Leaderboard

! Moderator Note Irony meter overload, thread closed. Furyan5, you're extremely hidebound on certain definitions, and you're unwilling to look at the reasonable alternatives, which makes you a preacher. You've made your point, and if we see it being spammed elsewhere, you'll be booted for soapboxing.

It is not that others can't see the difference you are specifying, they just don't agree that your definitions of words like "detect", "see" and "visible" etc are the only ones. By insisting that your chosen definitions are the only correct ones, you are just as much the problem as anyone else (given your hostile attitude, probably more so).

I can see a couple of reasons why this won't work as a communications mechanism. The main one is, I think, because of a misunderstanding of how the experiment works. I have not fully understood what TakenItSeriously is trying to achieve but this seems to be based on the idea that the remote person could make the interference pattern appear of disappear by choosing whether to make an observation or not. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) The trouble is, that is not how the experiment works. You need to correlate the photons detected at D1 to D4 with those detected at D0. When you do that, you find that the photons at D0 that correlate with D3 or D4 do not form an interference pattern, while those that correlate with detections at D1 or D2 do form an interference pattern. But, to determine this, you need access to the information from all detectors which needs a separate communication path that can only take place at light speed. So you might as well communicate normally.

Guilty (my bad), for is read maybe.

By falling on the retina. I can't believe that this discussion over the semantics of "visible", "seeing", etc has lasted for 17 pages. Bizarre.

You have a misunderstanding of science, evidence, dark energy, and the "miracle of healing", all of which lead you to mistakenly believe there is no "rational consistency".

Good post +1. Why do both sides get so worked up about a deity rather than the path they choose to follow? A scientific/academic path is no less difficult and no less valuable, than the high path of humanity.

It comes down to the ego or conscious mind out of phase with the inner self. For example, think back over the past year, about the things you worried about. How much of this came to pass? If the answer is very little, in proportion to the amount of worry, this very little is what the inner self saw from the beginning. If you could see into the future, and know all the worry is not needed, you would be in the same place as the inner self. Like an animal, the inner self is more reactive to the environment and lives inreal time. It is not wasting time worrying about hypotheticals. For example, say your wife was pregnant and close to due. The inner self is not to concerned, since this is natural. It will be peaceful, until the day of adversity, then it will act. You end up in the some place, but with less energy being wasted. This is inner peace.

Very badly worded! Can I have another go? Our eyes see...period: Unless of course in the first instance, no part of the visible spectrum falls on the eye, thereby giving us a perception of a lack of colour, or black. And those facts lead us to the logical conclusion, that an Orange in the dark, has no colour.

That is not true. Color is entirely constructed, within your brain, from measurements of intensities. In other words, it is constructed from counting the number of photons received in three different frequency bands (in normal humans). And these photon counts are modified (such as via white balance in a digital camera) to make the color of every perceived object, depend not just on the properties of the object in question, but on all the surrounding objects as well (in an attempt to account for the spectrum of the illuminators). This last point was the reason for my first post above ; if you prevent the visual system from "seeing" the surrounding scene, it may dramatically change the color the brain assigns to an object within the scene.

Or: Orange is a result of the reflective selective properties of the object

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Visible-Light-and-the-Eye-s-Response Visible Light Spectrum The focus of Lesson 2 will be upon the visible light region - the very narrow band of wavelengths located to the right of the infrared region and to the left of the ultraviolet region. Though electromagnetic waves exist in a vast range of wavelengths, our eyes are sensitive to only a very narrow band. Since this narrow band of wavelengths is the means by which humans see, we refer to it as the visible light spectrum. Normally when we use the term "light," we are referring to a type of electromagnetic wave that stimulates the retina of our eyes. In this sense, we are referring to visible light, a small spectrum from the enormous range of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. This visible light region consists of a spectrum of wavelengths that range from approximately 700 nanometers (abbreviated nm) to approximately 400 nm. Expressed in more familiar units, the range of wavelengths extends from 7 x 10-7 meter to 4 x 10-7 meter. This narrow band of visible light is affectionately known as ROYGBIV. As mentioned in the first section of Lesson 2, our eyes are sensitive to a very narrow band of frequencies within the enormous range of frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum. This narrow band of frequencies is referred to as the visible light spectrum. Visible light - that which is detectable by the human eye - consists of wavelengths ranging from approximately 780 nanometer (7.80 x 10-7 m) down to 390 nanometer (3.90 x 10-7 m). Specific wavelengths within the spectrum correspond to a specific color based upon how humans typically perceive light of that wavelength. The long wavelength end of the spectrum corresponds to light that is perceived by humans to be red and the short wavelength end of the spectrum corresponds to light that is perceived to be violet. Other colors within the spectrum include orange, yellow, green and blue. The graphic below depicts the approximate range of wavelengths that are associated with the various perceived colors within the spectrum.

I disagree with every single statement here. The idea that a small minority of good people could impose rules to force everyone else to be half decent is ludicrous. The bad majority in your world would just take over. I am pretty sure chronic / pathological liars don't know they are lying. They don't even understand the concept of truth. (Take Trump for example, he believes all the things he says are true even when they are factually incorrect and mutually contradictory.)

