Children are harmed when raised into religion. (Page 4) chayi: Photons are a word for what i meant, the reflection of light goes through the atoms you call photons  Corwin: We only see in the visible spectrum, Chayi... our eyes only see "light"... nothing else. We may see the Sun the second it rises, but that light is 8 minutes old... it took 8 minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun. And photons are NOT atoms... they are photons. When light "reflects" it is the photons reflecting off of atoms of solid matter. The light we see directly from the Sun hasn't "reflected" off of anything - those photons traveled here directly through empty space. When you look at your reflection in the mirror, you are seeing the photons that have reflected off of your face, then reflected off of the mirror back into your eyes. chayi: No, the eyes can see everything through light, you can see non-lightning objects through light, non-lightning objects don't reflect Corwin: If something isn't producing light or reflecting light from another source, then YOU CAN'T SEE IT... period. Our eyes cannot see "everything", only light in the visible wavelength, which consists of photons that are collected in the photo-receptive cells of our retinas. They're called "photo-receptors" because the collect "photons", or "particles of light". chayi: No, you can see a dark black room when you are standing outside in light, you can see the darkness of the room, that does not reflect nothing to your eyes Corwin: Darkness is the absence of light... seeing darkness as akin to seeing "nothing"... if you can still see "something" within a darkened room it's because it's not completely dark. If you were placed in a completely dark room, you would see nothing but blackness... i.e. an absence of photons. (Edited by Corwin) chayi: No, seeing the color black of the darkness is a power of vision, anyone blind does not see any color including black Corwin: Black is not a colour... not within the context of light. Black is only considered a "colour" when applying paint to canvas. You can look this up - it's a common fact. I learned this in school as a child. The fact that you are unable to understand even the most basic principles of Physics... things that can be explained to a small child... is merely proving the point Ork was making in his original post. Your religious upbringing as a child has damaged you... damaged your brain's ability to learn or comprehend. chayi: My wisdom is far deeper than what you teached limited brain knows, all your knowledge is simple to understand, but you are lacking the true knowledge chayi: Black is a color, anyone blind does not have any vision to his eyes, even black, he doesnt have a blackness in his eyes, he has no vision at all Got it ?? i hope so Corwin: So... if a person is born deaf, are they unable to experience silence? I'm pretty sure it could be explained to them... just as a person born blind could possibly get an idea of what colours (even blackness) might be like if explained to them in the right way. But people aren't born ignorant... people are born without knowledge - they are taught to be ignorant. And sadly, once this ignorance becomes a willful force which dictates their thinking, you can't explain ANYTHING to them... at least nothing that they wish to ignore. Ignorance --- root word "ignore". chayi: No, you cannot explain anyone born blind, what color is, and anyone born deaf, does not know what silence is, because silence is only "recognized" by voice Corwin: That's actually an understatement, Dawn... this is more like trying to make a $20US bill out of 50 pesos, and a shirt button and a ball of lint I dug out of my pocket.  CoIin: @ - "light consists of particles called photons... photons that travel at a fixed speed. This is not just some theory, it is proven." Scientists previously told us that light consists of "corpuscles". Was that just a theory or was that proven? Later they told us, in various versions, that light was a wave of one kind or another. Was that just a theory or was that proven? They told us that these waves were propagated through a medium known as the luminiferous ether. J. C. Maxwell went so far as to claim the ether was the most highly confirmed entity in all science. Now we're told it's entirely illusory. Was the ether proven? Or was it just a theory? Can you please explain the distinction you evidently draw between that which is a theory and that which has been proven. Thanks. (Edited by CoIin) Corwin: Give it a rest Colin... do you really need to keep beating on that dead horse in every forum you can find? You're getting as bad as Lori. Colin's Scientific Method from topic that way ---------> And before you accuse me of my previous discussion with Chayi as being just as off-topic, I would argue that it was proving Ork's point he made in the original post rather nicely... I think Ork would agree. (Edited by Corwin) CoIin: You drew the distinction. Please support it. Or is it ok to just make up crap like the religious nuts?  Corwin:  Okay... here ya go then.... when you have a theory about something, but have no proof of it... then it is only a theory. Once you have proven it, then it's proven and not just a theory anymore.  Or wait... or are you suggesting that the proof of the existence of the photon or the speed of light is "crap I made up"?? Seriously? You've been drinking again, haven't you? Now, if you are asking me to either explain the gist of, or provide links to the specific experiments that were performed that proved the existence of the photon, or the experiments that proved that the speed of light is a constant... well... you can look that up yourself. I'm not posting a 1000 word essay here in Ork's forum thread to educate you in things that if you had even the slightest interest in actual Science you would already know. CoIin: You didn't answer my question. How do we know when a theory has been proven? Oh, and @ "Once you have proven it, then it's proven and not just a theory anymore." Um, what is it now then?  CoIin: Options 1. Retract silly claim 2. Make like a religious nut and defend silly claim no matter the cost, i.e. making oneself look very silly indeed Corwin: I'm not responding because you're crapping on Ork's thread, and I want no part of it. I'd be glad to continue this conversation in PM, or on a more appropriate thread dedicated to the topic of scientific proof. CoIin: Quite right too, old bean. Chayi would be proud of you. The Religious Nut/Science Nut Code of Conduct:- Whenever one makes a ridiculous claim (after mercilessly taunting some other dude for making ridiculous claims), and one is taken to task and asked to support his own ridiculous claims, and is, of course, unable to do so, one should:- 1. Insult the challenger. After all, we can't have people going around demanding that *I* be held accountable for my ridiculous claims. Use any personal info about the challenger available to you.( "You've been drinking again, haven't you?" ). Perhaps if you smear the man enough, attention will be diverted from his arguments. 2. Try backpedalling. Try to make a ridiculous distinction appear slightly less ridiculous. (even though you'll look very silly). Try changing the subject. Try red herrings. Try anything. 3. Run for the hills. Of course you can't put it in so many words. Explain that you're above this silliness. Accuse the other dude of thread-crapping right after a lengthy session of one's own sanctimonious irrelevance. Never consider admitting you were wrong. After all, that requires a certain integrity. (Edited by CoIin) | Religion Chat Room 33 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
More than a theory