altaylar2000

25 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I tried to to draw logic conclusions from your descriptions. Let's try this instead: Please describe your personal model of light. What does your model predict better or different than the currently established theories?

There are two models of light: wave and particle, there is a hybrid.
But this is invariant to the issue under discussion. I have no personal "constructions" here, what is said about absorption and reflection in any model is the same.

21 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you elaborate?

I don't know where space and mirror have to do with it. Light is reflected by all objects, no mirror is needed, and it spreads in space, space has nothing to do with it

3 minutes ago, Implications said:

isn't just some theoretical philosophy adopted by biologists

>tangible benefits

My argument is that what is morally,ethical, whatyacallit, true, must have tangible benefits, not be mere philosophy.

It seems to me we could start with fast-breeding and common animals, particularly when not native.

Making things worse must be considered, but we can be conservationists purely becuase we do have information about how ecosystemns work. I believe the notion that ecosystems are so mysterious is a part of this "beautiful glorious whole" narrative. It's silly to imply any problem is just too complicated and therefore procrastinate serious investigation. If conservation is purely useful to humans then this is bigoted to animals.

Benefit is not needed, truth is needed. Everyone has their own benefit, the villain has it too

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

No dust (or “and so on”) in a vacuum system. 

There is no real vacuum system

For me there is only one ethical problem: the problem of the existence of a predator.
The predator must be destroyed in its animal or human manifestation: a wolf, a parasite, a swindler. The source of evil on earth is the predator. Eating meat is immoral. The destruction of someone else's life is immoral.
The problem with modern society is that these are cowards who do not try to stop the villain.

There is no balance between good and evil. For example, the destruction of wolves will not lead to overpopulation of herbivores, because the food resource is limited, and fertility will decline. This is just myth designed for survive of evil

The position of the pacifist is vicious as well as the ideology of Jains, Buddhists and Christians, passivity is serve to villain

Good moral is moral of aryans: just kill villian

Even if there is some kind of balance philosophically, then in reality it will not exist anyway. Once in Old Europe, cannibals and slave owners lived, they caught people and broke their legs so that they would not run away, they ate them and forced them to work for wear, there they find traces of trepanned skulls on living people, оnce upon a time people were brutally killed to extract adrenochrome. and so on. And what is this "philosophy" worth if you saw how your child is savagely killed?

1 minute ago, swansont said:

You can see a direct source in an otherwise dark room.

this is just reflection from dust and so on

Just now, swansont said:

Which has nothing to do with anatomy 

It has. He believed that the eye is designed so that receptors respond to particles.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Surely the point about octaves is that if you double the frequency you get something that resonates with the fundamental. And if you double it again, the same occurs. So doubling has a real significance, both from the point of view of physics and from the point of view of the hearer. In fact, when you play a certain pitch on any instrument, you also excite a whole series of so-called "overtones" at the same time, which are frequency multiples of 2, 4, 8 etc above the fundamental. 

You also get a sort of resonance at the fifth of the scale. It sounds, well, harmonious. Whereas if you play 2 pitches that are only a tone, or semitone, apart, you get no resonance but a harsh sounding beat frequency as the two pitches go in and out of phase with one another.

So I do not think it is just a matter of convention. Doubling the frequency has a physical significance that the ear recognises.  

Thanks, this is the first answer on the merits of the question

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you see an orange-red neon sign, you are seeing photons directly from the source.

This has already been discussed. If this were so, we would see the light directly in front of us, that is, we would not see anything other than a white background. I believe that the light source reflects reflected light, so we see it.

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

So does that mean that you claim that for an observer in the vacuum of space the sky looks completely black? The sun and stars are only visible if the light is reflected off a mirror?

No, it doesn't mean. It has nothing to do with it

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

You seem to use some non standard definition of "reflected"?

no, this is the standard. So far, no one has canceled the fact that light is absorbed and reflected, and we believe in Newton or a wave, all the same it all comes down to this

We see the color of objects due to the fact that the object reflects part of the spectrum, and the colors are different because different objects absorb and reflect the full spectrum in different ways

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t think Newtonian anatomy is a thing, but...

What You described is exactly Newton's theory of vision

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

How would you see a photon if it hasn’t interacted with your eye? (If they don’t have to interact with your eye, why does closing your eyelids do anything?)

