Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosI know, I'm just being a big fat semantic stickler. My true opinion on this is that if something is truly beyond detection, then it doesn't exist. However, to answer the original thread question of how to differentiate between the two, something nonexistent, by definition, doesn't exist, while something undetectable may or may not exist. That's the difference and it's kind of a dumb question.
It's pretty clear that FOTN means things that can't be detected (though he has said stranger things in the past).
Originally posted by inimalist
air doesn't reflect photons of light, but is perceptible through smell, taste and touch, and sound if the wind is strong enough
We could take the approach as air being things like blue and other things due to Rayleigh Scattering...which is just the air molecules emitting absorbed photonic energy at the "blue" wavelength more often than the other wave lengths. That's not reflecting, though, so I do not want you to think I'm correcting you. This is similar to how spectral analysis works...but, again, it is not reflection but emission.
So is that really seeing air? I don't know. Different densities can be seen as they bend the light that passes through it. Does that count?
Originally posted by dadudemon
We could take the approach as air being things like blue and other things due to Rayleigh Scattering...which is just the air molecules emitting absorbed photonic energy at the "blue" wavelength more often than the other wave lengths. That's not reflecting, though, so I do not want you to think I'm correcting you. This is similar to how spectral analysis works...but, again, it is not reflection but emission.So is that really seeing air? I don't know. Different densities can be seen as they bend the light that passes through it. Does that count?
I'm sorry, let me reword:
the air doesn't reflect light in a way that our visual system is able to perceive, ie: we don't see air because our visual system can't
I suppose I shouldn't talk about light in that way, as I have no idea at all
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, let me reword:the air doesn't reflect light in a way that our visual system is able to perceive, ie: we don't see air because our visual system can't
I suppose I shouldn't talk about light in that way, as I have no idea at all
Your original statement was correct: it doesn't reflect. I still think you're right. But I was injecting the possibility that we could consider it another way, visually.
And I do not know what you mean about not knowing: you know more about this visual perception stuff than most. You used to research it. Or am I mistaken what your visual research entailed?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your original statement was correct: it doesn't reflect. I still think you're right. But I was injecting the possibility that we could consider it another way, visually.And I do not know what you mean about not knowing: you know more about this visual perception stuff than most. You used to research it. Or am I mistaken what your visual research entailed?
no, for sure, but I have no knowledge about what does or doesn't reflect light
yes, though, that is exactly what I used to study, and actually what I still do study (though in a functional rather than basic perceptual setting)
Originally posted by inimalist
no, for sure, but I have no knowledge about what does or doesn't reflect light
It's your favorite subject: quantum physics. Basically, it is photons being emitted by electrons as they change their principle quantum number (atomic orbitals). Higher energy states or lower energy states in their orbitals will absorb or emit photons.
Originally posted by inimalist
yes, though, that is exactly what I used to study, and actually what I still do study (though in a functional rather than basic perceptual setting)
Cool beans. No wonder you were going on about ganglia, a while back.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's your favorite subject: quantum physics. Basically, it is photons being emitted by electrons as they change their principle quantum number (atomic orbitals). Higher energy states or lower energy states in their orbitals will absorb or emit photons.
no, thats interesting, I wont pretend I really understand... I do know about electrons and all, but I really don't know how to conceptualize gaining or losing charges or whatever.... sigh
Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool beans. No wonder you were going on about ganglia, a while back.
you will never understand how much I love the basal ganglia...
that and the lateral geniculate nucleus...
lolz