horse
Jedi
I guess it would be polite to start by thanking Laura and Ark for sharing knowledge. I lurked in the background of the Cass site reading the Wave and Adventures and the Ponerology. I enjoy Laura's writing style immensely. The topics are ideas I am very interested in. She has provided me with many insights and new information that has me digging even deeper. The Signs of the Times has become a news source and exploring the new site I found the Forum and registered. Posting, writing and sharing my thoughts, thats a new thing for me. It is difficult organizing thoughts into words and much more work than just reading.
A few years ago I read an article in the Denver Post newspaper by Stephen Terence Gould (independent_research@juno.com) titled 'Outing "T": Research uncovers clues'. The gist of the article was that "In terms of blue light, homosexual men respond like straight women, not straight men. This meant that "T" was probably gay, and born to stay that way". He cites an important 1957 article by Leo Hurvich and Dorothea James in the journal Psychological Review. The 1957 article is celebrated for confirming the 'opponent-color' process in human vision. "T" was outed, lost his job, and committed suicide. Great, I thought, the PTB have had a test since 1957 to identify gay males. Quote: "Included in the article is a graph comparing the sensitivity to various colors (or wavelengths) of light. This is another way of testing the differences between males and females." I can't find the Psycological Review article online (help anyone?), but I wanted to do more research. Searching 'opponent-color' online yielded a plethora of information on the theories of the process of vision.
I had been taught that the eye contained cones and rods which are photoreceptors. A photon strikes red, blue, or green cones and the corresponding cones fire off an electrical signal to the brain, operating much the same way as a camera or TV screen does. "The premise that millions of distinct colors can arise from the stimulation of three different color receptors is called the three color or trichromatic theory. The trichromatic theory and the opponent process theory were usually seen as incompatible explanations of color vision. By the middle of the 20th century, researchers had concluded that both theories were necessary to explain the physiological processes of color perception." I read of the work of Edwin Land and his color vision experiments and observations. In Isaac Newton's Opticks, he declared that color is in the viewer's mind, not in the light itself or in the materials illuminated by the light. Visible light is electromagnetic energy in the frequency range between 400 nm and 700 nm but how do we see it? New research that really caught my eye was:
_http://www.ghuth.com/
Rethinking the process of vision. Physicist Gerald Huth Ph.D. writes on the topic of A New Physics ... A New Explanation for Light Interaction with the Retina of the Eye and the Vision Process.
"The retina of the eye is not the analogue of a piece of photographic color film as vision texts have for so long portrayed or, at least, implied. Single cone receptors do not detect “color" and I can see no fundamental physics basis for the contention that single rods possess the “low light level" sensing function attributed to them. Rather it is shown that the light detecting elements of the retina are composed of any two adjacent receptors and the wavelength-defining space between them. This is the only model that is in accord with, and relates, the distribution of receptors on the retinal surface and the light refractive properties of the structure of the eye."
A few years ago I read an article in the Denver Post newspaper by Stephen Terence Gould (independent_research@juno.com) titled 'Outing "T": Research uncovers clues'. The gist of the article was that "In terms of blue light, homosexual men respond like straight women, not straight men. This meant that "T" was probably gay, and born to stay that way". He cites an important 1957 article by Leo Hurvich and Dorothea James in the journal Psychological Review. The 1957 article is celebrated for confirming the 'opponent-color' process in human vision. "T" was outed, lost his job, and committed suicide. Great, I thought, the PTB have had a test since 1957 to identify gay males. Quote: "Included in the article is a graph comparing the sensitivity to various colors (or wavelengths) of light. This is another way of testing the differences between males and females." I can't find the Psycological Review article online (help anyone?), but I wanted to do more research. Searching 'opponent-color' online yielded a plethora of information on the theories of the process of vision.
I had been taught that the eye contained cones and rods which are photoreceptors. A photon strikes red, blue, or green cones and the corresponding cones fire off an electrical signal to the brain, operating much the same way as a camera or TV screen does. "The premise that millions of distinct colors can arise from the stimulation of three different color receptors is called the three color or trichromatic theory. The trichromatic theory and the opponent process theory were usually seen as incompatible explanations of color vision. By the middle of the 20th century, researchers had concluded that both theories were necessary to explain the physiological processes of color perception." I read of the work of Edwin Land and his color vision experiments and observations. In Isaac Newton's Opticks, he declared that color is in the viewer's mind, not in the light itself or in the materials illuminated by the light. Visible light is electromagnetic energy in the frequency range between 400 nm and 700 nm but how do we see it? New research that really caught my eye was:
_http://www.ghuth.com/
Rethinking the process of vision. Physicist Gerald Huth Ph.D. writes on the topic of A New Physics ... A New Explanation for Light Interaction with the Retina of the Eye and the Vision Process.
"The retina of the eye is not the analogue of a piece of photographic color film as vision texts have for so long portrayed or, at least, implied. Single cone receptors do not detect “color" and I can see no fundamental physics basis for the contention that single rods possess the “low light level" sensing function attributed to them. Rather it is shown that the light detecting elements of the retina are composed of any two adjacent receptors and the wavelength-defining space between them. This is the only model that is in accord with, and relates, the distribution of receptors on the retinal surface and the light refractive properties of the structure of the eye."
