The 'White Moon problem'.

[Ronald Hyde]

I've noticed this nearly all my life. The Moon at night appears to be a Yellow-Gray.

 

But when the Moon and Sun are both up, the Moon appears to be White. It doesn't depend of the phase of the Moon or the location of both in the sky.

It's not Yellow-White, or Blue-White, it's just pure White. There can also be clouds in the sky.

 

I've chosen to post this at a time when both are in the sky together, so you can see this. In case you want to know, this is posted in the right forum,

this does involve Quantum Mechanics. I have at least a partial explanation but I'm not entirely certain it's correct.

 

Have fun with it.

[John Cuthber]

It seems that a lot of pictures disagree with you.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=moon&hl=en&prmd=imvnsua&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=jdxlUN30FYGm0AWM5oHgCg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=899

 

 

The moon seems to be just about any colour. As has already been ppointed out, colour perception depends on the background (among other things).

You may recall that the last time you raised this idea it was to dsitract attention from the mistakes you had made about black body radiation. You were subsequently condemned for writing off those who showed your error as "grunting"

 

Here's the thread.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69003-the-second-black-body-problem/page__st__20

 

Perhaps you should address the criticism there rather than starting a new thread to rehash the same mistake.

Edited September 28, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Ronald Hyde]

It seems that a lot of pictures disagree with you.

https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=899

 

 

The moon seems to be just about any colour. As has already been ppointed out, colour perception depends on the background (among other things).

You may recall that the last time you raised this idea it was to dsitract attention from the mistakes you had made about black body radiation. You were subsequently condemned for writing off those who showed your error as "grunting"

 

Here's the thread.

 

http://www.sciencefo...em/page__st__20

 

Perhaps you should address the criticism there rather than starting a new thread to rehash the same mistake.

First I ask you exactly which ones of those pictures were taken in the daytime and under the specified condition?

 

You're beginning to teach me a lot. I'm beginning to understand why some people think mathematicians are smarter than physicists and in exactly what ways.

You've taught me why, at Princeton, the other physics students were amazed that Feynman could sit with the mathematicians and solve problems with them,

like the Hexaflexagons. In the book about him, 'Genius', his wife describes why he quit the APS and wouldn't even accept an honorary membership. I had people

like you in it. Oh, I know you're British, I tried finding some of your seminal papers on the Web ( what a wonderful thing it is ) but I only found links to this

forum and something about telephone poles and a radio antenna.

 

Lest anyone be offended by my remark, it really applies only to people like Mr. Cuthber.

However I will come back in due course and explain it exactly.

[John Cuthber]

For the record, I post here under a false name.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Two things

1. Let's cut out the jibes please.

2. Thread is based on a new theory or new interpretation - moved to Speculations. Please take a moment to read the particular rules of that forum.

[Klaynos]

I'd be interested in some actual spectroscopy to show this. Any photo will depend on the white balance settings and as had been mentioned the human eye is not a reliable measurement instrument for things such as colour.

[Ronald Hyde]

I'd be interested in some actual spectroscopy to show this. Any photo will depend on the white balance settings and as had been mentioned the human eye is not a reliable measurement instrument for things such as colour.

This is interesting to know. Of course the instrument here is always the human eye, since it's what we use ourselves. What instruments are considered to give reliable readings

of colour, as you Brits say? One of the rules of Quantum Mechanics, which people seem to often forget, is that the experiment has to be formulated from start to finish, including

any instruments used to take the readings. And different instruments give different readings.

 

This question was and still is to my mind just a simple puzzle that I would like to see answered, nothing more.

 

For the record, I post here under a false name.

 

"In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

[John Cuthber]

"Of course the instrument here is always the human eye,"

Well it should not be. The eye is known to get things wrong.

We call them optical illusions.

To do proper science we don't rely on things that are known to give the wrong result.

 

Earlier this evening I saw the moon in the sky. Because it was seen against the blue background of the sky it looked a bit yellow.

 

It's now rather later. The night sky is essentially black and the moon looks white against that background.

 

My observations directly contradict those in the OP.

 

Before we seek to explain the assertions made in the OP we ought to try to repeat them.

I tried, and it turns out that the observations are simply not right.

 

End of story.

