he light coming through the opening seems to brighten all the closeby space, and the more light there is, the wider the bright space becomes. — Hachem
That would be the only reason for projected images to become darker by smaller aperture — Hachem
At the same time, that is only possible if the images are not directly projected by light rays, since otherwise they should keep the same brightness as long as the same scene is projected. — Hachem
Camera sensors react to light first, to color second. Or maybe the other way around. It does not matter. — Hachem
The eye cells also react this way. A white beam directed into the eye can give different color impressions, and different cells can give the same visual impression, whatever their first inclination. — Hachem
There is no reason to believe that increased sensitivity has to come at the cost of sharpness, and the latter becomes anyway irrelevant the darker it is. — Hachem
It is known that the eye cells need to be refreshed, and that happens through constant eye movements. When projecting an image directly on the retina, and having the image follow the eye movements so that the same cells are perceiving constantly the same image, the image disappears from perception. My interpretation of this fact is that we are simply in presence of overexposure, and not some mysterious neural program that would stop the eye cells from functioning if the image does not chan — Hachem
This all means according to me that in fact ambient light is contributing only indirectly to image formation. Larger apertures, or longer exposure, would apparently make the wall or the screen in the camera obscura, the film or the sensor chips, more sensitive, up to a certain limit. — Hachem
If you look at some of the pictures carefully, you will see some dark shadows where light did not enter even after months of exposure. — Hachem
1) When beams of light travel through space, they leave their bright traces behind them. — Hachem
2) Ambient light is only additive up to an extent. Non-moving objects which are not in shadow nor in the path of light beams, keep most of their details even after hours, days, or months of exposure. (I find this puzzling) — Hachem
3) There remain places from which bright scenes can be observed, which themselves remain cloaked in shadow. — Hachem
The question now is: will making the opening smaller make both images darker, or only the second one? — Hachem
It's been long proven that you cannot see photons without having them enter our eyes or else through some form of "detector" (i.e: something for them to strike) — VagabondSpectre
I find this a very strange assertion in this context. We are talking about visible light, like for instance a beam of light directed towards or away from us. We can see this beam of light if the medium allows it.
As for instance in a swimming pool where the water is not "pure". — Hachem
I notice that all you are doing is reciting the Optics gospel. You are not answering my question which could put an end to this sterile discussion. — Hachem
I do not feel like repeating our long and boring discussion where you stick to the official theory and I have to defend myself — Hachem
Let us be clear on the test, and I will keep searching.
1) The subject shines a beam of light away from it at another object * in this case a lens).
2) He blows a handful of chalk dust in the air to make the beam visible.
3) the beam becomes visible, but no dust linking the beam to the subject is visible.
Agreed? — Hachem
Let us give up the pretension that we could ever agree on even the simplest of tests. — Hachem
Why don't you comment on my pictures concerning double slit, newton rings and interference? That would be very precise and empirical. Your chance to show that I just don't get it. — Hachem
Why do you claim that laser beams are themselves visible? — VagabondSpectre
what are you afraid of? — Hachem
stop trying to hit me and hit me! — Hachem
around 1:55 mn. You can see the beam, but no link to the subject.
But then, that was because the photons are invisible and too few, right? — Hachem
and at 2:07-2:09 you can see the cloud of talcum powder reflecting the normal ambient light when he blows it. — VagabondSpectre
But I am presenting you with empirical claims. The wet dream of every scientist — Hachem
You are really pathetic in your avoidance strategy. Please do not waste my time anymore.Please provide evidence that shows we can see collimated beams of light in a vacuum... — VagabondSpectre
I'd rather have no responses that dishonest responses — Hachem
I never say there should be a link, only that if photons were propagated in all directions, that there should be a reaction of the matter between us and the beam. For instance, chalk dust should light up. — Hachem
It does not, and your answer is well known enough — Hachem
What makes us see object is still a puzzle, but the contemporary theory of light does not convince me. — Hachem
How do you explain the pictures I made of a laser beam that look so much like Newton rings, or cases of interference?
Face my empirical queries or give it a rest. — Hachem
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.