The second Black Body Problem.

[Ronald Hyde]

Just a thought.

How can colour be so important when many animals don't have it at all.

Some people and plenty of animals of people have different colour perception

http://en.wikipedia....n_tetrachromats

or

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Monochromacy

 

And in poor lighting we all have pretty much monochrome vision?

 

What is so bloody marvellous about a simple side effect of the way in which a tiny, and arbitrary, portion of the electromagnetic spectrum interacts with a handful of molecules that we happen to synthesise in the backs of our eyes?

 

That's what makes your post word salad.

 

The fact is that the radiation from hot objects is very well understood by modern (and by that I mean 20th C) physics.

 

Do you really think you have anything to add?

 

http://xkcd.com/675/

This is much more what I want to see. Some interesting proof of whatever kind on either side of an argument. None of this negates what I've said, and just

shows how interesting the algebra of color really is. You see in color algebra black is a color too, as in black light. You may say that's just UV light but the

tetrachromats may well use it in composing their color space. Thank you for that.

 

On the other hand your use of the phrase 'word salad' deeply offends me, I had even decided get on the case of the people who used that kind of 'justification'

to make a case. I was born a logician first and became a human as I grew up, so I will not accept any unreasoned argument either toward me or from me.

Calling something word salad is just an unsupported declaration, and pure nonsense.

 

Twas' Brilig in the Slythe Tove. Pure nonsense, from Lewis Carrol, who was a logician. But 'make some substitutions' as the mathematicians say, and you will make

a perfectly understandable phrase. In both language and physics, context is supremely important. So unless you have a good reasoned argument to sub for the phrase

'word salad' I will simply regard as a lack of reasoning, and reject it outright as invalid. You could say it 1000 time, I would be annoyed but it will not change my view.

 

I've long applied what I call the 'Doctrine of Inherent Capability' in my reasoning. It simply states that you can't invent, discover, or otherwise use an effect unless it

is inherent in Nature. I applied it first to biology, but it's extensible.

 

Color is not limited to the range of 1.5 to 3.5 ev photons. Plants use .5 ev photons, Chlorophyll is tuned by a Magnesium ion to accept two of them as part of

photosynthesis. It's just that our eyes are tuned to that range, because the light has to pass through water to get to the cornea.

 

Yes, I still think very much that I have something.

[ACG52]

So far on this forum I have found only one person who actually understood what I am saying, and he did so without any detailed explanation of the underlying concepts

 

That says volumes about the nonsense you're saying.

[Ronald Hyde]

That says volumes about the nonsense you're saying.

No it doesn't, it says that he, who uses Real World Physics, recognizes valid concepts when he sees them, whereas you do not. They gave you a Physics education, I guess!, but they

should have taught you Logic first, because you do not, or are maybe not able to, support anything you say with a reasoned argument. You resort to every method but that, and your buddy migL too, clones you two are, and by no means Turing Complete in any sense. Just read you own signature, full of contempt for your fellows. I hope they

turned off the cloning machine. I don't think either of you could reason your way out of a paper bag.

[ACG52]

That's as typical a cranks response as any I've ever seen.

[Ronald Hyde]

That's as typical a cranks response as any I've ever seen.

Can you provide a supported line of reasoning for that comment? Otherwise it's total nonsense will be completely disregarded by myself

and likely any other knowledgeable person who reads it.

[John Cuthber]

Can you provide a supported line of reasoning for that comment? Otherwise it's total nonsense will be completely disregarded by myself

and likely any other knowledgeable person who reads it.

OK, here's an independent method to check whether or not you are talking nonsense.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

[Ronald Hyde]

OK, here's an independent method to check whether or not you are talking nonsense.

http://math.ucr.edu/...z/crackpot.html

I already have some people on another topic who helped me put together a picture and your friend AG552 was the only one in the topic who both

did not understand the question that I posed, which was a real physical question, and by your index he would be the crank> I must look up what

'heavenly body' he thinks he represents.

