Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 21/02/2016 14:39:22
-
We ''see'' in our sight cortex in the back of our brains, our eyes receive photons that allows the brain to ''see''.
So outside of our brains we only observe in our brains, how do we know if it is light or really dark outside of our brains when light appears to be present?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
If there is no light source in a given space, the space is called "dark".
-
If there is no light source in a given space, the space is called "dark".
Yes I understand if there is no light it is called ''dark'', but I don't understand outside of my own brain, so please help me understand what is outside of my brain.
I recognise there is apparently space because I can move through the space even if it were ''dark''. I do not understand however what is between my eyes and object whether it is dark like we experience dark or is it light like we experience light, if the perception of dark and light is in my brain, how do I know it is not dark outside of my brain when my brain perceives it to be light?
-
I do not understand however what is between my eyes and object
I have explained this before and you chose to ignore it, then you decided to misquote me. I don't intend to keep repeating it, so I'm not joining this thread.
-
I do not understand however what is between my eyes and object
I have explained this before and you chose to ignore it, then you decided to misquote me. I don't intend to keep repeating it, so I'm not joining this thread.
No, the question is Is the length of space between an object and the eye light or dark?
I do not understand whether it is dark or light or multi-coloured or even just CBMR because I cant see that either. If we see in our heads how do we know what we are seeing is what it is outside our head.
For example if I eat spaghetti, how do I know I am not really eating worms and I just see it in my head as spaghetti.
-
No, the question is Is the length of space between an object and the eye light or dark?
I do not understand whether it is dark or light
The concept of light within the human brain is dependent upon the photon reaching the retina of your eye. Nowhere between the light source and your eye can be interpreted as light unless your eye is there to receive it. Because the Sun is 93 million miles distant, it takes approx. 8 minutes for the photons created there to reach us here on earth. Asking whether there is light between us and the Sun is the wrong question. Now if you were to ask if there were photons streaming between us and the Sun, the answer would be in the affirmative.
-
No, the question is Is the length of space between an object and the eye light or dark?
I do not understand whether it is dark or light
The concept of light within the human brain is dependent upon the photon reaching the retina of your eye. Nowhere between the light source and your eye can be interpreted as light unless your eye is there to receive it. Because the Sun is 93 million miles distant, it takes approx. 8 minutes for the photons created there to reach us here on earth. Asking whether there is light between us and the Sun is the wrong question. Now if you were to ask if there were photons streaming between us and the Sun, the answer would be in the affirmative.
Ok, so to confirm you are saying it would be impossible to know what it really looks like between our eyes and object?
The problem I see, is that we observe the ''tip'' of the light, and objects a length away, we observe 3 dimensional light and observe the ''tips'' of light at the actual object, how do you explain this away in that we only see photons entering our eyes?
''Now if you were to ask if there were photons streaming between us and the Sun, the answer would be in the affirmative.''
Yes there is no doubt between eyes and object there is emr, how do we know that we don't observe the entire stream from A to B like looking under water?
We can see water is from our eyes to the the object, there is photons ''enlightening'' the water, I consider we see the entire stream and it is a coupling, a bit like a camcorder on legs walking around recording live,
A mirror does not have a brain, yet a mirror ''see's'' the object.
added- I think that darkness is not opaque, I think darkness is ''clear'' but there is just nothing to see, I think we can still see ''through'' the dark, but without light we can't see anything different reflecting a 3 dimension light image.
e.g If we were in a vast dark space with emr present but no objects, we would see nothing , it would be relatively ''dark''.
To say we don't see the water underwater that is a ft away is a lie. I can see the entire length of water between my eyes and object. The same as I can see the entire length of ''air'' between my eyes and object, the same as I can see my smoke from my cigarette, extending away from me.
ASk yourself this?
Is there a reflection in a mirror if there is nobody observing the mirror?
The answer is yes, we can leave a camera filming the mirror to record there is an imagine in the mirror.
