The light is in our eyes...

origin said:
Are you seriously that confused.
Click to expand...
not at all.. a theoretical photon wave or particle can only be determined to exist by it's effect and never by direct observation... you should already know this...why don't you?

The photon has never been observed directly..it is only a theoretical model that attempts to accommodate the effects observed.

The birth of the contemporary theory of light.
'Ole Romer witnessed and catalogued many observations of timing inconsistencies/delays as a moon (Io) was eclipsed by Jupiter. (1676) Immersion then emergence was recorded. He then went on to formally suggest that he had proof that light traveled at a finite speed and was not instantaneous as was the belief at the time. ( all based on what events he observed and never based on seeing light travel directly)​
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
not at all.. a theoretical photon wave or particle can only be determined to exist by it's effect and never by direct observation... you should already know this...why don't you?

The photon has never been observed directly..it is only a theoretical model that attempts to accommodate the effects observed.

The birth of the contemporary theory of light.
'Ole Romer witnessed and catalogued many observations of timing inconsistencies/delays as a moon (Io) was eclipsed by Jupiter. (1676) Immersion then emergence was recorded. He then went on to formally suggest that he had proof that light traveled at a finite speed and was not instantaneous as was the belief at the time. ( all based on what events he observed and never based on seeing light travel directly)​
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with the op.
 
Quantum Quack said:
The birth of the contemporary theory of light.
'Ole Romer witnessed and catalogued many observations of timing inconsistencies/delays as a moon (Io) was eclipsed by Jupiter. (1676) Immersion then emergence was recorded. He then went on to formally suggest that he had proof that light traveled at a finite speed and was not instantaneous as was the belief at the time. ( all based on what events he observed and never based on seeing light travel directly)
Click to expand...
the irony about this is that 'Ole Romer was apparently imagining the whole thing... as his observations, eventually over centuries, lead to just that conclusion...

That the time discrepancies of the eclipsing of the moon Io by Jupiter was an instantaneous interpretation of delayed light effects being observed by Romer. (logic loop)
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
imaginary ones.. apparently....
:)
Click to expand...

In that case, to quote and mangle MythBusters

I reject your unreality and substitute reality

Seriously it appears you are visually challenged

both in those 2 funny round things set one either side of the non existent space just above your nose

and the non existent vacant space between the two audio receptors either side of your head

It might be time to pass your contribution over to your seeing eye parrot

Most visual challenged get dogs but

those who are also out of touch with reality get any available animal since

they are unable to even contemplate (full stop)

:)
 
Michael 345 said:
In that case, to quote and mangle MythBusters

I reject your unreality and substitute reality

Seriously it appears you are visually challenged

both in those 2 funny round things set one either side of the non existent space just above your nose

and the non existent vacant space between the two audio receptors either side of your head

It might be time to pass your contribution over to your seeing eye parrot

Most visual challenged get dogs but

those who are also out of touch with reality get any available animal since

they are unable to even contemplate (full stop)

:)
Click to expand...
Why do you feel your opinion (of me) is important let alone relevant?
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Why do you feel your opinion is important let alone relevant?
Click to expand...

I don't

I have no opinion on my opinion

Why do you think your unreality is more real than the real reality?

:)
Quantum Quack said:
and further how do I see (observe) the vacant distance between me and what I am observing?
Click to expand...
Quantum Quack said:

Question:
Would you say that the light of that source hits all photoreceptor cell (PRC) or cones on the observer's retina simultaneously? That is to say all PRC's are being effected simultaneously.
Click to expand...

NO because they are not

Never have been

Never will be

Quantum Quack said:
If I was to hold a small flat disc in front of the light globe the whole surface of the disc would be lit up. Why would I expect the retina to be any different to the disc?
Click to expand...

Focusing

Always has been

Always will be

Quantum Quack said:
"The light globe lights up the wall behind the observer yet does not light up the whole retina? Why?
Click to expand...

Focusing

Always has been

Always will be

Quantum Quack said:
does the eye also have "vacant space receptors?
Click to expand...

No but it appears some brains do
Quantum Quack said:
I guess I am trying to understand how multiple photon wave forms can enter the eye simultaneously and still maintain image integrity and how vacant space between objects both across ( perpendicular to line of sight) and towards the observer can still be observed.
Click to expand...

Vacant space is NOT

REPEAT NOT

observed

Never has been

Never will be

Explanation

None of the quadrillion billion billion photons

zipping around in your beloved vacant space

bounce off anything

to reach the retina

to react and

to cause them to be seen

How about that

We never see what never enters our eyes

Here a small scientific experiment you can perform

Shine a torch into your ear

Can you see the light from the torch?

