Asimov

Good point John. We are quite specific when we refer to frequencies but somewhat broader with our color interpretations.In addition to the primary colors interpretations, Hue, lightness, temperature and contrast determin color perception as well. A 50% saturated color looks different next to the 25% saturated. Is polarization a small factor in humans? Works for Octopi. You saw how colors can appear to change with after images despite no change of frequency. How many colors can there be? As many as we can percieve. Open season on colors. What is your favorite color?.Mine is blue, always has been, why? Bet blue looks different to me than you. Bet we never know. Why on earth did the Minn. Vikings pick purple. My H.S, colors were blue and gold. Any turquoise and pink team color themes? Why does red look better on small sporty cars. Ever see a red limo? How many bright orange pickups do you see? Not in this here neck of the woods. Why does no color look good on an Edsel. It didnt sell well in any color. Beauty and color is in the view of the beholder. http://vanseodesign.com/web-design/hue-saturation-and-lightness/

Petrushka: Swansont nailed it. Some do have better eyes for color vision. Tetrachromats have 4 instead of 3 type cones! Guys need not apply. It is rare and only in those with XX chromosomes.They see more colors than others. One of evolution's experiments. An interior decorators' nightmare.One day we may have many more type cones. Doubt it. 3 works good enough. 4 is a crowd. There may be other ways of getting clues to differentiate frequencies. Polarization. This may be up your alley.Octopi are said to be quite color blind, likey based on eye anatomy. BUT they change colors to match their environment. Octopi are very good at discerning polarization differences. They may see only black,grey and white but because of polarization they might discern the slightest contrasts between frequencies and access colors that way..This info could tell them what colors to change to in order to fool animals with color vision! . If an octupus can see colors based on polarization they wouldnt technically be color blind but wouldnt necessarily see colors the same as us.

A side note. Alcohol is said to damage brain cells.First the weak cells. That's why we are smarter and better dancers while drinking. LOL

Petruska: Interesting idea, robotic eye. This would be a superior eye in some respects to an organic eye. Still, both are only cameras and see nothing, no color, no anything. The robot could be programmed to say red when exposed to red frequencies and could report white with certain mixes of light. The robot would need strong AI to actually see colors in it's computer brain.The red-green afterimage experiment wouldn't work as the robot wouldnt have cones that selectively bleach after firing too much. as the frequency of the perceived red and green are the same. We assign colors to certain frequencies but colors are determined by our perception of the frequency. Dogs are dichromats. Two cones. They accurately identify many colors but not as well as us and we can never see like a dog even if we were dichromats. They overall access their environment well but rely more on smell and hearing. My poodle was blind at 6 months but people often dont detect this.Get a treat near him and he accurately homes in on it. He smells better than I do.

Actually seeing is in the occipital cortex. The eye sees nothing.A beautiful construct that takes lousy pictures that are"computer enhanced by our brain. Hubble was myopic , but computer enhancement cleared pictures a lot. It was later corrected. Expensive glasses! Sever the optic nerves and you see nothing though the eyes work fine. Stare at a green square a while, then look to the right at a white wall.. You'll see a red square. Note that the colors are vastly different and the light frequency didnt change. After bleaching the green cones, the fresher red cones prevail and we call the same light red. So what color is the light? The observer determins that.

Petushka: . I dont quite get it but I can answer your main question if I understand it correctly. It is no coincidence that white light always elicits white in our brain.The brain says so, not the white light per se...There can be some varience in the combination of frequencys and the mind can still say white. The red receptor cone signals red at 620 nm. Also at 750nm. A 620-750 range. Flourescents have a little more toward blue, incandescents tend to more red but both have what we call white light. Again, color is what our brain says it. In nature with no observer there is no color. I have barely normal color vision. A dark blue sock to you may appear to be black to me until I get into sunlight.You may see it as blue inside and outside. We are both correct. Black or dark blue. We determin the color. If one has trouble matching socks, boots are handy.Maybe most cowboys have bad color vision. PS: How does one break a continuous spectrum? A little fun here. Stare at a green background a minute, then look to the right on a white background. You will see red.The green receptors were temporaly bleached out. In this case the environmental light stayed the same but the color changed. Vision is perceptual and translates alOccipital cortex and company says so.

Inow: A little ide note here. Male body builders use testosterone as well of course. I dont think it influences penis size. Deepening of voice, balding and over a ceriain amount, extreme agression.Also acne.Steroid rage. Ironically too much testosterone causes some excess to aromatise to estrogen and secondary sex development can occur, big hooters., ugly on a man in a body building contest. Try not to picture it. Have you heard of beer boobies? Alcohol destroys some free testosterone causing a estrogen imbalance. Also the yeast in beer is estrogenic. Cheers!

