koti

No thank you. I’m just fine with perceiving shifts in wavelenghts and I’ll stick to that.

I have used spectrophotometers in my work and I’m fairly versed on how they function. How did you come to a conclusion that I need to know the difference between a frequency spectrum analyzer and a radio eludes me. Its nice to know that you know things though, congratulations. Now if you would like a second try to comment on my above post you’re welcome to do so, maybe this time your comment will correlate with my statmement. This thread is not about color perception.

The only reason that the human eye can see the visible spectrum is because specific wavelengths of light stimulate the retina in the human eye. The rest is overthinking or nonsense.

The only truth that comes from your post is the fact that you’ve been on this forum for about 4 months and you still haven’t mastered the subtle art of quoting someone. Oh, and nobody is saying that the eyes interpret anything.

An orange does not radiate anything unless it spent time in proximity of something radio active. An orange reflects light which we perceive as ~630nm color we call „orange”

What?! You’re dragging in Kant and metaphysics into this thread now? What?

You are welcome to present your highschool level data on neuroscientific aproaches to color perception in a different thread. This is physics and different wavelenghts of light represent different colors like I pointed out in my post above - this actually is highschool level data.

To be fair, we don’t. Color perception is personal and everybody sees a different „orange” based on previous experiences and various other factors. But that does not contribute to the fact that we see light and that light has color.

Its not a question of belief, its well established fact that different wavelenghts of light represent different colors. ~700nm is deep red, ~630nm is orange, ~550nm is green and down at the bottom of the visual spectrum we have violet at ~400nm. Billions of colors can be distinguished by a healthy human within the visual spectrum, each of them having a different wavelenght.

I never made hundreds of millions so I consider myself unsuccesful. Goals and timeline depends on many factors, its all subjective to a particular business. Sure I failed and tried again, Im in the trying again phase now actually But starting is the main factor of success regardless of the type of business you want to run. Also your skin thickness is important, if you fail you need to know how to get up and start over.

Starting it.

The way I see how teaching your kids physics or any other area of science should be done is to implant curiosity in them by doing cool, interesting stuff with them. This way a kid will be striving to find things out on his/her own which gives far more profound results than teaching bare concepts. Do experiments with magnets, fire, dry ice, blowing stuff up, weights, buy a microscope, a telescope, the possibilities are endless. Steer the kid to be genuinly interested.

You’re right, I’m probably in a bubble which I created for myself and I’m not seeing the big picture. I’m glad you haven’t posted the study you mentioned, less torment. As for the russian propaganda it is also present here, there are various strings connecting our local political events to russian tampering. The evidence is always indirect and circumstantial but when following the money trail its very unlikely theres zero connection. It is fairly plausible that our current government got indirect, subtle but very relevant „help” 3 years ago.

Its even more bizzare...I initially wanted to pick the Heisenberg drivel too but decided to target the double slit faulty example presented in the article. I’m not sure why, maybe because I thought its closest to sanity. Article quantum superposition right back at ya I think it was Richard Feynman, one of the most renowned phycisists who expressed a duality in thinking about nature. He was equally comfortable with an ultimate model of reality and one that reveals endless layers uppon layers of things to discover. For me it is comfortable to think in these terms and not try to predetermine anything.

I wasn’t presenting any evidence, just a personal opinion.

I think we are going to see a shift from this in the next few years though. A lot of young people, especially kids start to show interest in checking validity of information and express reluctance to anything suspicious. I can’t give any data backed up by research on this, I am speaking about my own observations and I’m seeing a big shift in the last 2 years. I hope I’m right.

The network structure itself may not be a contributor but the sheer vastness of information available to anyone with a network enabled device I think is. I am pedantic about filtering out fake information but was fooled more than once myself. I remember everybody including myself being excited about the promise of the „Internet Global Village” in the early and mid 90’s. It seems now that the chase for clicks which generate revenue drives the fake information phenomena and leaves us with a void of fake information which is getting harder and harder to navigate. Its not only social media, everybody does. Facebook is „free” for its users but their market cap in May 2017 was 407 billion.

Hi airmax14 and welcome to the forum. Lets see, the article states: "Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two slits in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one slit or the other. But if you don't watch, it acts like a wave and can go through both slits at the same time. So how can a particle change its behavior depending on whether you watch it or not? The answer is simple, reality is a process that involves your consciousness" How would you imagine the two-slit experiment outcome when there were no consciousness present on earth say 2 billion years ago? Would you say that the laws of physics were different than due to the lack of any consciousness or would you rather lean towards that this is like Strange said pseudoscientific crap ?

We capitalize proper nouns, it would be silly to make spelling errors just to fulfill some kind of agenda.

Yep, I had a feeling that what I’d get for smoothing things out will be a dangling tongue Oh God, please don’t.

Its much easier to have a detailed explanation to work with when trying to take a stance to what somebody means. I don’t know if this comes as a surprise to you or not but I agree on everything you stated above. I can only add what I wrote 5 months ago somewhere in this thread that inner peace is subjective to factors. The gripe we previously had in this thread was due to generalizations which do not work with me too well. Plus one.

I acknowledge that hence I like to learn. That aside, I'm sure Einstein would smack studiot with a ruler in this thread.

I stuck to reading like I said I would 2 weeks ago and I’m confused like I predicted I would be. I don’t have a degree in applied maths like the cousin or studiot, would you @studiot explain this like you would to a 12 year old? After all Einstein said „If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t know it well enough”

I have to disagree on that one Bender. Maybe in some futuristic, utopian scenario your idea could have a chance of success but this is not Netflix were dealing with here, its real life. I’m missing my wisdom teeth so I’d say I’m well evolved and getting rid of a bunch of my emotions which make me who I am sounds like lobotomy to me. Maybe we are picturing different scenarios here and thats where the disagreement lies.