/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15338123
I cant wait for my trip to Thailand to rip grams on the beach...

they can't because it disproves science

Reflection sure is an incomprehensible mystery.

repost of >>15333410

>>15338123
the mirror can see. you can draw a straight line from the mirror to the egg.

if you put a screen in between then the egg will also disappear within the mirror.

let the master explain it.
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/46

>>15338123
1) The mirror doesn't know
2) There's not an object "there"

Its all in your mind that you're able to process the light bouncing off your retina. The mirror, the egg, the paper, they're not "there", but inside your mind.

How can mirrors be real if youre eyes arent?

>>15338183
awful teacher
why's he teaching

>>15338210
Life is a teacher. Have you attended class...or recess?

Fads like the "egg mystery" are what make me support eugenics.

>>15338123
mirrors are the devils work, smash them before they steal your soul

>>15338209
>if youre eyes arent
That's the part I genuinely never understood, though. Even my physics teacher couldn't explain that one.

The picture shows a nice cone, where the light goes to the left of your eyeball and to the right of your eyeball, and makes an image of the object
But there are light rays being scattered everywhere, bouncing and coming into your eyes from all directions

The right of the object also enters the left part of your eye, and the left of the object also enters the right part. Every part of the object is going to have some reflection to every part of your eyeball!

How does the eye "know" where a ray of light came from?
When I move my head 10mm to the left, the light ray from the apple that was to hitting the right of my eyeball and the right of my visual field, is now hitting the center of my eyeball (since I moved 10mm to the left). But it's still in the right of my visual field, not in the middle.
How can the eye possibly know the apple is to the right, if the light ray is hitting it in the center?

>>15338250
>Even my physics teacher couldn't explain that one.

>>15338209

Total nonsense backwardly reasoned from the Phenomenal nightmare of the object in the mirror being visible. If, SOMEHOW, the object and mirror were in different rooms and the object still appeared in the mirror, similarly absurd, occult, obscurantist nonsense would be fabricated to explain it.

>>15338243
>>15338250

Best posts.

>>15338123

>>15338278
This was the object of my thesis.
Should I tell around that I majored in trolling?

>>15338288
Can you tell me why you guys always use a single frequency, instead of combining data from multimodal sensors?
An X-Ray machine or an MRI already costs a morbillion in both CAPEX and OPEX, why not also outfit it with say ultrasound and some other lower resolution waveslengths?
Yeah large wavelengths suck, whatever. You'd still get better resolution by combining a good image with a slightly lower quality image, and I doubt the cost would be much higher given the expensive part is already what we're doing, yeah?
Why is this wrong?

>>15338303
You said it yourself. Pricing.
Why waste 2-morbillions when 1-morbillion does the job.

>>15338321
But what if it's 1.05 morbillion vs 1.00, the other option being much more expensive (a bigger magnet for your MRI, or whatever it is)
A nice ultrasound system is maybe 50k for the good stuff, 30k if you try to optimize costs a bit

Maybe we should look at it the other way around if it's about money.
Why pay 1 morbillion, when you could buy the cheaper $.8 model that gets the ~same image quality, but with a few cheap multimodal sensors instead of a single really high end sensor?

>>15338123
I don't really know, but this is my theory: The light hits object then the mirror at an angle reflecting the objects light back (Light bounces all around the place before hitting your eyes.)

>>15338337
Yeah, that's basically the right idea. It's also highschool optics, so you should be able to learn the theory behind why properly at some point.

>>15338123
Do those people think a mirror is a big eye that look at things and then draw mirror images of those things on itself?

>>15338250
>How can the eye possibly know the apple is to the right, if the light ray is hitting it in the center?

There's a lot pre and post mental processing going on in the background. The eye is only receiving information as it's presented.

>>15338352
Okay, but I'm pretty comfortable with the brain side of things (or at least, as comfortable as a relatively ignorant person can be..)

Consider a film or a CCD sensor instead of the eye, then.
Say my CCD sensor is 100mm wide. Approximate the Sun as a small, infinitely distant source of light.
The Sun is a ball. It emits light in ALL directions. Every single pixel in my CCD sensor is going to receive an equal amount of sunlight, given that the Sun is an idealized ball sitting at near infinity.

Why, pray fucking tell, would the Sun only appear in a corner of my picture, instead of being equally spread out across all the pixels?
I suspect the answer involves mumbling 'something something polarization', but even that "explanation" gets very sketchy very quickly, and it doesn't make sense if you think about it.

Say I currently have a picture where the Sun is in the top right. I move my camera 70mm to the side. Since the Sun is at infinity, it hasn't really moved all the way across the visual field of the captor. It should still appear in the same corner as before.
But, the exact same light rays are now hitting a different part of the captor. In fact, no matter the position of my camera, there are ~infinitely many other translated images of the object hitting every pixel, coming back to the problem that I should see the same Sun intensity at every pixel (since it is, in fact, a ball emitting in all directions!)

