Re: E = 1/2mv^2
- From: "tomgee" <tyropress@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 1 Apr 2006 18:19:27 -0800
Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:Gave you the chance to leave it alone, but noooo, you had to
Randy Poe wrote:
Patently false statement since I just said it.yet everyone but you knows our retinas do not
respond to light,
No, nobody with a rudimentary knowledge of the retina
would say such a thing.
Since you give me the obvious straight line, I am obligated
to use it: Patently demonstrating you have less than
rudimentary knowledge of the retina.
go on with it. Anyway, that last statement is also patently false,
since having a less-than-basic knowledge of the retina would
not enable me to know that it is the iris that responds to the
intensity of light.
I know what they do, I am asking you how they do it.
The retina consists of sensingI don't think so.
cells which absorb photons, and put out signals
in response to those photons.
Hence, demonstrating your lack of knowledge. Read up
on "rods" and "cones" and what they do.
That is very good, thank you very much. In fact, I think that is
That means the retinas must have the means for
sensing and also for putting out signals. What are those means?
The sensing is done by means of visual pigments which
are sensitive to particular wavelengths. The rods and cones
are also known as "transducers". It is precisely their function
to convert energy received by the visual pigment into neural
signals. Look at any detailed description of the anatomy of
the retina, for instance here:
http://williamcalvin.com/Bk1/bk1ch11.htm
Notice the figure says "Transducer neuron (rod or cone) converts
light to voltage signal". Series of voltage spikes are how
nerves communicate. The spikes travel down the cell
wall to the "tree" of dendrites connecting to other
neurons, and are then picked up by those other
neurons.
Here's another link:
http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/eyeret.html
"The outer segments of the rods and cones transduce
the light and send the signal through the cell bodies
of the ONL and out to their axons."
Neuron signals (action potentials) are initiated by opening
channels and pumping ions (Na+ I think) sufficiently
to create a critical voltage difference across the
membrane. What is missing from this picture on these
links is HOW exactly the transducer translates received
light into such a signal. That was a little harder to find,
but I did find at least one link that describes the clever
chemical engine the rod uses to do just that:
http://education.vetmed.vt.edu/Curriculum/VM8054/EYE/PHYSIO.HTM
excellent. Maybe the others will learn from you how to support their
opinions. One note only: the transducers are moving energy on, not
light. I don't think it is the em wave and the photons that continue
past the rods and cones. In physics, transducers convert energy of one
type into another type. The energy of the the light, i.e., the data
encoded from the wave into the photon (as per my model) is changed into
energy that our brains can interpret the way they do.
Reality is in the details most often but details are most often
overlooked in science until someone doggedly pursues them to discover
ways to explain the smallest of natural processes. I was there where
you are now, from retina to the brain. But I had to know how can the
brain translate the optic nerve signals in the wonders that we see such
that we can distinguish a ball from a bar, etc.? Is that information
carried in the wave or the particle, or both? The accuracy of it
cannot be denied, thus, the brain is correctly interpreting correctly
(but in general) the four dimensions of our universe through the data
we receive on our retinas.
Of course, we say that what we see is converted into the type of signal
that the brain can work with, but how is that connection made between
what our brains interpret and the correctness of it? With only small
discrepancies, we all see about the same things, so we base our lives
on what we see and we survive those gambles (usually). We should be
able to say then that what we see is the reality of our universe,
although by no means is it the complete picture. Nevertheless, since
we all see essentially the same things, we must all be essentially
getting the same data from the light that is created at our retinal
screens.
But how is that possible? We show above that it is not impossible,
therefore there is some way that it occurs. My model suggests a
process that sounds complicated but is in fact quite simple. I will
post here an excerpt from my essay that explains how I think that
process works:
" The force of the RE wave may cause changes in the make-up of the
particles and that in turn may cause them to shift from a state of
stillness to one of motion. The wave could affect the particles in the
same way that electron ray guns light up the dots, or "pixels," of
rare-earth phosphors painted on the screen inside of a television
cathode ray tube. The TV picture data is carried in the guns' rays
and the rays light up the phosphors accordingly as they cover the
screen with horizontal passes at a pace too fast for our eyes to
discern the individual lines. This occurs so rapidly that what our
brains interpret as being what our eyes are seeing is not the tiny
individual pixels, but whole pictures made up of the pixel data being
continually spread onto the back of the TV CRT screen. As electrons
strike a pixel on the screen, it lights up, then while the ray guns aim
electrons elsewhere and as the energy of the encounter wears off, it
begins to shift back into a less-excited state, to "await" the next
hit by another electron.
If photon particles stay in their general area in space (like water
molecules do here on Earth) and do not travel along with the spherical
light wave, it must be that each individual light wave is or carries
with it a picture of whatever is depicted by the wave as it moves
through space. Picture information could be carried in the light wave
in a way similar to the way it is done with "ray guns" in the TV
process, and if so, then photons may act similarly to the way TV screen
rare-earth phosphor pixels act. The existence of matter and space
within our universe would be available for us to see as lightwaves
imposed part of their picture in-formation onto each photon particle at
each encounter, about the same way a TV ray gun temporarily flashes a
part of a larger picture onto each phosphor pixel.
In our model, the photon "pixels" within the radiant energy
spherical wave fronts to-gether form a moving three-dimensional mosaic
of our physical universe. Even though the depth of each wave crest may
be no more than the diameter of one photon, and in spite of the fact
that the picture data carried by the individual lightwaves is
unintelligible to us, there are so many waves involved and passing by
so rapidly that our comparatively "slow" eyes and brains can
interpret the picture information in them only as a 3D "live"
picture. This makes it appear as if we can see "through" lighted
space, but of course, our brains are simply interpreting as well as
they can the data imprinted onto our retinas by each photon/lightwave
interaction which our eyes intercept. Thus, we do not actually see
outward into the universe; light waves come through the photon
particles nearest to our eyes and present the universe to us. We are
"blind" just for-ward of our retinas, but what we can "see" is
a true-to-life depiction of our universe - a wondrous reality to
behold! We know it is real because we can move about in it with our
eyes closed, and feel it and hear it, and in so doing, we verify what
our eyes see; thus can we know that our universe is not a hallucination
of reality.
Each lightwave in our model is a single-plane globular
"photograph" or record of what-ever the RE wave imposes onto the
photons, just as the phosphorescent TV screen is a total view of
whatever picture information the TV electron ray guns set upon the
pixels. Or just as the moon appears to us from far away to be a smooth
globe with a landscape painted on its surface. Lightwaves are
expanding spheres spreading the instants of reality recorded into each
wave by placing them onto each photon they meet as the waves expand
throughout the universe. Lightwaves are the "TV ray guns" of light
that strike our eyes as we look around our illuminated universe. The
things that we "see", the images in the spherical light waves which
our eyes intercept, become visible to us during the "wave/particle"
interactions which strike our retinas in unrelenting succession. That
can explain how others can see the same things we see, although they
must see them from a different perspective due to their different
locations." (The Time And Motion Relationship, by Thomas Garcia,
copyright 2002, All Rights Reserved. Tyro Press company)
However, how does that reject my argument that the retina
reacts to the last photon and wave touching it? Doesn't your work
above support what I'm saying rather than overthrow it?
.
- References:
- Re: E = 1/2mv^2
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: E = 1/2mv^2
- From: tomgee
- Re: E = 1/2mv^2
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: E = 1/2mv^2
- Prev by Date: tell me about nuclear physics
- Next by Date: Re: tell me about nuclear physics
- Previous by thread: Re: E = 1/2mv^2
- Next by thread: Re: The Flow of Time.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
