Then again, I am not as easily impressed now as then. :-)
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Terry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indeed this is true; but, we all suffer to some degree from age > related macular degeneration. The Milky Way, viewed in the desert at > my age of 54 is not as spectacular as when I was in my 20s. > > Terry > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> >> Terry Blanton wrote: >>> >>> Probably not to a newborn. >>> >> >> Only because they most likely can't focus well enough to see the star at >> all. >> >> Rod density is far higher near the periphery of the retina, and rods have >> much better low-light sensitivity than cones. Consequently looking >> "sidelong" at anything in extremely dim light gets you a brighter, but lower >> resolution and typically black&white, image of it. >> >> The fovea has very high cone density but no rods. Center vision is very >> high resolution, it's in color, but its low-light response lacks. >> >> Humans have foveas, but not all animals do. An animal without a fovea >> probably can't read the New York Times (insufficient resolution) but can >> most likely see you clearly as you fumble around looking for a flashlight >> after the lights go out while you're reading the newspaper in the evening. >> >>> Terry >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Have you ever noticed that a star will appear slightly brighter in your >>>> peripheral vision than when you look directly at it? Try looking just to >>>> the >>>> side of faint star. >>>> >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