 

 

BTW, this has little if anything to do with QM. QM doesn't do "colour".

[Ronald Hyde]

The human eye doesn't 'get things wrong', it's simply another choice of instrument. Different instruments will produce different measurements.

The notion that there is some unbiased instrument that always 'gets things right' is pure nonsense. QM says that the measurement depends on

the instrument chosen. Tell a good professional interior decorator that her eye 'gets thing wrong' and you may get a well deserved earful.

 

I know that QM 'doesn't do color', I've already commented on that in another topic but you thought that it wasn't physics. So what exactly in your

self esteemed opinion does 'do color'? Color certainly occurs in Nature, just look around you. Look at pictures of nebulae, or stars, or Galaxies. I was

remembering an electrical storm I saw and there was colored lightning. You think that is fiction, Google it.

 

There's a lot more going on here than you will ever be able to understand. The World is far more subtle than you can begin to imagine.

[John Cuthber]

Colour is a function of perception. It doesn't have an independent existence.

 

The eye very clearly gets things wrong. As I said, we call these things optical illusions.

Once again, here's a nicely illustrated example.

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

Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

 

An instrument doesn't need to be exactly right. It just needs to have a well defined error margin.

They eye has such wide margins as to be pretty useless for some thing.

(Of course, it's very good at the things it's usually used for).

[StringJunky]

The human eye doesn't 'get things wrong', it's simply another choice of instrument. Different instruments will produce different measurements.

 

 

The human eye is crap as an objective measurement tool because it automatically adapts colour balance and light intensity to some preset 'optimum', for example: the eye/brain interface will change the colour balance of an off-white lit white object so that you see a more balanced white with respect to red/blue bias...within limits.

Edited September 29, 2012 by StringJunky

[Ronald Hyde]

Colour is a function of perception. It doesn't have an independent existence.

 

The eye very clearly gets things wrong. As I said, we call these things optical illusions.

Once again, here's a nicely illustrated example.

http://en.wikipedia....ptical_illusion

Why are you trying to pretend otherwise?

 

An instrument doesn't need to be exactly right. It just needs to have a well defined error margin.

They eye has such wide margins as to be pretty useless for some thing.

(Of course, it's very good at the things it's usually used for).

If you use a prism to split a beam of light and project the results on a surface you get a band with 3 or 7 distinct colors, not a continuous graduation of color.

If you use an instrument to measure the frequency of the light along the band, say a little probe that you slide along the band, you will get a continuous

distribution. Does the prism suffer from 'optical illusions'? I think not. Does the prism work by something other than the laws of Nature? I think not.

 

You offered false information to refute my original question by posting a bunch of images which did not fit the conditions, oh just a mistake you may say,

but your mistake.

 

But your biggest mistake here is thinking that color is just an invention of the human mind and that it plays no role in the natural scheme of things.

 

I repeat, the World is far more subtle than you have or perhaps can imagine, and you do not begin to see the truth of that.

[Klaynos]

If you use a prism to split a beam of light and project the results on a surface you get a band with 3 or 7 distinct colors, not a continuous graduation of color.

 

No, you get a continuous spectrum, it is probably more sensible to use a blazed grating though.

 

If you use an instrument to measure the frequency of the light along the band, say a little probe that you slide along the band, you will get a continuous

distribution. Does the prism suffer from 'optical illusions'? I think not.

 

Actually to a certain degree yes, the refractive index across the visible spectrum will not be constant. What you have explained here is pretty much what I suggested in using a spectrometer to get an objective numerical measure of the colour, you can then use something like the CIE colour space to convert from the spectrum into a colour. You'd need to repeat this for different moons and I suspect you may need to be very careful indeed about surrounding illumination from the sky.

 

Does the prism work by something other than the laws of Nature? I think not.

 

Your original ocnjecture was false that there are only 7 colours, because the rainbow contains 7 names in most English speaking culture does not make it true.

 

You offered false information to refute my original question by posting a bunch of images which did not fit the conditions, oh just a mistake you may say,

but your mistake.

 

As I've said photos cannot be used, cameras are clever, in a similar way to how the human eye (and brain) does image processing to deal with lighting and colour differences cameras do similar things. You need an instrument such as a spectrometer which does not do this, or does it in a reproducible quantifiable manor.