Somehow, and I DO NOT understand why, people gloss over this giant problem in their explanation like there's nothing there!
I've pretty much lost hope.

>>15338250
Do they not show a camera obscura to students these days? Your eyes have pupils and a lens for exactly this reason.

>>15338347
If you see more screens than mirrors then it's a natural thing to think.

>>15338373
Right, and that's a very visual explanation, but the aperture has a non-negligible size so the problem remains.
Any source light ray can necessarily choose any path through the aperture. The resulting image should be extremely blurry, since we can expect source rays to be equally distributed over the target area

And yet a camera (or an eye, or a camera obscura) works with an aperture much, much larger than a pixel.
Yeah you can make a pinhole camera, point at the wall and say "look, it clearly works". But that doesn't explain how in the hell does it work, when it should be a useless blur

>>15338379
Why do you think cameras have lenses?

>>15338368
It's the iris and lens buddy. They are there to block scattered light and focus an image onto your retina.

>>15338123
>the mirror know
Prove the mirror knows anything.

>>15338379
>but the aperture has a non-negligible size
as opposed to a camera?
literally what the fuck are you talking about moron

>>15338379
Have you actually worked through the math to see how much blurring you should get and compared that to a real image?

There is blurring on a pinhole camera and you can see that the blurring increases with apperatur size. No one is claiming that you'll get perfect images, but after a certain threshold the deviation will be small enough that you can't distinguish the blurring.

>>15338250
>>15338379
>Right, and that's a very visual explanation, but the aperture has a non-negligible size
That's what the lens is for, retard.

>>15338133
>>15338217
>>15338266
Shit posts.

>>15338395
>>15338398
Okay, I guess you're right actually. I'm just having a hard time visualizing why the lens works for oblique rays, I always saw nice simple diagrams but I guess it does happen to focus the non-trivial rays too, like it should.
Fair enough. Thank you.

>>15338405
I'm not saying cameras don't work. I'm asking why cameras work.

>>15338408
Yeah, you're right. I made a mistake with the pinhole example by treating it as if it had the same focus as an actual camera, but it is, in fact, much blurrier.

>>15338412
Yeah, that's what the lens is for. I am, in fact, a retard. But now I understand why, so there's that.

>>15338303
Ultrasound isn't EM at all. It's SOUND, not light.

>>15338421
Oh and I forgot I wanted to post picrelated, but it nicely illustrates what happens when it's not just nice parallel lines from a simple object, which is what I wasn't picturing right

>>15338329
I will propose an answer thought I don't know the anything about the particular subject matter. I am going to discount the possibility of ultra sounds or whatever technology from interfering from the primary technology. So the little thing we want to add does not have negatively impact primary measurement.
Complexity is one reason not to do it, but that is assumed to be covered by the price differential. If it is indeed small, then it shouldn't be a problem.
What diagnostic impact is there if you hand over a good signal + a less good signal to the technicians and doctors versus just the good signal.
I can think of quite a few for an MRI machine which basically can't use any of the other signals at all. The added features then deduct the critical MRI function by blocking the diagnostic area while running other tests. Merely slowing down the testing procedures by some percent may require significant cost increases on a per patient basis when maintaining the loan on the device. Likewise with servicing of the additional devices over the long term.
Or maybe the per cost basis has to be tuned accurately to some insurance payout scheme to qualify for that many x more patients.
This sort of policy targeting is very common in other fields, not sure if it exists in medical.

As a scientific matter, I think collecting as much data as possible would be a good thing if there is someone looking through the more noisy signal for correlations. If a company could regain costs on their device by selling data packages to some AI analysis companies, then there might be significant reasons to do it. I don't know how much of that exists.

>>15338422
Waves are waves. What's your point?

>>15338426
Wrong.

>>15338435
Your point is wrong?

>>15338436
You are wrong to assert that all waves are equivalent, e.g. "waves are waves". Pressure waves are not EM waves.

>>15338417
I'm auditing the class by checking students works, go back to your schoolwork. The first one...well...OPs post is so inate I literally just though "pfft...man, fuck this this shit..." which is what I would do in most university lectures.

>>15338438
I did not, in fact, say that all waves are equivalent.
Pressure waves are waves, and EM waves are waves. This doesn't imply that pressure waves are EM waves.

Waves are waves means that there is in fact a meaning to the abstraction of a wave, there are calculations and inference that you can do regardless of the type of wave.

This does not mean that all waves are the same. The point of abstraction is that you can look at only the common elements among things which are, in their particulars, very different.
That's what a word like "wave" is. An abstraction over many different type of waves. A wave's a wave. Not sure how much simpler I can make this for you, anon.

>>15338368
our brains don't do linear processing like a ccd. It's like look at a raw camera photo. Low contrast, low light intesities, etc. Your eye is not a flat surface and the universe isn't empty. You aren't absorbing equally strong photons from a single source across your entire image receptor.

