Everyone knows from years of personal observation that we see distant objects as smaller than they actually are. We’re told this is because the more distant the object, the smaller the angle at which the light from it enters our eyes. And that makes perfect sense.
We’re also told that light travels. We can assume this to be true just by pointing a flashlight at a wall and observing that light appears to have travelled from the flashlight to the wall.
We’re told that light generally travels in straight lines. We can assume this to be true by placing an object between the flashlight and the wall and observing that the object creates a shadow - as opposed to light curving around the object and preventing the shadow on the wall.
And we’re told that light diverges as it travels. We can assume this to be true by the fact that, try as we might, there still exists no such thing as a laser beam that doesn’t diverge.
And finally, we’re told that seeing things is the result of light travelling from an object to our eyes. And that’s where I’m seeing a dilemma that maybe someone here can help me to sort out.
If the light from a distant stop sign or whatever travels to my eyes in straight lines that diverge, then the light from that stop sign would reach my eyes as at least the actual size of the stop sign itself, and likely a little larger than that because of the divergence.
How then could I possibly see that stop sign as much smaller than it actually is?
Common sense tells me that we see things where they are - not as a result of light travelling from them to our eyes. I believe our vision/sight travels to the distant objects, which would explain apparent size perspective, while the consensus scientific view does not.
Thoughts?