Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Quantum Quack, May 21, 2017.
In what state (condition)?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Seattle says:"he can see photons"
DaveC says : We trace light rays back to source"
Origin says: "He is confused all the time"
Write4U : wants to know "in what state a photon can be seen"
Michael quotes poetry and sings "boomps a daisy"
yep .. sciforums at it's finest... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
3700+ views with 480 posts and all of your trolls posts (the majority of posts to this thread ) are there for every one to read and assess.
tracing light, seeing photons, ignoring vacant space in a 3 d field dodging, bait and switch, flaming, strawmen, and every other trick under the sun in an attempt to maintain your puerile entertainment and weak self esteem.
The idea that we humans construct our field of view based on interpreting light data that enters our eye is mainstream science's idea not mine.
It's a massive claim and requires massive evidence to support it.
Where is the evidence?
Can you improve on the science? I have a vague memory of having asked that before, but without an answer.
not the point...
Yes, a pertinent question in context of your questions.
Photons are packets of energy Do you know what a packet of energy looks like? If undisturbed it travels @ C, by a probabilistic wave function.
I believe the answer is; we don't see photons at all. What we see is the released energy value when the photon (the energy packet) strikes a receptor which collapses the wave function and the photon's energy is released and stimulates the rods and cones in the eye.
This energy is translated into ; brightness (lumen) and/or color (wavelength). Each eye has two receptors adapted to these functions; rods and cones.
Have you ever wondered why we cannot see infra-red. This is due to the longer wave length of the energy packet which requires a different focal point which we cannot create in the eye, and therefore has not developed the ability to see infra-red. However many insects do have this ability to "see" infra-red and some species can even see ultra-violet.
However we can feel infra-red as heat on our skin, which is also a receptor, albeit not visual.
But we can adjust the focal point in a camera, and with the help of infra-red film which has a specially prepared emulsion, making it sensitive to infra-red wave-lengths.
I used to have some film like that as a kid (both b&w and color). Both product interesting pictures. The b&w used to be used in Vietnam (I understand) to pick out camouflaged netting from the jungle.
Regarding QQ's question about where is the evidence for "mainstream science". You have to actually pick up a book. You don't get it from sciforums.
How do you know that?
but as you already hold that there is no need for improvement then ....
I find it pretty sad actually..
Science is saying, with your support, that everything we see is a lie, an illusion. Most people accept what the specialist say with out question and believe that we all live in a sort of "Matrix" of our own individual creation.
You may wonder why mental health issues are pandemic with depression, schizophrenia, bipolar all too prevalent and getting worse every day.
Self trust paranoia being a huge concern. Conspiracy theorist abound...
You may also wonder why globally science has lost so much credibility lately. Well ... wonder no more... 'tis obvious...
but do not worry.. as it is all an illusion and not real at all.... it is after all "fake news" based on "fake science" ( sarcasm )
Apparently you live in a world where the busses don't run.
You haven't read a science book. You don't know any science. Any true science is supported by falsifiable tests where the hypothesis has been affirmed. In other words all the evidence is on that side of the argument.
You premise is not supported by any evidence or testing. What "global science" has lost so much credibility lately? You frequently speak of mental health issues. I think that is what we should be addressing rather than the topic at hand.
well... am I right or not?... "according to science everything we see is an illusion, a subjective interpretation based on light data entering our eyes?
True or false?
Seems like you wish it both ways..
You are never right and I'm not "wishing". It is what it is.
hee hee... If I say you are right then I must be wrong and if I say you are wrong then I must be right...
u is rightly wrong...man! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Have you ever read a book (mainstream scientific book) on any subject with which you disagree with the currently accepted explanation? Or browsed though any of the online free courses?
Would you agree that you don't really know/understand what mainstream science is in the fields where you disagree? If you did you wouldn't be asking so many questions here. If you haven't don't you think you should understand something before disagreeing with it?
I am quite happy knowing the scientific position is false. I am quite happy knowing I see what I see with out any construction needed. Are you happy in your belief of a subjective illusion?
So your real standard is not factual but the state of being happy? This is similar to religion it seems for you.
I have no reason to believe science has it right on this occasion. In fact your obvious attempts to avoid the issue reinforces such. Big claims require big evidence and I have not found any nor have you offered any. Your continuous attempts to encourage off topic posting for nefarious reasons is obvious... You wish to bring religion into the conversation... go for it.. Personally I fail to see the relevance other than your religious devotion to science.
back on topic:
"According to science everything we see is an illusion, a subjective interpretation based on light data entering our eyes?
True or false?
I don't speak for "science" and it's kind of hard to respond to a statement that starts with "according to science" or "everything" or "illusion". What we see isn't as accurate as a photographic image yet it is based on light entering our eyes (as opposed to ears?).
As usual, you haven't said what your basis for your belief is other than it makes you happy and you haven't really detailed what your belief is or specifically what it is that you disagree with that is generally accepted.
Separate names with a comma.