 

When I asked that question the people who helped immediately and intuitively understood its relevance and gave a lot of help, in the form of links

already written papers. At least one of the people is using physics in his line of work, he is an independent inventor. In case you haven't noticed

inventions don't work unless they obey the laws of physics. One A. Einstein knew that very well, and made his living by evaluating patents.

 

But this is going to really bother you and your buddies. Unlike Mr. AG552 seems to think, I don't pull things out of may a** or thin air. One of my

little 'trite' sayings is, to get the right answers you must ask the right questions. I don't ask questions about theories, I only ask questions about

Nature. What happens in Nature, not what happens in a theory. If I use the phrase Real World Physics just remember that. It's the only physics I care

about. But the worst part for you is that I already have a prepared framework that the answer to that question fits into. It fits perfectly, after a good

nights sleep, your subconcience, which actually harnesses your imagination at night and does much of this work, I was able to put a picture together.

If you don't believe that last part read Henri Poincare description of the creative process, a real classic. Actually read it, a book unread is a wasted book.

 

Have you ever noticed that when the Sun and Moon are both up, regardless of their angle in the sky or whether clouds are around, the moon is white?

At night it is yellow/gray. We've sent spacecraft up there, and it's gray. It's Real World Physics. You can't explain that! I'll give you a teeny tiny hint. It

involves Quantum Mechanics. I chose it specifically because it can only be explained with QM, no other solution is possible, so alternative explanations

are not an option. I'll give you another little hint. It's related to the Rainbow. Real World Physics, the only kind that means anything.

 

And don't come back with some lame excuse, show that you know the correct solution. Anything else admits failure on your part.

[John Cuthber]

Colour perception never was perfect.

Here's a more down to earth example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checker_shadow_illusion

 

The eye isn't very good at judging things in isolation from their background.

 

Not much QM involved there.

 

It's related to the Rainbow.

This one?

 

[ACG52]

If I use the phrase Real World Physics just remember that. It's the only physics I care

about. But the worst part for you is that I already have a prepared framework that the answer to that question fits into. It fits perfectly, after a good

nights sleep, your subconcience, which actually harnesses your imagination at night and does much of this work, I was able to put a picture together.

 

It came to you in a dream?

[Ronald Hyde]

It came to you in a dream?

The moderator has already asked both of us to refrain from 'personal remarks' on another post. And I've clearly expressed my issues regarding your remarks.

There exists no protocol between us so there is no form of communication. You do not know or refuse to use the full power of language in you communication,

You keep making these grunts I refered to in the other post. If you ceased using these grunts and actually communicated in some form of language, or at least

stop making these grunts things would be much better. But you entirely insist in make personal remarks and grunting, so the problem is entirely on your part.

 

Do you know what a protocol is? Can you define it in plain English? I fear sir, that you have a serious language deficiency and do not recognize it.

[John Cuthber]

For the record, there is a protocol for communication here.

It's the forum rules.

They forbid making personal remarks.

[Ronald Hyde]

Colour perception never was perfect.

Here's a more down to earth example.

 

The eye isn't very good at judging things in isolation from their background.

 

Not much QM involved there.

 

It's related to the Rainbow.

This one?

You keep chasing that pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow, and it keeps eluding you.

The pot contains the gold of me looking at the world the way you do. Even if you found

that pot it will not have any gold.

 

People may say something like 'this is the way the eye interprets color', or this shape, or something else.

People are paid really good money because they know how the eye interprets color, but the eyes see color only

the way that the laws of Nature allow it to see it, even if imperfectly. You can't make a lens that doesn't

obey the laws of optics, capiche! You can't build a faster than light spaceship or a time machine, they

belong to Science Fiction.

 

And something I've said many times, and will say as many times as needed, everything can only be understood

in full context. If you take part of the context out mistakes will be made.