What knowledge can you gain from that?

Enough already

Time for coffee and a granddaddy nap

:)
 
Quantum Quack said:
not at all.. a theoretical photon wave or particle can only be determined to exist by it's effect and never by direct observation... you should already know this...why don't you?

The photon has never been observed directly..it is only a theoretical model that attempts to accommodate the effects observed.
Click to expand...
You're equivocating. In the sense that we only detect effects, nothing has ever been observed. But that's just metaphysics.

But the fact is, we do detect photons. We know how they interact with our retinal photoreceptors, and we can detect them directly, and individually, with mechanical photo-receptors.

There's no "theory" here. We can directly detect things emitted from photon emitters. The thing that light up our detectors are called photons.
This is direct, empirical observation.

I am beginning to wonder if you make a distinction between theories that model things that we can't directly observe - and empirical observation.
 
Quantum Quack said:
are you saying that you can't tell the difference to playing a 3 d video game (even on a 4k screen) and turning the game off and taking a walk outside?
Click to expand...
Sure, that would be easy. But that would be because I am using senses (and methods of perception) other than my retinas.

Let's say you woke up one day and found you were paralyzed and could only open one eye. You looked out your window and saw nearby scenery and the sky. Could you tell if the scenery were real or computer generated?
 
DaveC426913 said:
You're equivocating. In the sense that we only detect effects, nothing has ever been observed. But that's just metaphysics.

But the fact is, we do detect photons. We know how they interact with our retinal photoreceptors, and we can detect them directly, and individually, with mechanical photo-receptors.

There's no "theory" here. We can directly detect things emitted from photon emitters. The thing that light up our detectors are called photons.
This is direct, empirical observation.

I am beginning to wonder if you make a distinction between theories that model things that we can't directly observe - and empirical observation.
Click to expand...

sorry but no, you can not observe photons... you need a machine or an organism to detect their effect only.

"Show me a photon" and I will bite my arse and eat my shorts too for that matter :)

Years ago I offered $500 USD for any one who can show a photon directly in a way that was independent of the detector. (stupid yes?) but of course that is what you are suggesting.
The offer stood for 6 years (2006-2012) and not once did it get challenged. Published at a web site I built just for the purpose "photonchallenge.com"
DaveC426913 said:
You're equivocating. In the sense that we only detect effects, nothing has ever been observed. But that's just metaphysics.
Click to expand...
except the observation of their effect perhaps....

A photon can only be observed by it's effect...
Perhaps you could read Richard Feynman's lectures one day...
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
I am beginning to wonder if you make a distinction between theories that model things that we can't directly observe - and empirical observation.
Click to expand...
you really need to be more precise in what you are saying (reasoning) at this level.
The empirical evidence is only of the effect generated by what has been modeled and theorized as being caused by photons... simple...
 
Michael 345 said:
Vacant space is NOT REPEAT NOT

observed
Click to expand...

bullsh*t of course it is observed... and it is the question of this thread as to how this is so...according to mainstream science.... not interested in any paranormal explanations either ( re: Isaac Newton regarding the Aether)
 
Quantum Quack said:
sorry but no, you can not observe photons...
Click to expand...
Of course you can. That's how you see.
"Show me a photon" and I will bite my arse and eat my shorts too for that matter :)
Click to expand...

WINGARDIUM LEVIOSA!

Did you just read that phrase? If so, you read it by observing the photons coming from your computer screen. (You may not be able to bite your own arse, but you can get started on those shorts . . . )
A photon can only be observed by it's effect...
Click to expand...
Of course. In this case, its effect upon your retina.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
sorry but no, you can not observe photons... you need a machine or an organism to detect their effect only.
Click to expand...
OK. let's see if this concept is diagnostic.

Name something in the natural world -be it particle, atom, or zebra - that can be detected by anything other than its effect.

Put another way, how is anything at all different than a photon in how it's interacted with.
 
Quantum Quack said:
you really need to be more precise in what you are saying (reasoning) at this level.
The empirical evidence is only of the effect generated by what has been modeled and theorized as being caused by photons... simple...
Click to expand...
No. There is no theory involved. We directly detect some thing - whether it be with our eyes or with a mechanical detector. With no model or theory to explain it, we actually detect that something is exciting our detectors (squishy or metallic).

Sure, we may have a theory about what these things are, and how they might propagate, but no model is required to demonstrate the excitement of our receptors. That is simply fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top