[geocentrism] Re: The resolution of Mars
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 16:21:13 +1100
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Seeing as I needed to refresh that part of the human eye I needed to learn as
> part of my TV technology, I went a looking, and once again wiki puts it in
> simple enough terms for us all to share..
>
Philip, that paragraph below, is a very accurate resume of what I wrote.
Thanks,
Regner
> Jack,
> Regner said we are measuring two different things.. resolution and
> sensitivity.. This might help us to understand how sensitivity cannot
> determine distance, but resolution can but only to a limited distance.. In
> simple terms, you will see a light at ANY distance if it is bright enough,
> but you cannot resolve the object of view except for very limited distances
> and size. We take advantage of this in TV and print media color prints
> because we cannot resolve the tri coloured dots. Black and white pics too.
>
> here is the basics. This is good stuff..I had forgotten all about rods and
> cones. Ill color in highlight that which I think is relevant. While yas read
> this I'll look to see if apes got our eyes. might find a missing link..
>
> Cytology
> The structure of the mammalian eye owes itself completely to the task of
> focusing light onto the retina. This light causes chemical changes in the
> photosensitive cells of the retina, the products of which trigger nerve
> impulses which travel to the brain.
>
> The retina contains two forms of photosensitive cells important to
> vision?rods and cones. Though structurally and metabolically similar, their
> function is quite different. Rod cells are highly sensitive to light allowing
> them to respond in dim light and dark conditions, however, they cannot detect
> color. These are the cells which allow humans and other animals to see by
> moonlight, or with very little available light (as in a dark room). This is
> why the darker conditions become, the less color objects seem to have. Cone
> cells, conversely, need high light intensities to respond and have high
> visual acuity. Different cone cells respond to different wavelengths of
> light, which allows an organism to see color.
>
> The differences are useful; apart from enabling sight in both dim and light
> conditions, humans have given them further application. The fovea, directly
> behind the lens, consists of mostly densely-packed cone cells. This gives
> humans a highly detailed central vision, allowing reading, bird watching, or
> any other task which primarily requires staring, at things. Its requirement
> for high intensity light does cause problems for astronomers, as they cannot
> see dim stars, or other objects, using central vision because the light from
> these is not enough to stimulate cone cells. Because cone cells are all that
> exist directly in the fovea, astronomers have to look at stars through the
> "corner of their eyes" (averted vision) where rods also exist, and where the
> light is sufficient to stimulate cells, allowing the individual to observe
> distant stars.
>
> Rods and cones are both photosensitive, but respond differently to different
> frequencies of light. They both contain different pigmented photoreceptor
> proteins. Rod cells contain the protein rhodopsin and cone cells contain
> different proteins for each color-range. The process through which these
> proteins go is quite similar?upon being subjected to electromagnetic
> radiation of a particular wavelength and intensity, the protein breaks down
> into two constituent products. Rhodopsin, of rods, breaks down into opsin and
> retinal; iodopsin of cones breaks down into photopsin and retinal. The opsin
> in both opens ion channels on the cell membrane which leads to
> hyperpolarization, this hyperpolarization of the cell leads to a release of
> transmitter molecules at the synapse.
>
> This is the reason why cones and rods enable organisms to see in dark and
> light conditions?each of the photoreceptor proteins requires a different
> light intensity to break down into the constituent products. Further,
> synaptic convergence means that several rod cells are connected to a single
> bipolar cell, which then connects to a single ganglion cell by which
> information is relayed to the visual cortex. This is in direct contrast to
> the situation with cones, where each cone cell is connected to a single
> bipolar cell. This results in the high visual acuity, or the high ability to
> distinguish between detail, of cone cells and not rods. If a ray of light
> were to reach just one rod cell this may not be enough to hyperpolarize the
> connected bipolar cell. But because several "converge" onto a bipolar cell,
> enough transmitter molecules reach the synapse of the bipolar cell to
> hyperpolarize it.
>
> Furthermore, color is distinguishable due to the different iodopsins of cone
> cells; there three different kinds, in normal human vision, which is why we
> need three different primary colors to make a color space.
>
>
> [edit] Acuity
>
> Closeup of a hawk's eye
> Visual acuity is often measured in cycles per degree (CPD), which measures an
> angular resolution, or how much an eye can differentiate one object from
> another in terms of visual angles. Resolution in CPD can be measured by bar
> charts of different numbers of white?black stripe cycles. For example, if
> each pattern is 1.75 cm wide and is placed at 1 m distance from the eye, it
> will subtend an angle of 1 degree, so the number of white?black bar pairs on
> the pattern will be a measure of the cycles per degree of that pattern. The
> highest such number that the eye can resolve as stripes, or distinguish from
> a gray block, is then the measurement of visual acuity of the eye.
>
> For a human eye with excellent acuity, the maximum thoeretical resolution
> would be 50 CPD[19] (1.2 minute of arc per line pair, or a 0.35 mm line pair,
> at 1 m). However, the eye can only resolve a contrast of 5%. Taking this into
> account, the eye can resolve a maximum resolution of 37 CPD, or 1.6 minute of
> arc per line pair (0.47 mm line pair, at 1 m). [20] A rat can resolve only
> about 1 to 2 CPD.[21] A horse has higher acuity through most of the visual
> field of its eyes than a human has, but does not match the high acuity of the
> human eye's central fovea region.