 

And QM is always there, it is writ large into everything. Just because I stand here and don't see a rainbow, doesn't

mean there is no rainbow, if I move over here I may see it. And I can explain the rainbow with QM. Did QM just up

and disappear, leave town as it were, because I moved back? I think rather not! Oh, you say, it depends on water

droplets in the air. No it doesn't, another common fallacy. There's a popular song that says "How can there be a

rainbow when there is no rain?, nice song. But there can be, and I have seen them and probably so have you. It

totally amazes me how many common fallacies are accepted in simple cases where they can be tested by very

simple means. Completely unacceptable to conduct a science that way.

 

In a way I have to like you, because unlike mr. ACG52 you can communicate, and even though you have a rather

sharp tongue, I have a thick skin, I think pretty much completely for myself, I learn from anyone I can, but I go

over what I've learned with my own thinking. So I don't get too excited.

 

But don't underestimate me. If i see something happening, I take mental notes, very good notes, so I see when

an explanation isn't right. Some physicists think that physics only happens in the laboratory, I don't suffer from

that delusion. I see it everywhere, all the time, in every thing that happens. One reason I like inventors, I've met

many inventors, is that they know and understand this, using the laws of Nature is their 'stock in trade', again.

 

And if you throw up a line of reasoning, and it's false, I'll will shred it to ribbons before your very eyes. Since your

friends don't seem to be able to compose a line of reasoning I can't use it to refute them. And I apply the very

same standard to my own reasoning.

 

Let me leave you with this, it's a little premiss I use when making decisions about Nature. Any inventor who doesn't

use it will quickly go broke. I call it the Doctrine of Inherent Capability. I found it trying to understand Evolution.

 

You cannot invent, discover or otherwise use an effect which is not inherent in Nature.

 

Simple, clear, concise and powerful. What more can you ask for?

 

For the record, there is a protocol for communication here.

It's the forum rules.

They forbid making personal remarks.

Please tell that to mr ACG52, he seems to not know it.

[John Cuthber]

Do you not understand that this "You keep making these grunts I refered to in the other post. If you ceased using these grunts and actually communicated in some form of language, or at least

stop making these grunts things would be much better. But you entirely insist in make personal remarks and grunting, so the problem is entirely on your part."

is a collection of personal remarks?

[Ronald Hyde]

Do you not understand that this "You keep making these grunts I refered to in the other post. If you ceased using these grunts and actually communicated in some form of language, or at least

stop making these grunts things would be much better. But you entirely insist in make personal remarks and grunting, so the problem is entirely on your part."

is a collection of personal remarks?

If you look sir you will find that it is always in response to his grunts. Time order is important in physical processes, even forum posts. If he stopped grunting, since he can't communicate

in 'plain language', I would have long ago stopped responding. You three? I don't know how many now, all remind me of a very perceptive line from the Comic strip Pogo.

'They pooled their minds. It made a shallow but slippery puddle.' But anyone would have told you that Pogo (Walt Kelly) was very deep humor and not understood by the

imperceptive.

 

I don't think that any of the three aforementioned volunteer peer reviewers are qualified for their self appointed task. If I were admin here ( I've done that ) I would either

give you some standards that you MUST conform to ( your standards for PR are below the gutter ) or send you packing, and with no regrets. Maybe the admin will in time

see what is happening, and do this. I'm starting to meet some really good perceptive people here, who know and understand exactly what I mean when I post something,

But in the meantime I have to deal with these creatures who understand very little and feel it their duty to critique anyone and everyone. Sorry I had to say that, I was

starting to like you, maybe a 'pet troll' sort of thing, but it very much needed to be said. I have no idea what your academic qualifications are, and frankly I care not, what

I do care about is understanding how Nature works. Do you even slightly understand this, or is there no hope of your understanding?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Ronald Hyde,

The off topic back and forth and the personal remarks are to stop. Argue the science and not the people presenting it.

Do not derail this further by responding directly to this mod note. Please use our report feature or PM a member of staff.