PDA

View Full Version : Ray of light versus eye beam



Rutger
2004-Oct-14, 09:19 PM
Hello there,

This is my first posting. Sorry for the language if impossible to understand what I mean. Also, my knowledge might be poor, incomplete or based on bad presumptions. But this is what I really wonder.

Is a look from the eyes in any way comparable to a ray of light, in terms of physical conditions, e.g. speed and straightness of direction?

Einstein says that a ray of light has the fastest possible speed in the universe, speed of light. I wonder what is the speed of one look from the eyes (can you call this an eye beam). What is the speed of a look?

Also, Einstein says that a ray of light has the straightest possible direction in the universe. Considering my thoughts above: how is it possible to make an optical picture (foto, comparable to eye beam), during an eclipse, of a star or a number of stars, which are optically not in the position where you would expect them to appear, this observation being caused by the direction of the lightbeam being attracted because of a large mass (the sun)?

I don't think that I know better than Einstein, so there must be an explanation. Could it be something that an eye beam, and thus also a foto, is not a physical object? In that case, what is an eye beam really?

Greetings,
Rutger

MyHeadHurts
2004-Oct-14, 09:52 PM
speed of a look...i like that...lol
i'm not sure i understand what your getting at.
i do know that eyes, cameras....etc gather light, they don't emit light unless it were reflected light and i doubt there is any of that either except off the surface of your eye. me thinks your been watching to much x-men
:blink:

Rutger
2004-Oct-14, 10:02 PM
Hi,

Thank you, this is really helping me further, i hadn't considered this possibility.

Does this mean we are looking "with the speed of light"?

Greetings,
Rutger

GOURDHEAD
2004-Oct-15, 01:06 AM
Does this mean we are looking "with the speed of light"?

Nope. Your eyes are receiving data from each source of light at the speed of light. For the speed of looking to have meaning it means how rapidly you can change focus from one source to another. The speed of this activity is much slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of the data from the retina to the appropriate part of the brain would be slower than that of light in a vacuum.

astromark
2004-Oct-15, 02:04 AM
Yes.. I agree with Gourhead. Think of your eye as natures version of a digital camera. It does not "know'from where the light commes. It gathers the image from light recieved. Just like a digital camera. The light processing chip in the camera simply records the image. Your eye asembles an image from both eyes, processes it and builds an image you 'see'... We dont see at light speed. We endevour to see the light receaved. Done best with binoculars or telescopes... I do understand your thought that the light we see has reached our eye at light speed. and it doesént seem to hurt us... Keep working on this, if you can figer out how we could harness this speed. you're going to get really famouse...

Rutger
2004-Oct-15, 06:24 PM
Hi,

Thanks everybody. I was wondering long time, but now I got some really usefull answers, which allow me to go further in my thinking. I hadn't realized that eyes just gather data and do not send. Also I hadn't realized that of course the brain needs time to process the gathered data.

Maybe I'll get back to this with you if I have some new questions about this. But first I have to oversee the consequences of this. Like: do the powers of nature (like gravity and magnetic fields) influence the look of an eye (I guess not).

Also I have now an idea for a title of a book: "Met de snelheid van een oogopslag", which means about "With the speed of an eye's look", probably for a novell about love. When written, you three people who gave me great information will get a free copy, I'll inform you when ready in this forum.

Greetings,
Rutger