548

Spyhoppin' (mander.xyz)

submitted 1 week ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] 5too@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

...so what happens when you use goggles? Or a camera?

Lakes can be dirty, but you can see the same effect in a pool. Or your bathtub.

[-] chloroken@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

"Same effect" what effect? H2O has no special impact on vision. The gaseous atmosphere likewise has no effect on fish's vision. Why the hell would either of these solutions affect vision? They're essentially invisible. Have YOU ever opened your eyes in crystal clear water? You can see extremely far.

This entire thread is confused. What makes it difficult for land dwellers to see underwater also affects those animals that live underwater. The particulates and lack of light.

There is absolutely zero scientific basis for any of the ideas you're offering.

[-] 5too@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Go dunk your head! Seriously, you can see the effect in a pool - look at how well you can see things above and below the surface, go underwater, and open your eyes. Things will be fuzzier.

You're trying to reason away an effect that people actually see, and that you can verify independently. That's the opposite of how science works.

For a scientific explanation, my first Google got came up with this - an article about some kids who do seem to see normally underwater. It also includes this explanation for our blurrier experience:

When the eye is immersed in water, which has about the same density as the cornea, we lose the refractive power of the cornea, which is why the image becomes severely blurred

[-] chloroken@lemmy.ml -2 points 5 days ago

I contest the idea that vision innately becomes severely blurred when submerged. I've swam in crystal clear water, you can see far and with clarity.

And even if the concept you introduced was taken at face value, how is that supposed to address my original point that fish can see out of water? The cornea theory enhances my point, somehow.