>>15338445
Yeah, but all those things are irrelevant to the problem. The problem isn't that the eye isn't flat, or that the universe isn't empty. That wouldn't have changed whether I was right or wrong.
And I don't need to exactly absorb equally strong photons across all the receptors, even if it were inexact because the eye is not a flat surface, the problem would be the same.
I was confused about lenses, which is a different thing.

>>15338425
Why shouldn't we, mathematically, be able to use the lower-resolution image as extra information to improve the higher-resolution image?
It is not that you simply blur both together and get a worse result. Mathematically, if you have more information you should be able to get at best a no worse output.

Cameras can get higher resolutions by combining multiple images, the eye really has multiple types of light sensors (rods, cones) but combines them into a single, higher resolution visual field.

The main problem I see is that different methods will return different values for a given type of tissue. A T1 MRI isn't a T2 MRI isn't an ultrasound. But, surely, you should be able to use what the ultrasound tells you about the tissue to increase the resolution of your T1 MRI, since you now have extra information about the tissue

>>15338448
idk what your point is. you could see a change with a ccd if you simply add a block between you and the infinite light source at say the midpoint of your 70 mm shift to the side. You didn't add a lens , and you still have a change. Your entire point was that you shouldn't use a CCD as your example, because it is not like a human eye at all. If your eye was anatomically the same but flattened out, do you think the lens would work?

>>15338476
>If your eye was anatomically the same but flattened out, do you think the lens would work?
Uh? You'd just have to adapt the lens, but it doesn't really matter?

>>15338479
no, lens rely on curvature. It's not that you don't understand the lens, its that you don't understand light.

>>15338250
We don't perceive the information at our corneas, but inside our brain. The brain combines these photons into a Virtual Reality (yes, not AR) visualization of what, evolutionarily/pragmatically, makes the most sense how the outside world is supposed to look like.

Have a lucid dream one of these days. Check out how your surroundings are photorealistic -- despite your eyes seeing fuck all during these few minutes.

>>15338489
>Have a lucid dream one of these days. Check out how your surroundings are photorealistic -- despite your eyes seeing fuck all during these few minutes.
They're not, I have some mild aphantasia. Even if I control my dreams, I'll still be dreaming largely in concepts and with very vague "pictures" that are more ideas than picture.

People's inner experiences can be a lot more varied than the typical mind fallacy would suggest. Ask people how they visualize time, there are some mind boggling answers out there. And then there's people who just don't visualize much, like me.

this is way more retarded than feynman's great question, "when I look myself into a mirror: why are the sides of my body opposite but: I'm also not upside down?".

the answer is the mirror doesn't show a true person as we have the delusion; it's a monstrous reversal from front to back; you right hand is still on the right.

>>15338503
feynman didn't say that.

>>15338250
LENS "know" where the rays came from, then due to refraction they redirect it to side of the sensor
each ray direction will reflect in specific sensor part

>>15338582
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tuxLY94LXw

>>15338809
you have grossly misrepresented what feynman was saying. that wasn't his question, and he was relaying what fraternity bros were asking at MIT. you've also misrepresented his answer. he says what i said that it's a reversal about the mirror's axis.

>>15338833
the same thing can be said with different words you autist.

The mirror doesn't know anything and OP clearly doesn't know classical ray optics.

>>15338123
God women are stupid.

>>15338368
It's because the eye has a bulge and isn't flat. So the light hits one side of the bulge only and is blocked from the other side as the other side casts a "shadow" of it

>AI treats you like an idiot if you ask dumb questions

>AI treats you like an idiot if you ask dumb questions

>>15339486
Is this real? Lmao

>>15338217
How does she get those horses to sit so patiently and what is she saying to them?

>>15338288
no you should tell about what you did, sounds pretty cool anon :3

>>15338123
/sci/ - Science of Mirrors

>>15338123
The same way you would see someone holding an egg on the other side, if it was glass.
How are you people real?

>>15338123

Next will be MAGIC magnets.

>>15338166
why was the previous thread deleted? is op ban evading?

>>15338217
wtf is that real ?

>>15338123
I don't understand how zoomers can be skilled at looking good in selfies but fail to understand the reflection of light, not even from mere instinct.

Would these also confuse her?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLLIHSTp87o

>>15339486
A few days ago I asked it a simple question about the length of Canada's coastline. It "thought" for a while and eventually didn't give an answer. I asked it why it didn't answer and it replied "I don't want to discuss this topic. Choose something else to talk about."
Never knew Canada's coastline was such a sensitive topic. I asked again the next day and it quickly gave me an answer. Weird how it spazzes out sometimes.

>>15339971
yes

>>15338503
>>15338809

>>15339966
If they're not magic, explain how they work.

>>15338278
That already exists

>>15341416
lol, I just realized I never noticed that on the album when I was a 16 yo metalhead.

though I hadn't seen the backcover that's a tell.

>>15338217
cvnni