 

But your biggest mistake here is thinking that color is just an invention of the human mind and that it plays no role in the natural scheme of things.

 

Colours are a human concept, they can be mapped (to a certain extent) to physical properties though. Optical colour illusions clearly show that humans ideas of colour are in no way objective.

 

I repeat, the World is far more subtle than you have or perhaps can imagine, and you do not begin to see the truth of that.

 

I'd say that is true for everyone, the key is knowing when you can apply what and the limitations to your experimental observations.

[Moontanman]

If you use a prism to split a beam of light and project the results on a surface you get a band with 3 or 7 distinct colors, not a continuous graduation of color.

 

Not true, you do not get a band with distict colors the colors do indeed merge into each other.

 

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

 

If you use an instrument to measure the frequency of the light along the band, say a little probe that you slide along the band, you will get a continuous

distribution. Does the prism suffer from 'optical illusions'? I think not. Does the prism work by something other than the laws of Nature? I think not.

 

You offered false information to refute my original question by posting a bunch of images which did not fit the conditions, oh just a mistake you may say,

but your mistake.

 

But your biggest mistake here is thinking that color is just an invention of the human mind and that it plays no role in the natural scheme of things.

 

I repeat, the World is far more subtle than you have or perhaps can imagine, and you do not begin to see the truth of that.

 

Colors are labels we give to specific wave lenghts of visable light. The human eye is a very poor judge of light, both color and intensity is effected by the way the eye, all eyes by the way, is built to detect light. For a long time it was assumed that some animals were indeed blind to color and only saw in black and white and shades of grey. The reality is that different eyes see colors differently than we do and some can and do see colors we cannot see.

 

Now having said that, the moon color problem has to do with the sun and the moon and the intristic color of the light being reflected. If the sun and moon are out at the same time the moon should appear more blue (north light) which in the human eye makes us see a whiter light, anyone who washes clothes can tell you why blue make whites look whiter. It is important in this discussion to remember this is all about perception and the Moon at night to "me" appears to be white, not yellow white... the clearer the night the whiter the moon looks, less clear and the moon can appear less white the nearer to the horizon it is but to me it is more of a pinkish cast and yellow never enters into it...

[Klaynos]

Colors are labels we give to specific wave lenghts of visable light.

 

I'd go on to say it is more complicated than that as in some circumstances a lightsource with two strong bands will look the same as another lightsource with a single band. But it's also possible to make the same lightsource appear to be giving off different colours depending on the surroundings, yet there is no physical change in the source itself nor in the light given off. Some friends of mind worked on "colour" for their PhDs and I did a short postdoc which involved whiteness (which is even more troublesome than colour). It took us several days to really define what we meant when we said "colour" or "white".

[Moontanman]

I'd go on to say it is more complicated than that as in some circumstances a lightsource with two strong bands will look the same as another lightsource with a single band. But it's also possible to make the same lightsource appear to be giving off different colours depending on the surroundings, yet there is no physical change in the source itself nor in the light given off. Some friends of mind worked on "colour" for their PhDs and I did a short postdoc which involved whiteness (which is even more troublesome than colour). It took us several days to really define what we meant when we said "colour" or "white".

 

 

I wasn't sure how far into "color/colour" we needed to go when the effect in question is an optical illusion of sorts to start with. My experience with light sources for marine reefs is sobering, humans are simply not good judges of light and what we are looking at has significant influence on what we see as far as colors are concerned... a great many optical illusion type puzzles are based on our biased perception of light...

 

If you ever get the chance give your self a little cut when you are at least 35 feet under water and see what color your blood is... Vulcan...

Edited September 29, 2012 by Moontanman

[John Cuthber]

"If you use a prism to split a beam of light and project the results on a surface you get a band with 3 or 7 distinct colors, not a continuous graduation of color."

Assuming the light is white to begin with, you will get a lot more colours than that.

Estimates of the number of colours that the eye can distinguish vary from about 100,000 to 10,000,000

A good spectrometer can do a lot better.

The idea that there are 7 colours in the rainbow was down to Newton's views on the occult- seven was a "lucky" number.

 

The human eye can't even tell the difference between yellow light and a mixture of red and green light.