>
>
> [edit] Equivalent resolution
> A maximum resolution of the human eye in good light of 1.6 minute of arc per
> line pair will correspond to 1.25 lines per minute of arc. Assuming two
> pixels per line pair (one pixel per line) and a square field of 120 degrees,
> this would be equivalent to approximately 120Ũ60Ũ1.25 = 9000 pixels in each
> of the X and Y dimensions, or about 81 megapixels.[citation needed]
>
> However, the human eye itself has only a small spot of sharp vision in the
> middle of the retina, the fovea centralis, the rest of the field of view
> being progressively lower resolution as it gets further from the fovea. The
> angle of the sharp vision being just a few degrees in the middle of the view,
> the sharp area thus barely achieves even a single megapixel resolution. The
> experience of wide sharp human vision is in fact based on turning the eyes
> towards the current point of interest in the field of view, the brain thus
> perceiving an observation of a wide sharp field of view.
>
> The narrow beam of sharp vision is easy to test by putting a fingertip on a
> newspaper and trying to read the text while staring at the fingertip ? it is
> very difficult to read text that's just a few centimeters away from the
> fingertip.
>
>
> [edit] Spectral response
> Human eyes respond to light with wavelength in the range of approximately 400
> to 700 nm. Other animals have other ranges, with many such as birds including
> a significant ultraviolet (shorter than 400 nm) response.
>
>
> [edit] Dynamic range
> The retina has a static contrast ratio of around 100:1 (about 6 1/2 stops).
> As soon as the eye moves (saccades) it re-adjusts its exposure both
> chemically and by adjusting the iris. Initial dark adaptation takes place in
> approximately four seconds[citation needed] of profound, uninterrupted
> darkness; full adaptation through adjustments in retinal chemistry (the
> Purkinje effect) are mostly complete in thirty minutes[citation needed].
> Hence, a dynamic contrast ratio of about 1,000,000:1 (about 20 stops) is
> possible. The process is nonlinear and multifaceted, so an interruption by
> light nearly starts the adaptation process over again. Full adaptation is
> dependent on good blood flow; thus dark adaptation may be hampered by poor
> circulation, and vasoconstrictors like alcohol or tobacco.
>
> Hmmm. God did not make smoky air, or alcoholic rain..
>
>
>
> Philip.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jack Lewis
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:31 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The resolution of Mars
>
>
> Dear Philip,
> I do understand what you are saying and agree with much of it, but some of
> it I don't. You are using the 'all inclusive' argument - if it works for one
> case then it must works for all - whatever it is, no 'buts' allowed.
> Me in blue.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: philip madsen
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:35 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The resolution of Mars
>
> Jack your attitude is both scientifically incorrect, and uncharitable. MS
> science would accept what was proved beyond rational doubt with excitement.
>
> You cannot really believe that! Its simply niave. Scientists have already
> done that with evolution! Anything that suggests Earth is the centre of the
> universe is going to get squashed and you darn well know it! No MS science is
> EVER going to accept the idea of a creator.
>
> I was not destroyed by finding a knew way of explaining electricity. The
> electron theory's displacement of convention was an exciting part of my life.
> What is the purpose of research but to find new and improved ways of looking
> at things.
>
> Agreed - but your principle here cannot be applied for everything, the
> 'all inclusive' idea.
>
> Further, I do not personally see this forum as all about destroying MS
> science, but rather adding to its application.
>
> Its about destroying the MS science that is wrong and thus adding to MS's
> clarification and truth.
>
> And as to your science, it is irrational to insist that an interpretation
> of the biological science of the resolution of the eye can contradict basic
> geometry, and be superior to what is measured using advanced optical
> instruments..
>
> Sorry old son, but this is a problem of a straight apparent contradiction
> that needs to be resolved. What about the M-M experiment and all the others?
> Very few people want to accept its conclusion and those that do are likely to
> be believers. We'll wait and see what Regner has to say about them.
>
> I am not saying the science of the eye is incorrect. I am saying and did
> mean to say, that any application of this science that contradicts basic laws
> of geometry has to be in error.
>
> So you ARE saying the science of the eye is incorrect by default! The eye
> is a tangible, measurable, hands-on and backed by incredible optical
> instruments. So what's the problem?
>
> Philip.
>
> PS. Jack when you were in 7th grade, wern't you amazed at being shown
> how to measure the height of a tree half a mile away using a tape measure on
> the ground, a protractor, and a book of trig tables, without going anywhere
> near it?
>
> Once you have formulated your ideas about geometry and then applied it to
> measuring the height of the tree, how would you then comfirm your ideas? At
> school I used pythagoras to work out the hypotenuse of a right angled
> triangle with one side 3" and the other 4". I was amazed to see it's
> confirmation by measuring the hypotenuse and finding it to be 5"! Whenever a
> calculation is performed, the correctness of it will be established by the
> result produced by its application - meaning it will be physically measured
> either directly or indirectly by its result. There's not a lot of point
> calculating something if you are NEVER going to know if it is sustainable or
> not.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.9/1157 - Release Date: 28/11/2007
> 12:29 PM
>
Other related posts:
