George Hammond wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2008 21:36:17 +0000 (UTC),
(Michael Moroney) wrote:
George Hammond writes:
Hey, Phd physicist; tell us how a dog whistle works.....
tell us why half of the audible reality that a dog can hear
is audibally INVISIBLE to a human being?
From that maybe you can figure out why the fact that a
kid has HALF the movie Picture Fusion Frequency of and adult
means that half the world that an adult can see is invisible
to the kid.
[Michael Moroney, heckler]
Actually George has this backwards (no surprise here). Kids can hear
higher frequencies than adults and the ability to hear high frequencies
decreases with age.
[Hammond]
Irrelevant heckler trivia. The next thing he'll do is
start posting about Flickker Fusion Frequency whaich has
NOTHING to do with it.
The following has been well researched and documented:
http://www.v-weiss.de/lehrl-full.html#_edn1
"By a similar method, called ‘picture fusion’ Riedel (1966)
demonstrated that the time shortens as children mature. By
this method, which is explained in the next section, he
investigated children from 7 years (10 frames/s) onward to
15 years (15 frames/s)."
Obviously from this well known data which is common
knowlege in the movie industry since the time of Thomas
Edison, a child cn only see 1/3 of the moving reality that
is visible to an adult. 2/3's OF REALITY IS INVISBLE !
No, no, no. You keep making the mistaken leap, and you ignore the fact
that it's been pointed out MANY times.
The effect you are describing relates to the point that various subjects
perceive flickering static pictures "merge" into the illusion of motion.
You are leaping to the erroneous conclusion that this means that
there is some sort of information lost.
AGAIN, the experiments show ONLY that apparent motion of flashing static
images convert at different rates, NO information is lost, no matter the
apparent conversion rate.
This is stressed AT LENGTH by Siegfried Lehrl and Kristian Gerst Meyer -
they were focused (mostly) on physical science related to the eye
(mostly the lens), but extensively reworked earlier thoughts.
If, as you claim, you know Lehrl "personally" you should keep up.
If you need help with the German, you need only ask.