In the gravity-effect-on-light thought experiment, you have the ability to watch a light beam as it moves from the pinhole in the side of the elevator, across the elevator that is constantly accelerating perpendicular to the original path of the light beam. With that ability, if gravity affects light, you would then see the light beam bend as it moves across from the pinhole to the other side of the elevator.
The wavefront of the light beam in a non-moving elevator would move in a straight line across the elevator. If the elevator were moving at a constant (not accelerating) speed relative to the light coming in through the pinhole (and we’re able to observe basically at “light speed”), then the beam of light, as it moved across the elevator, at each moment in time would have the elevator moving perpendicular to the straight path of the light and the light would travel in a straight line to a spot below the height of the pinhole where it came into the elevator. Each time increment where we viewed the front of the light beam would show the elevator moved the same amount perpendicular to the light beam.
The acceleration of the elevator relative to the light source (pinhole) makes a difference. Acceleration means the elevator is moving faster and faster perpendicular to the light beam. The light beam moving across a constantly and uniformly accelerating elevator, as we watched, at the first increment that we could observe, would be a little lower than the pinhole at which it came in. But, at the next increment in time, since the elevator was accelerating, from the first observed point to the second, the change would be relatively more than we saw over the first increment of time. Then at the third observation, as the elevator is moving faster with its acceleration, relative to the second observed position of the front of the beam, the change in position would be even larger. We would see increasing positional change at each observation of the front of the light beam as the elevator continued to accelerate.
If we were to draw a line following each position of the front of the beam at each of our observations, we would end up with a curve, not a straight line. For those who don’t visualize well, this kind of thought experiment can be hard. And maybe we need to draw it on paper. But, if you can visualize, understanding that gravity is an acceleration, you now know that gravity bends light.
I used the same idea of the thought or idealized experiment in trying to explain that, at the retinal level, an on-off flicker of light is the same as visual motion. How’s that for esoteric?
It actually means a lot in the context of trying to improve the transmission of the visual signal to the cortex of the brain. (Another of my favorite vehicles is the analogy. I used that technique here in discussing some of the same things.)
If I’ve piqued your interest, here’s my thought experiment: imagine a microscopic grid-work of light receptors – like a digital camera sensor array, but more compact centrally. All of those receptor cells are like little Harry Potter magic wands, bundled and bound together like asparagus in the supermarket so they won’t fall over, sticking up from a tiny table covered with connecting wires. All of those magic wands are pointing toward and absorbing light packets.
Individual connecting wires are built to respond to what each wand absorbs (sometimes to what a group of wands absorbs). The wands absorb a packet of light, light up just like in a Harry Potter movie, then change that light energy into electrical energy to send up the wires. Some of the wiring is designed to respond to one “light-up” so quick changes in any light that is absorbed, and some of the wiring is built to save up a response until there is more than one “light-up;” that is, more of a sustained input. The fast wiring turns off quickly, while the sustained-input wiring is slower in turning off.
Now imagine an incredibly skinny bar of light – a bar of light just about one-wand-width wide – moving over the top of all those wands that all point up toward the light source. As that skinny bar of light passes by each wand, the wand turns “on” as the light hits it, then “off” as the light bar moves on. The wand is “excited” by its absorbed light packet. Then it stops being excited.
There you have it. That is a picture of visual motion at the retinal level: “On-off.” It was motion of the skinny bar of light across our wand array that we used to excite the wands. Yes, it was motion of the light, but not for each wand – not on an individual wand basis. For each individual wand, it was just “off-on-off.” That’s it.
That also means that if I present the whole wand array with on-off flickering light at the pace all the complex wiring is tuned to pick up quick changes, the simple on-off flicker for the entire wand array is recognized on the other end of the wiring (higher brain structures) as motion without direction. That’s where all this becomes therapeutically important.
For those I haven’t lost and those who wonder why they’ve read this far, let me suggest that, similar to a thought experiment, sometimes history provides not an idealized thought experiment, but a natural experiment for those who might look at that history analytically.
For example, I’m (finally) reading Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls by Schuettinger and Butler. It’s a series of examples from history showing the “grimly uniform sequence of repeated failure” that price controls provide. Those historical natural experiments should provide data applicable to policy formation now. Obviously, the lessons have not been learned, at least by some national candidates.
The more recent natural experiment came to us via lockdowns. During lockdown, I drove to work daily to get the mail and tend to any “emergencies” that might come up. The good news is, the commute to the office was pretty quick. Not many people were on the road, although there were the occasional bikers or walkers…walking or biking alone…walking or biking alone with a mask on.
The lack of traffic can be used as surrogate data to suggest the economy was shut down. That’s not a surprise to anyone. The Western economies in large part were shut down. You could hear the dying gasps of small businesses everywhere if you just stopped to listen. The ongoing deaths of small businesses that were wounded, and wounded to the point no one will buy the business to carry it on as the first generation retires, should be considered a branch of long Covid – a delayed Covid death.