This is most definitely false. Although it is a common misconception.

Does your response relate to my statement you quoted in any way. Thanks for the down point by the way

As a teen, I moved away from the stricter religious orientation of my youth, because being a heathen was much easier. Heathen had fewer restrictions. It was easier to take the low road, especially when there as a lot of peer pressure, in public schools, which trained you to discriminate against religion. This peer pressure adds even more work, to hard work of walking the high road. The high road was hard enough with a support group. The option of less effort combined with the group hug made the low road took better and easier. After being a socially acceptable heathen for many years, I went back to religion, because I had appeased that side of me, but I still did not find what I was looking for. This new resolve back to religion did not change the peer pressure, to stay on the low road. For example, in most science forums if you "preach" you will be punished, but if you attack preachers, you get a group hug. The deck is stacked, not to live and let live, but to torture anyone not on the low road. This bottleneck in terms of social equality, led me down a middle path. The idea was too see if there was scientific way to support religion. Proving God to those of no faith is not easy, especially with the dual standard in science. For example, dark energy has never been seen in the lab. Dark energy has s many lab data points as seeing God in the lab. Yet only dark energy is accepted as fact. It's existence is based on secondary affects, which is the same type of proof offered for God but only one will be accepted by the dual standard. If there is a miracle of healing, not explained by science, how does this differ from dark energy, not seen in the lab, expanding space-time? Since I was not dealing with rational consistency, I needed to address religion in a different way; connected to mind and brain. One science based observation is that the invention of written language, coordinate in time very closely to the story of Genesis in the bible. Is there a parallel between these data? The answer is yes, Written language altered the human mind so a new type of human appears.

Ok ... that just seems like the arbitrary determinations of some philosopher (such as a religious zealout) rather than well-researched theory that actually has any backing in science. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. But then again, the way you convey your thoughts to me in only two sentences suggests that you consider this to be a cut-and-dry case. It almost seems like there should have been a third sentence in your message, considering of only a single word: "Period." That's definitely how your message comes off as. Science is never cut and dry. For 90% of human history, everyone just assumed that heavy objects fall faster than lightweight ones ... because of course they do! But then Galileo went and actually tested that belief, and lo and behold, it ended up being false.

Agreed, but my opinion doesn't contradict itself. My opinion doesn't claim we can see size-less, colourless and incredibly fast EMR. Opinion. Again.

No. Ignoring cold hard facts in favour of conventional beliefs is an impasse. None so blind as those who do not want to see. What scares you? Being wrong? Even Einstein was wrong on occasion. The world won't end if you admit that detection is not sight. "Why Mr Anderson, why? Why do you persist with this delusion? The 'visible light spectrum' is the range of light 'by which humans see'. Not the range of light we see. It's called visible light because 'it makes objects visible'. Accept it. You we're wrong. We can't see light.

Do you always avoid answering questions? Studiot suggested this. I think it's a brilliant idea. I responded with this. ( Perfect, so let's do that. What properties make things visible? 1: they must reflect or emit light. Does light do either? No! 2: they must be big enough to be seen. How big is a photon? No size. 3: they must be slow enough to be seen. How fast is light? It's the fastest thing in the universe. Any one of these is enough to make an object invisible. Yet some people adamantly cling to the belief that we can see light.) Can someone respond please! If I'm wrong somehow, show me. If you can't, don't bother responding. This myth is busted!