Have a very close look at this smiley and you will see that it's made up of red and green dots.

 

"Does the prism suffer from 'optical illusions'?"

No, but nobody said it did, so that's a straw man.

I said the eye has problems, not a prism.

 

"You offered false information to refute my original question by posting a bunch of images which did not fit the conditions"

Nope, I posted a link to a bunch of images. By the way, don't call me a liar.

At least some of those were labelled by the people who took the pictures as being coloured.

Obviously, the colours in the pictures will be more or less distorted by the cameras (and any other processes- notably the setting on your monitor).

But the people who took the pictures sometimes described them as a blue moon or some such.

The colours were seen by the photographers.

But the moon can't actually change colour- it's a rock, lit by sunlight

So something else must have changed- that might be scattering or it might be an illusion.

 

The point remains that, last night I saw the moon as yellow early in the evening (when the sun was around and the surrounding sky was blue) and white later on (when it was against a black background.)

What I saw was the opposite of what you said.

 

It's also exactly what would be expected as a consequence of the eye effectively adjusting the white balance.

[Ronald Hyde]

No, you get a continuous spectrum, it is probably more sensible to use a blazed grating though.

 

 

 

Actually to a certain degree yes, the refractive index across the visible spectrum will not be constant. What you have explained here is pretty much what I suggested in using a spectrometer to get an objective numerical measure of the colour, you can then use something like the CIE colour space to convert from the spectrum into a colour. You'd need to repeat this for different moons and I suspect you may need to be very careful indeed about surrounding illumination from the sky.

 

 

 

Your original ocnjecture was false that there are only 7 colours, because the rainbow contains 7 names in most English speaking culture does not make it true.

 

 

 

As I've said photos cannot be used, cameras are clever, in a similar way to how the human eye (and brain) does image processing to deal with lighting and colour differences cameras do similar things. You need an instrument such as a spectrometer which does not do this, or does it in a reproducible quantifiable manor.

 

 

 

Colours are a human concept, they can be mapped (to a certain extent) to physical properties though. Optical colour illusions clearly show that humans ideas of colour are in no way objective.

 

 

 

I'd say that is true for everyone, the key is knowing when you can apply what and the limitations to your experimental observations.

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your reply, and the manner in which you replied. To say that you are a gentleman and a scholar is no exaggeration.

 

The colors are not truly distinct bands. I've only seen the pictures of prisms working, my bad, must get an actual prism and see exactly how it works.

 

Yes cameras are clever, I've taken thousands of photos. I know that they work much like the human eye. But they still obey the laws of Nature, they can

be used as instruments, they just are a different instrument, so you have to include that in your description of an experiment.

 

I'm going to say again that the notion that there is such a thing as an 'objective' measuring instrument is a fallacy, a common fallacy, but still one. By the

rules of QM an experiment must be completely described from start to finish, including any measuring instrument chosen, and different instruments will

give different results.

 

On the notion that color is solely an invention of the human mind. I used to believe that myself, for a very long time, but no more.

I was trying to understand how life first appeared, and began to evolve, and in the process I elicited this, I call it the 'Doctrine of Inherent Capability'.

 

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

 

I was very pleased when after Chas. Townes and Co. invented the Maser, masers were found in the molecular clouds of the galaxy.

A little Kipling:

For this is the Law of the Jungle, as old and as true as the sky, and the Wolf who keeps it may prosper, but the Wolf who breaks it must die.

I later worked at a place that attracted many inventors, and I noticed that is was the law of the jungle for inventors. The successful ones obeyed it,

they didn't try to exploit effects which didn't exist in Nature, the failed ones didn't, They would ask me to help them 'get a working model going', I

would avoid them.

 

I know that the human brain has a lot to do with how we interpret color, and of course every kind of 'data' we process. That's pretty much a given.

I have this computer, you know that I do, but I'm not grandma that just checks her email, I can do all kinds of stuff, make web pages in many colors,

make graphics, write programs that actually run, etc.. So I learn about 'color spaces' and how colors can be represented, and I can see that color has an

'algebra' let's just call it Color Algebra, and that it is similar to the algebra of Quantum Mechanics. But I have other reasons for thinking that ths Color

Algebra is part of the scheme of things, which I haven't begun to explain, I'm sure that if I did I would attract attention from people who know the

answers already and not about to learn anything new.