I have no idea

_____

What I mean. Let's forget about the question of whether light is particles, we will just talk about light, abstracting from what it is.

If I see a green table, it's because it reflects the green part of the spectrum, roughly speaking. So when I see objects I only see reflected light

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You can only see photons that strike your eye. Not before, and not if they go somewhere else.

Actually, I do not believe in Newtonian anatomy, but if I believed in flying photons, I would ask the same thing: why do we not see them when they fly, but we see when they are reflected

45 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Have you ever looked at a fire, a computer screen or stars? Do you see them because of reflection of light?

yes, I think it's reflection of reflected light

Otherwise we would see the light itself in the air and so on

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Reflected light is...light.

The fact of the matter is that it's just light. Then why don't we see it before it is reflected

I am now listening to one woman who is known only via youtube, although she does everything efficiently and professionally

By the way, there is also a paradox in the perception of light. If our receptors perceived light, then we would see the light itself, and we only see its reflection from objects.

By the way, there is a "hypothesis" that nature obeys the fibonacci progression, but I have never seen any real proof of this. The very fact that some things can be described by the Fibonacci series does not prove anything.

Just now, joigus said:

Reading what I said could be helpful.

But that's not what I was talking about. Yes, colors, shapes and much more are recognized, but there is no strict progression like in the music system

if you follow this logic, nature has created auditory receptors by order of arithmetic

the color system can also be described like that?

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Do you think it's a coincidence that green --the frequency for which the human eye is most sensitive to-- is at the centre? The different "colours" have more to do with how cellular receptors get excited when they catch different frequencies. In the case of sound, we have a central value (for tuning instruments it's A major, if I'm not mistaken). This is a good central value, probably because most people can hear it distinctly. And then the other notes are placed where they are because their frequencies are integer multiples or fractions (base two) of that central reference "A".

I do not see such proportions in the visible spectrum as in the music system. it's random

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

You either missed my point entirely or are going off in tangents.

You want to say that people hear notes in the same way they perceive different colors, and if, for example, I hear a melody that I like, this does not mean that I hear exactly what the author of this melody hears, who knows how to write it in the language of notes?

and so coincidentally that this perception is a multiple of 2 in mathematical terms?

Just now, joigus said:

Do colours exist? Can you really say somebody is red-faced?  

You want to say that everyone who does not know the name of musical notes is color blind?
To distinguish colors, you do not need to know what they are called.
Why then these talks about "ear for music"?

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

t is true that if you multiply by something other than two you won't get the same answer as when you multiply by two, but I should think this is not surprising to anyone who understands math.

But the notes are convention. We choose what note is associated with what frequency. Being able to distinguish between different frequencies doesn't depend on how we label them.

if there are people who do not recognize the frequencies, then they cannot hear the melody

Just now, dimreepr said:

So, just another conspiracy theory...

No conspiracy, that's a fact. And this is a dirty imperial policy of centralization

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not that "descended from" is any more meaningful, what's your point?

I think that the spirit of the people comes from its origin and is overwritten by the imposed culture and false history, for the sake of imperial interests. I do not like, in particular, when they talk about the "Germanic people", especially considering that modern Germany has a starting point in the Austro-Prussian war, was created on the ruins of Austria Hungary in fact at the end of the 19th century, and Germany was at the mouth of the Rhine. Any nonsense about "German blondes" and so on is imposed. It is necessary to distinguish between the concept of nation and nationality. Nowadays it is customary to mix it

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

t won't necessarily be discharged to earth - you can shock yourself on a doorknob (which I regularly do in winter when stripping off a layer of the sticky mats in my lab; lots if static electricity generated)

But if there is a path to ground such as what JC mentioned, that's the usual path the discharge takes, because it is intentionally made to be a low resistance path when wiring up electrical power systems

The earth has different potentials in different places. Conductors drawn from different places of the earth can give a discharge, for this reason realized potential equalization systems.

It does not matter at all where the body is discharged, to the ground or not, so that the discharge needs a charge, the potential difference at the poles of the "capacitor"

And in fact, in most electrical systems, the main protective conductor is not the connection to earth, but the connection to the neutral of the transformer or generator. Connection to earth sometimes not used at all

And ground is not a low resistance path. As a rule, this path has more resistance than neutral, and in addition, this resistance is not stable (depending on the weather)