Something that seems impossible !
- Thread starter BelowPar
- Start date
- Status
Well , there isn't an uncertainty of the Cats health if the box is transparent. Schrodinger's uncertainty only works in an opaque box . The problem with colour is that science pratically claim colour does not exist without light . This of course is a misconception in my opinion based on , just because light can be manipulated to make colour .
There is noway paint under the surface or in a tube is not the colour all the way through , regardless that we can't see it . It is like a saying a Ruby isn't red or an Emarald green underground .
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,644
No, it isn't similar to Schrödinger's cat, which he used to mock the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. He used it is a thought experiment to illustrate that he did not buy fully into Bohr's interpretation (I don't either) of quantum mechanics.
Regarding the red paint, what "science" actually says, is that the pigment molecules in red paint reflect light in the range of about 620 to 700 nanometers (nm). Those wavelengths cause the sensation or perception of "redness" in our brains when they enter our eyes. Redness is just what we experience when we see that range of wavelengths of light and is not physical thing. Whether we see the molecules or not, they can still reflect light we call red, but when they are in the tube, our brains obviously cannot experience "redness".
Regarding the red paint, what "science" actually says, is that the pigment molecules in red paint reflect light in the range of about 620 to 700 nanometers (nm). Those wavelengths cause the sensation or perception of "redness" in our brains when they enter our eyes. Redness is just what we experience when we see that range of wavelengths of light and is not physical thing. Whether we see the molecules or not, they can still reflect light we call red, but when they are in the tube, our brains obviously cannot experience "redness".
Yes thats what they say but I don't buy this story . If you place something that is blue in shadow , it doesn't red shift . A fractorial difference of NM would shift the blue but it doesn't . To me that proves colour exist independent of light !
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,644
It is just a matter of semantics. The sensation of colour is just a reaction in our brains to those wavelengths. Of course the molecules reflect the same wavelengths whether there is someone to see them or not. In that sense the "colour" of an object does not change when it is in darkness.
Last edited:
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,644
All we can do is measure the wavelength very precisely. We cannot, however, be sure that we all experience those wavelengths the same way — we can only say that, since our physiologies are similar, that there is a certain probability that our colour sensations are similar.
JaneS
Active member
- Messages
- 60
But in darkness, they are not reflecting any light, so they are black?
Your question is a great question , who knows what it really looks like ! Well , who knows what it really feels like ?
We all have senses , we all can physically feel the shape of something . So from this we can conclude that what we feel is real . So then we extend this question , Is what we hear what we really hear ? Well, if what we hear wasn't real , we'd never be able to communicate verbally .So that is touch and hearing covered , we can conclude they are real .Smell , we can all agree xxxx stinks , so that is real .
We all can pick red apples out of a basket of mixed apple , so what we see must be real .
Evidence suggests colour exists independent of sight , the shadow I have mentioned already .The second piece of evidence is movement , things would Doppler Shift when moved at any velocity because the difference between blue and red is so miniscule . Natural sunlight is explained as white light , a mixture of frequencies but white is poor semantics because the light traversing through space is observed as clear and it is also transparent . Ligtht is never opaque traversing through space although sometimes it can be translucent such as a rainbow and blinding opaque such as lightning .
In example if I moved away from you , if I was reflecting wave-lengths , these wave-lengths would become stretched . If I was reflecting any sort of wave-lengths , a simple TV antenna or other device could detect this.
Science can emit a wave-length of red , blue etc and detect these signals , converting the signal into what you see , blue or red etc on a monitor . However , you can point the largest satellite dish in the world at a blue wall and you will detect nothing . The only reason for this , is that the blue of the wall is dependent to the wall and not a wave-length .
The scientists mistake of the past was to think because of the prism , that colour was light dependent . So in other words , a red apple in the dark is still red and the fact that no wave-length can be detected even in the light , shows the independent nature of colour .
Detect a wave-length from a blue wall by device then I will rest my argument
According to science , the wall should be emitting a wave-length of ~450nm ! I already know all you'd detect is ''white noise'' instead of a ~450nm constant ! The wall is not a ''satellite'' , it does not emit or reflect a carrier signal .
Last edited:
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,644
No, science does not say the wall looks blue because it is emitting a wavelength of 450nm.Detect a wave-length from a blue wall by device then I will rest my argument
Yes it does , it infers it !
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,644
It does not infer that at all. It says that the wall is reflecting the 450nm light waves.
reflecting , emitting , practically the same thing ! Either way , science can't detect a 450nm reflection as your own words. There is no carrier signal from an object to the mind !
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,644
Reflection and emission are totally different processes, not practically the same thing. My command of the English language is obviously inadequate to carry on, so I recommend that you read this article:
https://www.zmescience.com/feature-...articles/matter-and-energy/what-gives-colour/
https://www.zmescience.com/feature-...articles/matter-and-energy/what-gives-colour/
Providing an article that just explains present concensus doesn't offer evidence . Prove colours don't exist without light by providing evidence that science can detect this light reflected by an object !
I know science can't detect reflected light as any sort of wave-length . I know there is a high probability of colour existing independently because of the lack of evidence for reflected wave-lengths being detected .
So how do you pass that off with a link ?
Hermes2020
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,644
Your conviction that science cannot detect light as a wavelength is not correct. It was first done in the early 20th century, roughly a hundred years ago. I shall now politely withdraw from this discussion with the advice to read up on these topics. There are also good YouTube videos you could watch.
Here is a simple, modern way:
Here is a simple, modern way:
Last edited:
I recognise a copout when I see one , nice talking to you
Science cannot detect wave-lengths from objects , they can only detect wave-length transmissions . They use to transmit black and white data packages but then added spectral content as they got smarter in comms .
- Status