Turn the lights off, we will record the length contracts to darkness but the length remains there un-contracted in reality.
-
Ok, so to confirm you are saying it would be impossible to know what it really looks like between our eyes and object?
The problem I see, is that we observe the ''tip'' of the light, and objects a length away, we observe 3 dimensional light and observe the ''tips'' of light at the actual object, how do you explain this away in that we only see photons entering our eyes?
Speaking about the "tip" of the light is not how things work. It sounds to me like you visualize light as some sort of solid object that extends from light source to eye. That is not the reality of how the EM field propagates.
There are trillions upon trillions of individual photons streaming to us from these light sources and each photon carries information with it. This information is sorted out by our brains and that information constructs a motion picture within our consciousness.
Every single photon carries a different bit of information about the light source that it came from and the combination of all these photons constructs the changing image recorded in our mental awareness.
If you don't understand this explanation my friend, I'll simply have to give up the effort trying to explain.
-
Ok, so to confirm you are saying it would be impossible to know what it really looks like between our eyes and object?
The problem I see, is that we observe the ''tip'' of the light, and objects a length away, we observe 3 dimensional light and observe the ''tips'' of light at the actual object, how do you explain this away in that we only see photons entering our eyes?
There are trillions upon trillions of individual photons streaming to us from these light sources and each photon carries information with it. This information is sorted out by our brains and that information constructs a motion picture within our consciousness.
Every single photon carries a different bit of information about the light source that it came from and the combination of all these photons constructs the changing image recorded in our mental awareness.
If you don't understand this explanation my friend, I'll simply have to give up the effort trying to explain.
Speaking of the above is surely contradictory to claiming we only see light that enters our eyes, it is presumption of you to say that there is trillions of photons outside of our mind, trillions of photons also contradictory to the observation box singularity whole which is not opaque that we observe. Nobody observes single photons propagating through space, the suggestion of that is quite preposterous.
-
Nobody observes single photons propagating through space, the suggestion of that is quite preposterous.
Never said that Box, we observe single photons when they contact the retina of our eyes.
Personally, I suggest you're being purposely obtuse. And if you don't know the meaning of this word "obtuse", look it up. If you are unwilling to accept Webster's definition for this word, as you've so oft demonstrated by disregarding so many other professional positions, then publish your own Dictionary.
-
Never said that Box, we observe single photons when they contact the retina of our eyes.
[/quote]
NO we don't, nobody observes single photons making contact with the retina, that is of the imagination, stop lying.
Anybody knows our eyes detect wave packets of photons,
-
NO we don't, nobody observes single photons making contact with the retina, that is of the imagination, stop lying
Before you accuse people of lying you might take the trouble to check facts, it would at least be polite.
Eg http://www.nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/4/43/Rieke-baylor-98.pdf one of many studies.
-
NO we don't, nobody observes single photons making contact with the retina, that is of the imagination, stop lying
Before you accuse people of lying you might take the trouble to check facts, it would at least be polite.
Eg http://www.nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/4/43/Rieke-baylor-98.pdf one of many studies.
Detect and observe are two different words with different meanings Colin, to detect the said Photons is nothing to do with observing Photons. I observe dust, I observe rain, I observe snow flakes, I do not observe little dots relatively , nor do you.
-
Before you accuse people of lying you might take the trouble to check facts, it would at least be polite.
Eg http://www.nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/4/43/Rieke-baylor-98.pdf one of many studies.
Thank you Colin even though any effort trying to reason with this fellow will become a fruitless endeavor. He's not willing to accept any evidence except the notions revolving around in his confused mind. It's truly sad because he's bright enough to accomplish many things if he would only build upon the knowledge of others instead of trying to reinvent every scientific law and theory in existence. Sad, very sad indeed..........................
-
Before you accuse people of lying you might take the trouble to check facts, it would at least be polite.
Eg http://www.nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/4/43/Rieke-baylor-98.pdf one of many studies.
