Ray path in the eye?
Because the topic still concerns me, I would like to understand why this is not possible.
This is how I imagine the eye and the path of light rays. Why can't this be correct? This version seems much more plausible to me than the idea that our brain simply reverses the visual information for aesthetic reasons. As my sketch shows it, the image is already the right way up on the retina.
Can anyone really rule out that this isn't the case? If so, what's wrong with this picture?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
That can’t be right because it’s really different. Incorrect is the whole representation of the beam path.
Here are correct representations:
If you take extra pictures where the world isn’t bigger than the eye hole, clear! Then I could just draw a ray.
So far, no one has really been able to tell me what is wrong with it. Everyone thinks that with the word ray everything is said.
I think I just accept what you showed me and is good. I’m sure I won’t get anywhere
Haha, well watched! Perhaps the signatories do this because the eye is more important to them than the world. They obviously create confusion, and that really should not be.
Clearly you can draw a beam path where the world is larger than the eye hole. Just take a piece of paper that’s bigger than the eye hole. Where’s the problem?
Here are drawings where the world is larger than the eye hole:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-022-02180-6/figures/1
Thanks for the star!
these lines will not help. The fact is that we only have 1 lens in the eye. It is enough to use a center beam and a parallel beam
By this you construct the image of an object according to the geometric optics on the retina. The image is reversed and is converted by the brain into an upright image.
Because your beam path is so simply wrong and doesn’t make any sense. Where is the “1nd conversion” coming from? There is no lens, nothing that could cause a reversal of the image. A picture doesn’t turn out so spontaneously. For this purpose, it already requires an optical element such as a lens. But since the eye is only a single lens, the image can only turn once…
I don’t think you understood how to draw optical beams. You don’t just paint any lines like it just fits you, but there are clear rules (predicted by physics). The line through the center of the lens remains straight, the parallels at the edges are directed to the focal point behind it. This results in a rotation of the image when you paint it. Your lines are wrong. The incident light would consist of three parallel beam paths, not one crossed.What you have painted is of artistic value, but is technically simply not correct.
“Where should the “1nd conversion”
Here you make a mistake. Images also rotate without lens. Look at the principle of a hole camera.
I could have let hundreds of lines go through the eye to move a little closer to reality, but then it would have become too confusing.
The iris (what you mean multich with hole) sits right in front of the lens, so only shades it and doesn’t look like a hole camera, so the iris is too big, your model is anatomically not sensual… I can only repeat myself: Your beam path is just technically wrong. There are clear rules derived from physics as to how to draw a beam path. You just painted some lines like it just fits you. That’s not how it works.
Thus, the image would not appear focused on the retina, rather blurred. The fact that the image on the retina is reversed does not matter to the brain, it does not know any bottom and top.
In experiments, test subjects were allowed to wear glasses that reverse the image from the bottom to the top. After a few days they had used to it and saw the picture completely normal. They could act quite normal, the brain had set itself on it.
But the image is focused, even if it does not give all the rays exactly to a tiny little point, the size of the yellow spot is decisive.
“The fact that the image on the retina is conversely doesn’t matter to the brain, it doesn’t know any bottom and top.” And yet, in the recognized narrative, the brain turns the picture, even though it does not know a bottom and top.
“It doesn’t know a bottom and a top,” which means that the brain is no matter where the bottom or the top is, it can adapt itself to it without any problems.
Where is the focus? The beam path makes no sense. Simply paint lines in zigzag does not help.
But the image is focused, even if it does not give all rays exactly to a tiny small point, the size of the yellow spot is decisive
You can remember as many stories as it could be. Yeah, sure, it could be that way. It’s not. The eye is as constructed as it is and the beam path in the eye is as it is and as you like it. Now two people have already told you that your rays are not true. The Iris is not a hole camera, a window is not a hole camera that turns the picture, and the hole is too big. What is so difficult to accept. If you can’t believe it: take a piece of paper, punch a hole in it (we’re 10mm tall) and look through it. There’s no picture.
Pippi Langstrumpf does not visit university. People who want to know how it really is.
Well, because you ask a question. If someone tells you that this is wrong and even tells you why (radiation is nonsensical, Iris is not a hole camera), you only get something like “I don’t believe, but that’s true”…
In natural science it is beautiful, you can easily check a theory and determine whether it is wrong. Yours is wrong, the image on the retina is still twisted (make yourself a “optical eye” and check it, is not a witchcraft). This has nothing to do with “close all universities.” Simple facts to live and say “I see this” has nothing to do with science or university.
Why are you so angry? I just wanted to hear arguments why it can’t be. Even without the correct arrangement of the beam paths one understands what I mean, at least I thought that.
But if everything is just as it is, we should close all the universities