I don't think so, because there are no punishments involved in the animal world , among the 8.7 million species on earth, only THE HUMANS have created laws and regulations to safeguard themselves , and living in that mindset we too apply it to killing for food, The universe is just about transformation of energy and transformation of physical matter, 10 000 years ago maybe there were no punishments for killing of people for own safety too, animals do the same just now in their world, gangs, killings for territory, If we apply that to human nature that is crime, which is good in one way because we are safe in the hands of law. But in the case of food and killing is that - if one animal gets killed , nothing goes to waste, we put the waste in the dustbin but and think it as wasted But the act is that we do not see the next level on the waste consumption, that is the waste we think is eaten or fed on by smaller animals like flies , insects , bacteria or microorganisms. There is no degree of ritual-ness involved in the food chain, because the food chain is itself THE RITUAL OF NATURE , eat others and at the end get eaten, the sweet flow of energy and physical transformation, There is no animal that practices or fears god except us, there is just UN NOTICEABLY being part of the PHYSICS BIOLOGY and CHEMISTRY ritual, which has its own code of balance running in the background and all you have to do on earth is think about YOUR OWN SURVIVAL. Now humans developed the idea of culinary , producing food, livestock and veggies, which is apart from the wild world of animals. This is because of the evolution of art, because there is no more local war. Now before we used to eat animals of the wild and grains and veggies of the wild. and we used to bury our body after death, which returned the energy collected from the universe back to it. But as we evolved we had rituals in every little thing, we started burning bodies or burring them in coffins, And on the other hand we were evolved that we started producing our own livestock and veggies, grains and consuming them, So it is like we are breaking ourselves from the cycle of the wild, and creating our own cycle and balance of life and death and in that we are including rituals, TO SAFEGUARD OURSELVES BECAUSE WE ARE WORRIED WE ARE NOT GIVING BACK TO THE EARTH THE ENERGY WE CONSUMED FROM IT BY COFFINING OR BURNING RITUALS AFTER DEATH. if you live in the wild, you will never find the need of any ritual but just to live free ! I don't think so, because there are no punishments involved in the animal world , among the 8.7 million species on earth, only THE HUMANS have created laws and regulations to safeguard themselves , and living in that mindset we too apply it to killing for food, The universe is just about transformation of energy and transformation of physical matter, 10 000 years ago maybe there were no punishments for killing of people for own safety too, animals do the same just now in their world, gangs, killings for territory, If we apply that to human nature that is crime, which is good in one way because we are safe in the hands of law. But in the case of food and killing is that - if one animal gets killed , nothing goes to waste, we put the waste in the dustbin but and think it as wasted But the act is that we do not see the next level on the waste consumption, that is the waste we think is eaten or fed on by smaller animals like flies , insects , bacteria or microorganisms. There is no degree of ritual-ness involved in the food chain, because the food chain is itself THE RITUAL OF NATURE , eat others and at the end get eaten, the sweet flow of energy and physical transformation, There is no animal that practices or fears god except us, there is just UN NOTICEABLY being part of the PHYSICS BIOLOGY and CHEMISTRY ritual, which has its own code of balance running in the background and all you have to do on earth is think about YOUR OWN SURVIVAL. Now humans developed the idea of culinary , producing food, livestock and veggies, which is apart from the wild world of animals. This is because of the evolution of art, because there is no more local war. Now before we used to eat animals of the wild and grains and veggies of the wild. and we used to bury our body after death, which returned the energy collected from the universe back to it. But as we evolved we had rituals in every little thing, we started burning bodies or burring them in coffins, And on the other hand we were evolved that we started producing our own livestock and veggies, grains and consuming them, So it is like we are breaking ourselves from the cycle of the wild, and creating our own cycle and balance of life and death and in that we are including rituals, TO SAFEGUARD OURSELVES BECAUSE WE ARE WORRIED WE ARE NOT GIVING BACK TO THE EARTH THE ENERGY WE CONSUMED FROM IT BY COFFINING OR BURNING RITUALS AFTER DEATH. if you live in the wild, you will never find the need of any ritual but just to live free ! I don't think so, because there are no punishments involved in the animal world , among the 8.7 million species on earth, only THE HUMANS have created laws and regulations to safeguard themselves , and living in that mindset we too apply it to killing for food, The universe is just about transformation of energy and transformation of physical matter, 10 000 years ago maybe there were no punishments for killing of people for own safety too, animals do the same just now in their world, gangs, killings for territory, If we apply that to human nature that is crime, which is good in one way because we are safe in the hands of law. But in the case of food and killing is that - if one animal gets killed , nothing goes to waste, we put the waste in the dustbin but and think it as wasted But the act is that we do not see the next level on the waste consumption, that is the waste we think is eaten or fed on by smaller animals like flies , insects , bacteria or microorganisms. There is no degree of ritual-ness involved in the food chain, because the food chain is itself THE RITUAL OF NATURE , eat others and at the end get eaten, the sweet flow of energy and physical transformation, There is no animal that practices or fears god except us, there is just UN NOTICEABLY being part of the PHYSICS BIOLOGY and CHEMISTRY ritual, which has its own code of balance running in the background and all you have to do on earth is think about YOUR OWN SURVIVAL. Now humans developed the idea of culinary , producing food, livestock and veggies, which is apart from the wild world of animals. This is because of the evolution of art, because there is no more local war. Now before we used to eat animals of the wild and grains and veggies of the wild. and we used to bury our body after death, which returned the energy collected from the universe back to it. But as we evolved we had rituals in every little thing, we started burning bodies or burring them in coffins, And on the other hand we were evolved that we started producing our own livestock and veggies, grains and consuming them, So it is like we are breaking ourselves from the cycle of the wild, and creating our own cycle and balance of life and death and in that we are including rituals, TO SAFEGUARD OURSELVES BECAUSE WE ARE WORRIED WE ARE NOT GIVING BACK TO THE EARTH THE ENERGY WE CONSUMED FROM IT BY COFFINING OR BURNING RITUALS AFTER DEATH. if you live in the wild, you will never find the need of any ritual but just to live free !

If you intend to enforce this law then you are effectively discriminating against followers of some religions in which younger women and girls can be married off. The Perfect Man, Mohamed PBUH, married Aisha at six years old and consumated the marriage three years later. i expect to hear now from all the islamophobes.

Actually, you're the only one who disagrees and thereby, holding everyone back. You're excused!

So how can light be visible? Please read that as many times as you need until it sinks in...