The light is in our eyes...

DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...
so we are saying the same thing but in a different way... I can go with that.. I am just surprised you can't see it ( our agreement) as such...

The effect of light is indeed a fact....but only the effect, the rest is qualified speculation ( theoretics )
 
Quantum Quack said:
so we are saying the same thing but in a different way... I can go with that.. I am just surprised you can't see it ( our agreement) as such...

The effect of light is indeed a fact....but only the effect, the rest is qualified speculation ( theoretics )
Click to expand...
If you want to propose your own theory for how photons work, there's a forum for that.

But it doesn't have any bearing on the discussion at-hand.
Light bounces off objects at a distance, enters our eye and excites our retina. Base on where it impinges, our brain interprets what we see as a 3-D image, using a very laege helping of clues it has picked up about the world around it.

This we know. Regardless of the how the photons might be going about their business internally, we do know that they tend to reflect off objects and travel in straight lines into our eye, through the various optical refractors, to excite the receptors in our eye.

So I'm still not sure what exactly you're arguing against.

I do find it telling that, in at least the six years you've been working on this, you are still having what appears to be a great deal of difficulty articulating your ideas. Surely that should have been plenty of time to separate the wheat from the chaff of your thoughts
 
Please, address these questions:
DaveC426913 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
DaveC426913 said:
If you want to propose your own theory for how photons work, there's a forum for that.
Click to expand...
Really! You dare say!

But it doesn't have any bearing on the discussion at-hand.
Click to expand...
Of course not. So why mention it?
Light bounces off objects at a distance, enters our eye and excites our retina.
Click to expand...
Except that photons do not bounce.
Base on where it impinges, our brain interprets what we see as a 3-D image, using a very laege helping of clues it has picked up about the world around it.
Click to expand...
A task that is so massive, a significant time lag should be present. It's not so go figure.

This we know. Regardless of the how the photons might be going about their business internally, we do know that they tend to reflect off objects and travel in straight lines into our eye, through the various optical refractors, to excite the receptors in our eye.
Click to expand...
Unless you consider the photon in wave form, where outward from source would be more appropriate.


I do find it telling that, in at least the six years you've been working on this, you are still having what appears to be a great deal of difficulty articulating your ideas. Surely that should have been plenty of time to separate the wheat from the chaff of your thoughts
Click to expand...
You are not too good at math are you. This year is 2017 yes..makes at least 11 years not 6
 
There are other aspects of this issue yet to be put on the table.
For example:
You know that the photon only exists if it indeed exists at all at t=0 on the Hyper surface of the Present and in itself has zero rest duration. ( Minkowski/Einstein space time)
That any effect experienced is temporal and in fact a vivid memory of the moment of impact.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Not much point if you don't read what is written. How is it relevant any how?
Click to expand...
So no then. You haven't addressed them.
Why not?

You are making a claim that photons can't be directly detected, only by their effects.
Is that not true for everything else in the universe?
If it is true for everything else, then it is does not support any argument - except perhaps a metaphysical one about how we can know anything at all.
Which still wouldn't support your claim that photons are not what they seem - any more than anything else in the universe is not what it seems.

I'm actually one of the few people who is making an attempt to actually discuss your ideas and assertions. You seem hostile to the attempt.
Why did you start this thread if you didn't want to discuss it?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Yep. Out of context. You are referring to the processing of an already created illusion and not the creation of that illusion to begin with
Click to expand...
I'm referring to whatever you are referring to. Have you researched it?

You keep saying there should be a delay, And you keep saying there isn't. What have you done to confirm those expectations?
 
Your making a CLAIM
Quantum Quack said:
of course it is observed.
Click to expand...
but you don't know how

I make a claim it is NOT observed since
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

Then I found this

Quantum Quack said:
Years ago I offered $500 USD for any one who can show a photon directly in a way that was independent
of the detector

Nice one

show
\ˈshō\
  • : to cause or allow (something) to be seen
  • : to give information that proves (something)
a photon directly in a way that was independent
of the detector

de·tect
\di-ˈtekt, dē-\
  • : to discover or notice the presence of (something that is hidden or hard to see, hear, taste, etc.)
Click to expand...

In other words

Show me a photon but you are not allowed to show it

:)
 
DaveC426913 said:
So no then. You haven't addressed them.
Why not?
Click to expand...
Did..

You are making a claim that photons can't be directly detected, only by their effects.
Click to expand...

Certainly did in response to the claim that photos can be observed directly by another poster.
Is that not true for everything else in the universe?
Click to expand...
Yep but what relevance does it have to the validity of the effect of light being all we can observe and not the photons directly?

If it is true for everything else, then it is does not support any argument - except perhaps a metaphysical one about how we can know anything at all.
Click to expand...
Yet by your own reckoning we are in fact discussing the metaphysical reconstruction of an entire universe. Certainly an "interpretation" as you claim it to be is not physics yes? It is pure metaphysics according to you and mainstream science.
Which still wouldn't support your claim that photons are not what they seem - any more than anything else in the universe is not what it seems.
Click to expand...
Oh..how do I claim photons to be to justify your complaint?

I'm actually one of the few people who is making an attempt to actually discuss your ideas and assertions. You seem hostile to the attempt.
Why did you start this thread if you didn't want to discuss it?
Click to expand...
Just because a posters solution is inadequate doesn't make the respondent wrong. One poster said "evolution" was the solution and then got upset because his solution was not in context. Not my bad if a poster can't maintain context is it. You have posted no actual retort to my retort. This is what discussion is about. It is not just about posting a solution expecting it to be right first time with out discussion.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Indeed. Let's move on to another completely tangential issue without bothering to resolve any of the outstanding claims raised.
Click to expand...
Well the level of discussion is such it is to be expected. With Michael and his bouncing photons and other total nonsense what hope have we got?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Did..n.
Click to expand...
Post# please.



Quantum Quack said:
Yep but what relevance does it have to the validity of the effect of light being all we can observe and not the photons directly?
Click to expand...
So you grant we can observe light. Light is photons.

Quantum Quack said:
Yet by your own reckoning we are in fact discussing the metaphysical reconstruction of an entire universe.
Click to expand...
Definitely not by my my reckoning, no.

Quantum Quack said:
Certainly an "interpretation" as you claim it to be is not physics yes? It is pure metaphysics according to you and mainstream science.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are invoking metaphysical arguments as a poor defense against real physics questions. Which is why they're not valid.

Quantum Quack said:
It is not just about posting a solution expecting it to be right first time with out discussion.
Click to expand...
You've been at it 6 - sorry - 11 years.

And you still haven't availed yourself of the facts your argument hinges upon - the delays in processing.

There's no science here. Just baseless speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top