Modred: Thank you for your input but the article is quirky. Your statement if accurate would destroy the law of conservation of energy Conservation of energy has been proven many times and is essential in this universe. It always applies.. Google it for confirmation The article stated that as the universe expands so does the amount of energy. .The universe has all the energy it has ever had or will have. Old stuff.Their radical idea smacks of the old steady state universe where as the universe expands matter is produced maintaining a steady state., largely discarded in the 60s after cosmic background radiation was accidently discovered. I dont consider conservation of energy a viable topic for debate .You cant create or destroy energy. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org Steady state theory

Strange: Thanx for your patience and candor. Candor sounds nice.. I wont repeat that famous equation in this thread. I am not interestred in some popularity contest among forum members though. IMO Your opinions are wrong but I appreciate them and respect them as an honest opinion by you and others. Whether right or wrong. Give me the same courtesy. I will leave you and the others with this most informative link and some quotes from Stanford Encyclopedia. Ive presented my best case and rest my case. If you provide me with some links that support you view it is appreciated. Your views and apparently that of other forum members arent as clear cut as you may think regarding the "same-property" interpretation of that famous equation.. Both the Einstein-Infeld and Zahar{1989} interpretations adopted the "same- property" interpretation of that notorious equation. "Thus, according to both interpretations,mass and energy are the same properties." In relativistic physics as well as in classical physics mass and energy are both regarded as properties of the constiuents of physical systems." Matter is nothing more than a conglomeration of fields manifesting itself as matter. Check the link, it covers the topic well. http:\\plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/ Swansont: Sorry, energy is always conserved. Conservation of energy applies at all times.In your example the mass- energy lost by the nucleus was conserved as the kinetic energy.of the sister and alpha particle. Advise me if I am wrong here. . I never intended this thread to be controversial. It certainly introduced me to this good forum. A simple thought experiment like others that led to an appreciation of mass-energy equivalence.. among leading physicists. Wham! I will try to stick more to medical and biological topics where my word has authority and might be respected.. I am really trying to understand QM and will have many questions. Unlike relativity I have no opinions there. Thank you for your patience with me.

Petrushkagoogol: G

jujrussel: M=E. You are most correct. dont let units confuse you. 10 Kg mass-energy is also 2.14663986514E+17 Calories of mass- energy. There is a reason for that dash you know. Calories from the sun make it to your table to the glucose in muscles you use to lift that 16oz. beverage against gravity.. Note the different units. Mass- energy is conserved.. You could also use pounds, ounces, joules or any number of appropriate units. The fact that different units are used for mass than energy is not relevant to M=E. Kg for mass is just more convenient in describing mass as its conglomeration of fields manifests as mass or a mass. Mass-energy that is. Calories are more convenient for the energy manifestation of mass-energy. Joules can work too.Conservation of energy verifies this. Nothing that isnt energy can be converted to energy and visa versa.So much for "converting" one to the other. Not in this universe. See my earlier offer of Caldwells experiment and even a newbie can appreciate this very basic concept. Some have trouble with this because mass of mass-energy and energy of mass-energy.manifest in such different behaving ways. This is really basic relativity.IMO you are on the right track Note, there are many opinions on forums. Some seem less kind than others and can seem a little personal when you dissagree with them. Read , Study them all and decide for yourself.. The best scientists in all fields dissagree. So can forum members.

Patrushka.googol:Are you looking for some property of light other than frequency that causes us to percieve different colors? You may be headed in the wrong direction.The property of light that determins the color we percieve is frequency. At least that is what I learned over 1/2 century ago. White light is what we call the mixture of frequencies in white light. Thats all. Color is entirely subjective. Here is a little more detail regarding the specialized cone receptors.We have color vision because of 3 cones with different opsins that each have peak absorption for different frequencies. Red, 620- 750 nm etc.. The retina itself is able to selectively amplify or inhibit the respective cone signals by means of cross conections..Brain cells further modulate the signals. Entanglement doesnt seem to be involved as far as I know.

Patushkagoogol; Entanglement doesnt apply. Try this perspective. Photons have wavelength but no color.We and our ancestors invented color. Helps find the ripe fruit and mates, game and predators..Color is how we percieve photons of various wavelength. Right, color is all in our head. The cones are receptors in the eye that fire in response to a particular wavelength photon. There are only three type cones. One for red, one for blue and one for green. How they collectively fire determins the color we percieve. When all three fire we call this white light. Why and how white? Again our visual system made this up. All the other colors like yellow are just how we interpret combinations of wavelengths.Our visual system is quite a computer enhancer. The eye is a terrible camera. The image on the retina is upside down and badly destorted with many blind areas that our brain enhances and fills in.. We are successful because this system gives us pretty accurate overall input of our environment.