The vehicle traffic we recognize as part of economic activity wasn’t happening at anywhere near the pre-lockdown level for maybe two years. People didn’t even drive somewhere for a haircut, for goodness sake. That means the pollution we associate with (non-electric) automobile travel wasn’t happening at anywhere near the same level as pre-lockdown.
In the state of Washington, the governor has touted electric cars as one of the ways to fight global warming. We have the highest gas taxes in the country as part of fighting the global warming menace. The goal of the tax is to encourage switching to electric. The national government seems to agree, since they give taxpayer money to people who buy electric cars. So, use of gasoline engines, causally tied to global warming by government, had a great reduction during lockdown. All of that concern is brought to you thanks to carbon dioxide as the main climate culprit.
It is true that people and animals continued to exhale carbon dioxide during lockdown. However, activity was discouraged, so exhaling extra from physical exertion was less than pre-lockdown. That suggestion is supported by the inactivity-facilitated weight gains during lockdown.
So, for at least two years, we were forced into a natural experiment involving reduced production – on the part of the general populace – of carbon dioxide, the main culprit in global warming.
As I say this last part, let me own up to not having looked at all the data – as if I could trust it. This is a commentary on the popular media as much as anything. With that caveat, let me ask, why are we not hearing about a beautiful natural experiment from two years of lockdown?
If carbon dioxide production by evil humans is the culprit, we should be hearing about new data showing 1) reduced CO2 during lockdown and 2) a flattening or direction change of “climate change” temperature curves. Given proper attention to time lags, we should be hearing “See, I told you so,” should we not? Instead, on this narrow subject, it seems to be radio silence. If we’re not hearing about a grand glorious result of a fortuitous natural experiment, why are we not hearing about a grand glorious result of this fortuitous natural experiment? Should we not be hearing about a natural verification of the climate change belief system? If not, why not?
Could it be that shutting down the economies of the Western world, killing small businesses, and thereby (accidentally?) reducing the “carbon footprint” of the world…made no difference?
I leave my question with the reader: If not, why not?
Eric Hussey, President of the Optometric Extension Program Foundation (an educational foundation), Chair of the organizing committee for the International Congress of Behavioral Optometry 2024, Chair of the Northwest Congress of Optometry. This article was first published HERE
The wavefront of the light beam in a non-moving elevator would move in a straight line across the elevator. If the elevator were moving at a constant (not accelerating) speed relative to the light coming in through the pinhole (and we’re able to observe basically at “light speed”), then the beam of light, as it moved across the elevator, at each moment in time would have the elevator moving perpendicular to the straight path of the light and the light would travel in a straight line to a spot below the height of the pinhole where it came into the elevator. Each time increment where we viewed the front of the light beam would show the elevator moved the same amount perpendicular to the light beam.
The acceleration of the elevator relative to the light source (pinhole) makes a difference. Acceleration means the elevator is moving faster and faster perpendicular to the light beam. The light beam moving across a constantly and uniformly accelerating elevator, as we watched, at the first increment that we could observe, would be a little lower than the pinhole at which it came in. But, at the next increment in time, since the elevator was accelerating, from the first observed point to the second, the change would be relatively more than we saw over the first increment of time. Then at the third observation, as the elevator is moving faster with its acceleration, relative to the second observed position of the front of the beam, the change in position would be even larger. We would see increasing positional change at each observation of the front of the light beam as the elevator continued to accelerate.
If we were to draw a line following each position of the front of the beam at each of our observations, we would end up with a curve, not a straight line. For those who don’t visualize well, this kind of thought experiment can be hard. And maybe we need to draw it on paper. But, if you can visualize, understanding that gravity is an acceleration, you now know that gravity bends light.
I used the same idea of the thought or idealized experiment in trying to explain that, at the retinal level, an on-off flicker of light is the same as visual motion. How’s that for esoteric?
It actually means a lot in the context of trying to improve the transmission of the visual signal to the cortex of the brain. (Another of my favorite vehicles is the analogy. I used that technique here in discussing some of the same things.)
If I’ve piqued your interest, here’s my thought experiment: imagine a microscopic grid-work of light receptors – like a digital camera sensor array, but more compact centrally. All of those receptor cells are like little Harry Potter magic wands, bundled and bound together like asparagus in the supermarket so they won’t fall over, sticking up from a tiny table covered with connecting wires. All of those magic wands are pointing toward and absorbing light packets.
Individual connecting wires are built to respond to what each wand absorbs (sometimes to what a group of wands absorbs). The wands absorb a packet of light, light up just like in a Harry Potter movie, then change that light energy into electrical energy to send up the wires. Some of the wiring is designed to respond to one “light-up” so quick changes in any light that is absorbed, and some of the wiring is built to save up a response until there is more than one “light-up;” that is, more of a sustained input. The fast wiring turns off quickly, while the sustained-input wiring is slower in turning off.
