvIQ2-g

[Wutz]

:cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao4-FvIQ2-g

+1000000:lol:

[raaaid]

well honestly i was unsecured of my concept but some net info:

The importance of focal length

The choice of a lens’s focal length can be an important criterion when composing an image. But what exactly is the focal length of a lens?
In technical terms, this refers to the distance between the rear nodal point of the lens and the focal plane, meaning the plane where subjects at infinity come into focus. In practical terms, and using the example with the magnifying glass mentioned above, the focal length of the magnifying glass would be the distance between the magnifying glass itself and the piece of paper when the image of the sun (the little patch of light) is smallest.

http://www.dyxum.com/columns/photoworld/fundamentals/lens_abberations/sfoclengthEN.jpg

and yes you can take a picture of the sun with the right settings:

http://www.pinoy7.com/psptutorials/7/fadingtobackground/images/sunset.jpg

here the concept of focal lenght:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/imggo/focalength.gif

http://img.alibaba.com/img/pb/736/490/370/370490736_982.jpg

so well its a fact lights waves when you dont look and particles when you look

and i found a way to prove it

burning a paper with a lens, lights a particle and lens make all light from the sun in a single spot

lens with a box so the observer cant see, lights a wave and the same lens now makes the sun from the sun spread

[Hatch]

C'mon Raaaid, at least make an effort to think.
Acquire a thorough understanding of the subject matter before going off on a tangent.

[raaaid]

i researched and learnt and this explains it all:

http://www.dyxum.com/columns/photoworld/fundamentals/lens_abberations/sfoclengthEN.jpg

you just cant expect to disprove a point by saying learn, i studied a lot of projection and i excel at it:

as a matter of fact there are mixed confused projections all over concerning this

not that im a genious and im the 1st to find about this but if the observer has will over reality do you reallly think "they" would tell you?

edit:

http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/93/38d086d7dfb6a653dff76f928ab4011a/l.jpg

edit:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_interference_experiment

edit:

plz can someone clear my confusion?

if i LOOK at the projection of the two lasers which are distance apart PROJECTED at right focus they make ONE SINGLE SPOT

if i take a picture in a dark box with a photosensible surface it will take a picture of TWO SPOTS, for it will take a perfect picture and the lasers are distance apart:

http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/F05/2QAB/F9AZJU5V/F052QABF9AZJU5V.LARGE.gif

hey anybody im trying to learn

[Wolf_Rider]

Raid, (your sunset shot) is not the sun focused into the camera, as you were suggesting. What you show there, is a sunset

[swiss]

here raaid, only for you

http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/

[raaaid]

here raaid, only for you

http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/

thanks ill try it looks cool :)

really love this subject is so coooonfusing:

take this picture:

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/camera-diagram1.gif

imagine the pencil was a small sun

actually wouldnt be posible to project the sun in a tiny spot, according the projection rules you see in that picture, for you just can make it more clear or more blurred by changing focal distance but not bigger or smaller in angular size from the lenx apex, according the projection rules you see in the picture it will reverse with identical angular size however focal distance

oh and in the web there are plenty of pictures of the sun i gues its a matter of set a very high shutter speed

edit:

theres a way to see a light shouldnt posibly be more concentrated that its angular size in photography, yet you can project the sun this way with a lens in a tiny spot :

if you unfocus your eyes while looking at the screen led it will grow and blur, it doesnt matter you unfocus by looking closer or farther, the smallest brightest led you can see is in right focus

so as you can see a photographic camera as the eye follows different rules than if its open like a lens concentrating the sun on a paper

edit:

well so when i concentrate light with a lens lights waves as young experiment, following wave projection rules which i gnore

but when light is observed it becomes particles, following the classic projection rules for straight lines

so just when light enters the eye becomes real,no observer nothing at all

just think if in the double slit experiment instead of a measuring device to tell which slit did the photon go trough you could just get a guy looking and telling what slit brights when the photons shot, you could put a transparent photosensible sheet and it should give away two bands

so observer getting photons within the eye, particle, two bands

no observer seeing the light within the eyes, wave many bands

[Wolf_Rider]

nooo... the subject appears on the film and your focal lines are a misnomer.

What you were attempting to say (original) is the same as the magnifying glass focusing the sun onto and hence burning the paper

[raaaid]

oh come on that you dont understand what i say doesnt mean i dont make sense

ill be honest as typical:

what i think is that to focus the sun right with a lens and obtain focal lenght it doesnt need to be the smallest spot but a circle of the right size

but this contradicts this info i got from the net:

In practical terms, and using the example with the magnifying glass mentioned above, the focal length of the magnifying glass would be the distance between the magnifying glass itself and the piece of paper when the image of the sun (the little patch of light) is smallest.

also theres the fact i have certain degree of control over my eye lens due to my training

and however i shape my eye lens its imposible for me to make a big dim light into a spot just make it bigger and blurred than it is but never smaller

edit:

yep when you concentrate light with a magnifying glass, when not directly observed, it behaves as waves, when you want to make out whats out there as particles:

http://www.ctgclean.com/tech-blog/wp-content/uploads/Convex-Concave31.jpg

http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/lightandcolor/images/lensintrofigure2.jpg

as you can see when reality directly observed light follows straight lines projection rules

when not directly observed wave projection rules

[Wolf_Rider]

Your'e images don't show what your really trying to say Raaid... what you're realy trying to say is "participator" v "observer".

In the "observer", faster than light travel is possible.

You keep on showing point to point refraction... if you focused the sun into a camera (onto film medium) you would end up with burnt stock (and damaged eyesight)... the same as using a magnifying glass to focus the sun's rays onto a piece of paper.

You can't take a full image and try to explain your hypothesis (in a faulty manner) by only using part of that image, when you know ful well the full image will be transfered - it doesn't work that way!

[major_setback]

I am dreaming that I'm writing a post in this thread. I will have to come here tomorrow to see if it actually appears in real life too.
If so then my dream is reality, or reality is a dream, and I'm not sure which is worse.
Anyway, fingers crossed that this post doesn't appear.

[raaaid]

well i figured out where i went wrong:

if you focus the sun with a magnifying glass onto a piece of paper

the samllest patch of light will be actually quite big and acurate representation of the sun, there it laid my mistake:

yet take this picture:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Large_convex_lens.jpg

if you take a photograph of that will all rays appear on the same spot?or youll see each from the place its coming

and what direction does light actually go?

[major_setback]

You might be interested in this. The Light-Field camera captures rays of light without focusing them. You focuse the picture after you have taken it, when you look at it.


You can focus the picures at any point you like. Look at the first picture, if you click on the first insect then it will be in focus, but if you click on the second insect it will change focus to that. Hold and drag and you can change perspective!!!
https://www.lytro.com/camera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-field_camera

these cameras actually don't cost too much, considdering it is new technology.

[raaaid]

wow thanks for the link :)

imagine a thermal engine solar powered this way

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn19170/dn19170-2_300.jpg

and the function of the lens oculus of domes as camera obscura to appear to walk on clouds:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Oculus_of_the_Pantheon.jpg/170px-Oculus_of_the_Pantheon.jpg

http://vimeo.com/11789304