 

So I find that the World is deeper and more subtle than I had imagined.

 

The human eye is crap as an objective measurement tool because it automatically adapts colour balance and light intensity to some preset 'optimum', for example: the eye/brain interface will change the colour balance of an off-white lit white object so that you see a more balanced white with respect to red/blue bias...within limits.

I didn't even see you answer, so now I make a reply. When I was into photography I would explain to people how the eye adjusted for things,

and told them that the camera was 'stupid', that they had to make all those adjustment themselves before taking a picture. Of course cameras

are much 'smarter' now, so I agree with what you say. I haven't tried taking any pictures of this, but I have a camera and will do so. In fact I have

a dumb camera and a smart one, so I can try that too.

[Klaynos]

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your reply, and the manner in which you replied. To say that you are a gentleman and a scholar is no exaggeration.

 

The colors are not truly distinct bands. I've only seen the pictures of prisms working, my bad, must get an actual prism and see exactly how it works.

 

It's quite an easy experiment to conduct, you can even do it with sunlight and a bic biro, you will not get a good rainbow but on the edge of the bright reflection you can get a coloured band.

 

Yes cameras are clever, I've taken thousands of photos. I know that they work much like the human eye. But they still obey the laws of Nature, they can

be used as instruments, they just are a different instrument, so you have to include that in your description of an experiment.

 

You need to know the precise details of what has been applied though, from ISO, colour balance, any processing that is applied at all. Most digital cameras have filters for IR and other optics which will do things to different wavelengths of light (chromatic abberation). In both film and digital cameras the detector (whether the film or the sensor) will also have a very specific response to colour. Some frequencies will be detected more easily. If you use an identical camera with identical settings you could perhaps then use the image to find the CIE colour of the moon, but even then I would be very wary.

 

I'm going to say again that the notion that there is such a thing as an 'objective' measuring instrument is a fallacy, a common fallacy, but still one. By the

rules of QM an experiment must be completely described from start to finish, including any measuring instrument chosen, and different instruments will

give different results.

 

I think you are really misinterpreting and applying quantum mechanics here.

 

On the notion that color is solely an invention of the human mind. I used to believe that myself, for a very long time, but no more.

I was trying to understand how life first appeared, and began to evolve, and in the process I elicited this, I call it the 'Doctrine of Inherent Capability'.

 

Colour is a human concept that can be mapped to physical parameters, but even then the human perception of colour is subjective.

 

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

 

I was very pleased when after Chas. Townes and Co. invented the Maser, masers were found in the molecular clouds of the galaxy.

A little Kipling:

For this is the Law of the Jungle, as old and as true as the sky, and the Wolf who keeps it may prosper, but the Wolf who breaks it must die.

I later worked at a place that attracted many inventors, and I noticed that is was the law of the jungle for inventors. The successful ones obeyed it,

they didn't try to exploit effects which didn't exist in Nature, the failed ones didn't, They would ask me to help them 'get a working model going', I

would avoid them.

 

I think what you're trying to say is we are bound by the laws of physics, this is true.

 

I know that the human brain has a lot to do with how we interpret color, and of course every kind of 'data' we process. That's pretty much a given.

 

That is why we try to design experiments which do not involve humans in any way.

 

I have this computer, you know that I do, but I'm not grandma that just checks her email, I can do all kinds of stuff, make web pages in many colors,

make graphics, write programs that actually run, etc.. So I learn about 'color spaces' and how colors can be represented, and I can see that color has an

'algebra' let's just call it Color Algebra, and that it is similar to the algebra of Quantum Mechanics. But I have other reasons for thinking that ths Color

Algebra is part of the scheme of things, which I haven't begun to explain, I'm sure that if I did I would attract attention from people who know the

answers already and not about to learn anything new.

 

One of the interesting things with colour spaces is that there are several different ones, and there doesn't seem to be any really good justification for picking one over the other. They are just mappings of a subjective construct, it is not precise, although as long as you are consistent then comparisons between things can be made.

[Ronald Hyde]

 

I think you are really misinterpreting and applying quantum mechanics here.

 

I think what you're trying to say is we are bound by the laws of physics, this is true.