Now imagine an incredibly skinny bar of light – a bar of light just about one-wand-width wide – moving over the top of all those wands that all point up toward the light source. As that skinny bar of light passes by each wand, the wand turns “on” as the light hits it, then “off” as the light bar moves on. The wand is “excited” by its absorbed light packet. Then it stops being excited.
There you have it. That is a picture of visual motion at the retinal level: “On-off.” It was motion of the skinny bar of light across our wand array that we used to excite the wands. Yes, it was motion of the light, but not for each wand – not on an individual wand basis. For each individual wand, it was just “off-on-off.” That’s it.
That also means that if I present the whole wand array with on-off flickering light at the pace all the complex wiring is tuned to pick up quick changes, the simple on-off flicker for the entire wand array is recognized on the other end of the wiring (higher brain structures) as motion without direction. That’s where all this becomes therapeutically important.
For those I haven’t lost and those who wonder why they’ve read this far, let me suggest that, similar to a thought experiment, sometimes history provides not an idealized thought experiment, but a natural experiment for those who might look at that history analytically.
For example, I’m (finally) reading Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls by Schuettinger and Butler. It’s a series of examples from history showing the “grimly uniform sequence of repeated failure” that price controls provide. Those historical natural experiments should provide data applicable to policy formation now. Obviously, the lessons have not been learned, at least by some national candidates.
The more recent natural experiment came to us via lockdowns. During lockdown, I drove to work daily to get the mail and tend to any “emergencies” that might come up. The good news is, the commute to the office was pretty quick. Not many people were on the road, although there were the occasional bikers or walkers…walking or biking alone…walking or biking alone with a mask on.
The lack of traffic can be used as surrogate data to suggest the economy was shut down. That’s not a surprise to anyone. The Western economies in large part were shut down. You could hear the dying gasps of small businesses everywhere if you just stopped to listen. The ongoing deaths of small businesses that were wounded, and wounded to the point no one will buy the business to carry it on as the first generation retires, should be considered a branch of long Covid – a delayed Covid death.
The vehicle traffic we recognize as part of economic activity wasn’t happening at anywhere near the pre-lockdown level for maybe two years. People didn’t even drive somewhere for a haircut, for goodness sake. That means the pollution we associate with (non-electric) automobile travel wasn’t happening at anywhere near the same level as pre-lockdown.
In the state of Washington, the governor has touted electric cars as one of the ways to fight global warming. We have the highest gas taxes in the country as part of fighting the global warming menace. The goal of the tax is to encourage switching to electric. The national government seems to agree, since they give taxpayer money to people who buy electric cars. So, use of gasoline engines, causally tied to global warming by government, had a great reduction during lockdown. All of that concern is brought to you thanks to carbon dioxide as the main climate culprit.
It is true that people and animals continued to exhale carbon dioxide during lockdown. However, activity was discouraged, so exhaling extra from physical exertion was less than pre-lockdown. That suggestion is supported by the inactivity-facilitated weight gains during lockdown.
So, for at least two years, we were forced into a natural experiment involving reduced production – on the part of the general populace – of carbon dioxide, the main culprit in global warming.
As I say this last part, let me own up to not having looked at all the data – as if I could trust it. This is a commentary on the popular media as much as anything. With that caveat, let me ask, why are we not hearing about a beautiful natural experiment from two years of lockdown?
If carbon dioxide production by evil humans is the culprit, we should be hearing about new data showing 1) reduced CO2 during lockdown and 2) a flattening or direction change of “climate change” temperature curves. Given proper attention to time lags, we should be hearing “See, I told you so,” should we not? Instead, on this narrow subject, it seems to be radio silence. If we’re not hearing about a grand glorious result of a fortuitous natural experiment, why are we not hearing about a grand glorious result of this fortuitous natural experiment? Should we not be hearing about a natural verification of the climate change belief system? If not, why not?
Could it be that shutting down the economies of the Western world, killing small businesses, and thereby (accidentally?) reducing the “carbon footprint” of the world…made no difference?
I leave my question with the reader: If not, why not?
Eric Hussey, President of the Optometric Extension Program Foundation (an educational foundation), Chair of the organizing committee for the International Congress of Behavioral Optometry 2024, Chair of the Northwest Congress of Optometry. This article was first published HERE
1 comment:
Why did accidentally reducing the “carbon footprint” of the world make no difference - the human induced element to any warming or cooling, adding carbon, etc. is but an infinitesimally small, diddy, little part of the whole equation. Supplementary question: Is our ETS an expensive con trick or just a feel good diversion? It could be both - shock horror!
Post a Comment