Swansont: I guess this is splitting hairs. but C is totally invarient for photons or collectively as light. A beam of light wil take longer to get from A to B in air or in glass than in vacuum of course. As photons interact with atoms in air or glass etc. they are delayed by interaction with the atoms. This takes a finite amount of time and delays the wave front but C between atoms remains C. Light doesnt bend or slow down and always goes C. Space -time bends and light goes straight through dancing between the atoms of a media at C. This doesnt contradict you, just adds some nitpicky detail. Relevant though. My perspective and I need a nap.

Strange; This is not some new radical perspective I am illustrating with the Calder scenerio. It is compelling thoughts like it that lead physicists to mass- energy equvalence. At least give Calder's thoughts some reflection. Notice when Einstein or any noted physicist states mass-energy equivalence they don mince words such as "somewhat equivalent" or "analogous to" etc. Or "equivalent to in some ways.". Equivalent. Yes. Period. In the words of Bob Dylan, dont critisize what you cant understand. I dont and do appreciate all input. This beats drinking beer at the beach doesnt it?

36 Grit; Cant say I totally follow you but no, light doesnt bend. It is space- time that is bent by gravity and light goes straight through space-time. Remember, space -time is a continuuem and neither space or time is an entity unto itself. A beam of light seems to bend past a massive object but it is space-time itself, not light bending per se.The atoms in a refractive media also dont bend light. They re-direct or delay the light as it interacts with the atoms in glass for example. Lenses. Photon absorbed then emmited takes time.The light speed C is invarient and stays the same going between the intervening atoms.

Jajrussel:Thank you for your input. I too am not sure of the exactness of the disagreement. I intended nothing profound or new. I offered Calder's thought experiment as a means of visualizing energy-mass equivalence. Really basic stuff. From Calder: At 1/10 C the energy of light of an approaching star is enhanced by 10.55% while receding the star loses 9.55% of its energy.. There is an average gain of .5 of one percent in the energy emitted by the star as seen by someone seeing it speeding past him at 1/10 C ! This means that the energy emitted by a star depends on the observer and how fast he is moving in relation to the star.This naturally leads physicists to the most fundamental result of relativity. Energy is mass and visa versa. Not sorta, or in some contexts, or can be converted one to the other etc.. Equivalent, period. This most basic concept is hard to visualize. Some dont seem to accept it but it is vital to understanding relativity. You probably know this but physicists do take a little license with words.If they say a photon has energy but not mass they mean no rest mass. The energy-mass is relativistic mass due to its motion. At rest a photon doesnt exhist. Anything without mass-energy is only a concept.

Of course,we do what is predestined. BUT, might there be paradoxes. Rob a bank and buy that Cooper and go to jail or not. In essence your present decision determins what was predestined to happen, yes or no.. Violating causality? Effect altering cause? I think I am saying this correctly. There may be paradoxes that preclude determanism eliminating freedom of choice. I find this thought provoking. I guess everything that happens was going to happen. And with free will?

Freedom of choice and determinism has probably been discussed here before. This might be a different perspective. Bell's theorem states generally that we cant explain all of QM by hidden local variables in classical mechanics. As in Newton and macroscopic objects in motion. I assume this is correct and it is widely accepted. Less accepted is Bell's proposed solution for "spooky" superluminal action at distance between entangled systems. He proposed that an absolutely deterministic universe with no free will would explain this phenomena. Even the illusion of choice of pertinent experiments is predetermined. In essence the particles would already know when and what state to be in.This seems a little evasive to me.In other words "spooky" action occurs because it was predetermined? ' Finally I get to the point. Assume you find out on the news and in journals this deterministic universe has been absolutely proven by several repeatable valid experiments. What do you do now? No real freedom of choice. Do what you want to do regardless? Would you be bolder or more cautious? Would it matter? You have been wanting a Mini Cooper for years but spouse says we cant afford it. It is already determined so buy or not? What ever you do is O.K.? You try but no loan. Rob a bank, get the car? It is already determined you will or will not be caught. What I am getting at is that maybe the illusion of choice would be the same as freedom of choice regarding how we rule our lives. What might one do differently if all was predetermined? Would this newly discovered determinism be used as a proof of God or of no God. '

Howdy Casey and thanx. I follow and it is about conserving energy.My son is an expert on that! As the turbine spins the out flow should equal the inflow of air I follow, but when the fuel is injected and there is combustion then the exhaust flow would be much more than inflow.Additional gases. Correct? In a ramjet at very high speeds the inflow is compressed without turbines explodes and goes aft. Variable pitch props do much the same thing as the variable nozzles.