Thank you Colin even though any effort trying to reason with this fellow will become a fruitless endeavor. He's not willing to accept any evidence except the notions revolving around in his confused mind. It's truly sad because he's bright enough to accomplish many things if he would only build upon the knowledge of others instead of trying to reinvent every scientific law and theory in existence. Sad, very sad indeed..........................
You clearly messed up and now are trying to cover your blunder, do you not know what observing means?
I can help you if your understanding of the English language is not good.
observe - : to see and notice (someone or something)
Can you see the difference now?
our eyes detect photons, we do not observe photons? a very distinguishable difference.
-
Before you accuse people of lying you might take the trouble to check facts, it would at least be polite.
Eg http://www.nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/4/43/Rieke-baylor-98.pdf one of many studies.
Thank you Colin even though any effort trying to reason with this fellow will become a fruitless endeavor. He's not willing to accept any evidence except the notions revolving around in his confused mind. It's truly sad because he's bright enough to accomplish many things if he would only build upon the knowledge of others instead of trying to reinvent every scientific law and theory in existence. Sad, very sad indeed..........................
I agree, truly sad. Not only did he not take the trouble to read the paper, in which case he would have understood the relationship between detect and observe, but he is now trying to redefine English as well as scientific terms.
Ignoring the scientific synonym use of detect and observe for the moment, the dictionary for everyday use of observe says:
notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
synonyms: notice, see, note, perceive, discern, remark, spot, detect, discover, distinguish, make out;
And I still say to call someone a liar is bad manners. I can see why you are ignoring. I'll keep away.
-
And I still say to call someone a liar is bad manners. I can see why you are ignoring. I'll keep away.
Yes it is my friend. As far as ignoring him, I keep vacillating between ignoring him completely and thinking that I might be able to help him. And I still can't decide whether he's just confused or if he's doing all this on purpose. I've read just about every one of his posts and I sometimes get the impression that we're listening to two different people. One is intelligent enough to express unique ideas and the other refuses to listen to common sense experimental data. It's all quite befuddling and frustrating to say the least.
-
Before you accuse people of lying you might take the trouble to check facts, it would at least be polite.
Eg http://www.nemenmanlab.org/~ilya/images/4/43/Rieke-baylor-98.pdf one of many studies.
Thank you Colin even though any effort trying to reason with this fellow will become a fruitless endeavor. He's not willing to accept any evidence except the notions revolving around in his confused mind. It's truly sad because he's bright enough to accomplish many things if he would only build upon the knowledge of others instead of trying to reinvent every scientific law and theory in existence. Sad, very sad indeed..........................
I agree, truly sad. Not only did he not take the trouble to read the paper, in which case he would have understood the relationship between detect and observe, but he is now trying to redefine English as well as scientific terms.
Ignoring the scientific synonym use of detect and observe for the moment, the dictionary for everyday use of observe says:
notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
synonyms: notice, see, note, perceive, discern, remark, spot, detect, discover, distinguish, make out;
And I still say to call someone a liar is bad manners. I can see why you are ignoring. I'll keep away.
I have it bookmarked there is loads to it, its not that I didn't read some of it, there is just a lot.
-
And I still say to call someone a liar is bad manners. I can see why you are ignoring. I'll keep away.
Yes it is my friend. As far as ignoring him, I keep vacillating between ignoring him completely and thinking that I might be able to help him. And I still can't decide whether he's just confused or if he's doing all this on purpose. I've read just about every one of his posts and I sometimes get the impression that we're listening to two different people. One is intelligent enough to express unique ideas and the other refuses to listen to common sense experimental data. It's all quite befuddling and frustrating to say the least.
Let me help you understand , I do not deny experimental data but I do often try to interpret it differently to give me my ideas, sometimes I have to ignore present information to gain my ideas. Most of my ideas do not even affect the way things work already, they just give a different angle.
I am often tired, I have children, I put in my efforts in good will.
OK sleep time, good night