 

One of the interesting things with colour spaces is that there are several different ones, and there doesn't seem to be any really good justification for picking one over the other. They are just mappings of a subjective construct, it is not precise, although as long as you are consistent then comparisons between things can be made.

 

Again you've given a excellent reply, and I will reply to these parts.

 

Yes, I'm applying Quantum Mechanics here, all the photons the camera, eye, spectrograph or whatever receives are quanta.

 

Yes, it's really just a restatement that we are bound by the laws of Nature, but you would be amazed, maybe not, at how

many people do not understand this and apply it. So I just stated it in the clearest most concise way I could. When I worked

with several 'wordy' organizations, I was the guy they relied on to phrase things in the clearest way.

 

Yes, I know about the different color spaces and their representations.

 

And I'll say one more thing, not addressed specifically to you, but to anyone reading. Once upon a time there was this cocky German

fellow, and he taught us all an important lesson, but some do not seems to understand or appreciate it. That due to the irreducible

nature of the quantum, there is no such thing as 'objective' reality, any measurements of the real world involve choices about what

we are measuring and how, and what kind of results will be obtained. It's been eighty years since Werner Heisenberg taught us this

so it's time we all understand it.

[John Cuthber]

"It's been eighty years since Werner Heisenberg taught us this so it's time we all understand it. "

OK, you first.

Because the way you are talking about QM uncertainty has little or nothing to do with how it really works.

It's true that, for any given photon, it's path and so on are unpredictable. But we don't take a picture of the moon with a single photon. We use countless millions of them.

And the behaviour of the average of a large number of photons is predictable to a very great accuracy.

 

By the way, do you plan to comment on the fact that my observation contradicts your assertion.

That's nothing to do with QM- it just means you are not right.

[Ronald Hyde]

"It's been eighty years since Werner Heisenberg taught us this so it's time we all understand it. "

OK, you first.

Because the way you are talking about QM uncertainty has little or nothing to do with how it really works.

It's true that, for any given photon, it's path and so on are unpredictable. But we don't take a picture of the moon with a single photon. We use countless millions of them.

And the behaviour of the average of a large number of photons is predictable to a very great accuracy.

 

By the way, do you plan to comment on the fact that my observation contradicts your assertion.

That's nothing to do with QM- it just means you are not right.

 

What Heisenberg said, and others that followed him have added to, goes far beyond the simplified description of the 'uncertainty principle',

into the heart of our understanding of Nature and the measurement process. I haven't read Karl Popper's book on the measurement

process, my bad, I understand it's highly rated by physicists, you might want to check it out.

 

What I'm going to say next is very harsh, maybe it violates some kind of rule, but I feel obliged to say it, you leave me no choice.

You're lied to us twice, first by posting those images which did not fit the described conditions of the puzzle, then by admitting that you

used a false name. However you interpret it the second is something of a lie. So why should I believe that your observations were made

under the specified condition?

[John Cuthber]

LOL

I guess you think that String Junky and Moontanman are their real names.

 

There's a tacit assumption on this site that names are not always real.

My real name wouldn't actually fit in the space provided so you are calling me a liar because I didn't do something which isn't possible.

I'm sure others will make up their own minds about your decision to do that.

 

Also,you seem not to have understood what I posted and somehow you think that makes it a lie.

I pointed out that lots of people perceive the moon as being a number of colours.

They did, some of them said so.

I grant you I could have edited the list of images or copied the names that people had given the images but I didn't bother.

I thought that you would be able to work that out for yourself.

It seems I was wrong.

 

I also didn't specify the conditions under which the pictures were taken because (obviously) I simply don't know.

That's not dishonest- you can look at the evidence in more detail if you like. I just pointed you in the direction of lots of images of the moon.

 

So, you should believe me because I don't lie.

Edited September 29, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Ronald Hyde]

LOL

I guess you think that String Junky and Moontanman are their real names.

 

 

No, I don't, they are not using a 'real person' name, they're not trying to fool me. Zero points for that deduction.

 

The rest I will simply ignore.

[John Cuthber]

You seem to ignore reality a lot.

 

It's not a good way to do science.

 

You might want to look at this

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Edited September 29, 2012 by John Cuthber