It is not possible for ardent anti-evolutionists to be open minded. To do so would shake the very foundations of their religious beliefs and there really is no reason to do that.. When overwelming fact favors your opinion it is easier to be open minded. About genes, it is more like they power evolution, not the other way around.Post gene evolution of course. We are actually biological gene factories that crank out genes.They rule.The more competitive the genes, the more genes produced by more and more competitive factories ---- us. If tall produces more babies we get taller.We are of course sentient factories and this does not rule out God or creationism or evolution.. It might conflict with a person's very specific concept of God taught to them all their lifes. You cant fight this, most work their way through it eventually. Its the way they were raised. "It's in the book". Evolution is and has been going on at the prebiotic level.Still happening.The first genes were likely auto-catalytic RNA molecules. Auto-catalytic sets can replicate if separated somewhat like mitosis with little high level organization.Single molecules cant do this but they can if catalysed by others in the set. Random molecular arrangements over many years found a good thing and stuck with it. What if we were visited by ETs and their gene equivalents were sentient and the factories not sentient! They would try to comunicate with our genes of course! Oops! Modern life it self has characteristics of auto-catalytic sets as no one molecule can replicate itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic-set

I had trouble titleing this topic and hope this is the right section. It might drift into many interesting side topics.Of itself it isnt profound. Surely not religion. A jet fighter's nozzel is large at first giving a larger slower moving column of air to move the slowly accelerating jet. The nozzle is at it's narrowest column and the gases at the higest velocity at high speeds.Why? This is similar to kayak racing. To accelerate rapidly for short sprints one uses a large paddle blade but it is too tiresome to maintain long.The velocity is directly proportional to the stroke rate. A smaller blade allows one to maintain the high stroke rate much longer. Once finished accelerating you go about the same speed with either paddle at a given rate.Think of the blade as anchored in water as the boat moves forward.The more splash or noise with the blade the less efficient.You may even exceed the hull speed a little with a very sharp piercing bow and a rapid efficient cadence Bicycle racers learn to "spin" at 90-100 or so strokes to maintain speeds for long periods.As long as you dont spin out where you are bouncing up and down you cover longer distances faster. You can go as fast spinning 1/2 as much with twice as big a gear but must push twice as hard and will not go far. Cars are similar , lower gearing to higher gearing as the speed goes up.The differenc being they have much more horse power to play with.Why does a human runner accelrate faster from a standing start than a horse or bicylist? Not real profound but food for thought.

Phi for all: Ilike youy perspective on "theory" Strange: Somewhat true . Simply goddidit is an end all copeout. Many believe we appear to live in a created universe or one of many 'Mini-unverses" and this is one of those that just appear to be created.Our universe is cause and effect so it is reasonable it itself was caused.Easier for me to believe in a hidden variable creator than an infinite number of universes. Nothing but concepts have infinity in this universe. What ever some non contingent creator may have been is what I call God. Einstein called God the Old One. One might say I am trying to figure out ways God may have done all this. This leaves intellect largely in tact. Mine I hope. forex: By now Ihope you believe evolution proponants can be rational. Do you realize that if you do finally come up with a compelling rebuttal, you will be in papers around the world and nominated for the Nobel. Iam serious. I am still waiting on your explanation for all those chronologcal strata of fossils.A few gaps but we have found only a fraction of the fossils.Any theory that successfully debunks evolution must inclued that. Goddidit? See above. Was it kind of a joke? To give us something to dig and debate about. I am open to an explanation of this very important item. A suggestion. How about the "fossil record re-capulates the changes you say are not evolution"? That works and you can persist in your already well refuted though well intended theory.Re-read my earlier post. Evolution is a fact. Period. If God is a fact then evolution is how God does it. One gets nowhere dissagreeing with God' methods.

forex: Rational is a poor choice of words for acceptance of such a documented fact. When are they going to stop calling it a theory? Goes for Relativity too. You have given this much thought and obviously are determined but are reaching needlessly.Ajb mentioned vestigial organs. A tip of the iceberg. Assume you are correct. I am willing to bet you believe God did all this, correct me if I am wrong. , So do I. Whatever or whom one may call God. Why would God give us such compelling fossil evidence of evolution arranged chronologically in strata. A really big joke? To test our faith? Think about it. Many ways it could have been done, why leave such compelling evidense of something untrue To create all this from that famous spark so long ago with laws and just the right variables and ingredients for creatures that can contemplate such things could be the real miracle. You dont believe in Evolution. How do you think this all happened if God didnt use evolution? Evolution in no way precludes God. It makes a statement of how a God might have done it. Works for me.

Fiveworlds: Great idea. You can monitor all patients 24-7 instead of periodic rounds. Whether breathing through the mouth or nose one can count respiration by watching the chest rise and fall. One cant breathe without the chest moving.Liked to have had it at Camp Gary. Not enough orderlies.They need one to monitor temps and pulse as well.