swansont

Water vapor and liquid water have some strong absorption features of increasing strength as you move into the NIR and IR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water

! Moderator Note Is there a question here? Or are you just here to broadcast your imperfect understanding? (i.e. studiot was not wrong in their assessment)

There are two separate issues. Does the product contain what is claimed (which was your question, AFAICT), and is the treatment safe and effective. The FDA would be involved with the second issue if this were a drug. Most supplements are not regulated in the US as drugs, but probably would be in terms of food safety.

It's up to you to show this is true (which it isn't)

The fact that you suffer certain side-effects does not mean that other people experience the same side-effects.

Your argument means you claim to see the sun because it reflects off of dust in space, and aren't getting light directly from it.

! Moderator Note You broke the first rule of the religion and philosophy forum Philosophy/religion forum rules: 1. Never make it personal a. Disagreements about beliefs should never be in the form of attacks on the believers. If you want to try again without the provocation, you can open a new thread.

Not at all. You claimed something about seeing things because light reflects off of "dust and so on" but there would much less of this in any vacuum, and yet we can see light sources just fine, with no dimming. It doesn't depend on any refection, because if it did, it would be harder to see as we improved the vacuum. (plus the problem of geometry and forming an image if the light were coming from multiple directions) You're just making stuff up, which is one reason you can't support it rigorously (and consequently have to make straw man arguments), and it's gotten very tiresome.

Where did anyone claim a pure vacuum exists?

Some of us have object permanence, and realize that things still exist even when we aren't able to see/detect them.

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

Oh, come on. Don’t be obtuse. Nobody has claimed all light comes from direct sources, or all light comes from reflection. You can see a direct source in an otherwise dark room.

Which has nothing to do with anatomy

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

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

It could just the spammer lacks enough imagination to vary the scam any more than that. A simple way to exit the thread without further discussion.

Another description of alternative science is “already debunked/discredited science” Speculations is for non-mainstream science discussion, but that’s as far as we go. No WAGs.

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

Reflected light is...light.

Same with sound. Nature didn’t label the notes, humans did. So what? But they exist. 400 nm and 800 nm are a factor of two in wavelength and frequency, and there are methods where you can take two 800 nm photons and make a 400 nm photon. It’s not at all random. It’s just that we came up with musical instruments centuries before we came up with lasers and nonlinear crystals.

Depends on what you mean by “recognize the frequencies” I can’t tell you what frequency a particular sound is, but I can hear the melody.

It 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.

! Moderator Note Don't hijack threads to bring up your pet theories. (smoking as an evolutionary maneuver, for example)

! Moderator Note "Let's do an experiment and it shows I'm right" is not a prediction or something that can falsify an hypothesis. Closed. Don't bring this up again, in any thread

There's a limit to what any country can do when it involves actions inside of some other nation. Plus you had a recent administration that apparently liked authoritarian actions abroad and applauded human rights violations instead of working to eliminate them.