The mysterious Blue Sensitive Eye Cones

Optidud,
Well, that stuff is kind of like UFO's with me.....
land one in my backyard in broad daylight with me
and 10 other witnesses with video camera's running,
have them stay here for a couple of weeks to meet
and eat with the family to rest up, after doing a 20+ year trip in
space....and then I'll believe it. But until then......forget it.

And I understand the laws and situations in quantum mechanics
are sometimes weird and different...however, those same strange laws
are giving some with their 'way-out' theories "an out" to hide
behind, too....simply cloak your exotic way out metaphysics theory,
and call it part of the quantum mechanics concept,
and shield it behind the.......quantum uncertainty principles.....then
no one can prove you wrong! YEAH, that's the ticket! NOW I see why you
reversed the "million dollar bet" to 'prove it wrong' rather than
someone proving it right, as it should be in science!
That's the ticket!! Throw in some quantums! (I'm surprised Min or Kagle
hasn't thought of doing that!) Neat trick!! Very Clever!! A high IQ idea!
I give credit to your clever, insidious idea!!
But still a bunch of BS. IMHO.
Tom W.

On 17 Jul 2003 04:19:16 -0700, (optidud) wrote:

That's not entirely accurate. In higher physics, the mere act of
observing an event changes the event. In light analogy, you can't
tell the position of light because its either particle or wave.
Something like that. So in quantum science, it's not 10 out of 10
compare to nuts and bolts physical science.

You completely misunderstand quantum mechanics. In the case of a single
particle, we can't _simultaneously_ determine an exact position and momentum.
These parameters are described by probabilities, so there is a little spread
possible. But we know both these values to a high certainty within a very small
range. Even with a perfect measurement of momentum, we know _almost_ exactly
where the particle is. And this is just for single particles. Put a few together
and quantum behavior is washed out by averages.


The subatomic particles have different rules. Now since human is a
biological/chemical machine with corresponding quantum counterparts
in the subatomic world...

Exactly... subatomic particles have different rules. People, and all other
macroscopic systems do not behave like quantum systems. There are no
"counterparts in the subatomic world."

with consciousness acting as carrier wave...

huh?

then
a human being is, for all intent and purposes, a macrocosmic biological
quantum machine.

This does not follow.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On 17 Jul 2003 14:56:22 -0700, (optidud) wrote:

http://www.vxm.com/21R.43.html

The key to understanding the exact science of ESP lies in
the study of the Human Energy Field. The link above summarizes it.

The link below gives theories of why it happened (like Field Theory,
Relativistic Theory, Quantum Theory, Holographic Theory, Superluminal
Theory) as well as gives experimental proof.

Believe what you want, but don't try to use relativity, quantum mechanics,
holography, EM theory, etc to justify it. These subjects are pretty well
understood, and are completely unrelated to the non-scientific beliefs expounded
in the link you provide. Misusing science in this way has a name: pseudoscience,
and using it further reduces the credibility of a set of beliefs that are
already so starved for credibility that they can't afford the loss.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 17 Jul 2003 14:56:22 -0700, (optidud) wrote:

http://www.vxm.com/21R.43.html

The key to understanding the exact science of ESP lies in
the study of the Human Energy Field. The link above summarizes it.

The link below gives theories of why it happened (like Field Theory,
Relativistic Theory, Quantum Theory, Holographic Theory, Superluminal
Theory) as well as gives experimental proof.

Believe what you want, but don't try to use relativity, quantum
mechanics,
holography, EM theory, etc to justify it. These subjects are pretty well
understood, and are completely unrelated to the non-scientific beliefs
expounded
in the link you provide. Misusing science in this way has a name:
pseudoscience,
and using it further reduces the credibility of a set of beliefs that
are
already so starved for credibility that they can't afford the loss.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
************************************************** *******
The guy's moniker is fitting, and he's a troll.

At some point, I'd hope folks would quit feeding it.

Jan

The guy's moniker is fitting, and he's a troll.

At some point, I'd hope folks would quit feeding it.

Jan

I think Jan is right, this guy is a troll and we should let go of him. I doubt
he believes the stuff he has been posting, I hope he has more sense than that.

But either way, that stuff is off topic and best left for the appropriate
newsgroups.

Time to remember the Pledge.

jon

Very Good points, Jan (and Chris...)
I know I'm thru feeding it.
Tom W

That's right, this is off topic. Sorry for getting this far. For
now. Let's just believe that humans ultimate limit of sight (that
is, physical) is near ultraviolet for some sensitive people. About
Quantum vision, it is a double edge sword. It can intrude on people
privacy. For the unprepared, it can also caused madness & shock by
opening up to a wider world not commonly experienced. I've stayed
away from those things for a couple of years now, after not able to
handle quantum or electromagnetic entities (that is, life doesn't just
exist in the biological order but some also evolve in pure
electromagnetic and higher frequencies domain).

Well. For many of us. Looking up the sky is enough to make us enjoy for
one lifetime. And the purpose of life is enjoy and be happy.
Now let me prepare for the Mars madness. I'm rushing to get some
serious over 10" aperture scopes (or maybe C9.25" may do?).

This thread ends here.

Clear skies,

optidud

(Jon Isaacs) wrote in message ...
The guy's moniker is fitting, and he's a troll.

At some point, I'd hope folks would quit feeding it.

Jan

I think Jan is right, this guy is a troll and we should let go of him. I doubt
he believes the stuff he has been posting, I hope he has more sense than that.

But either way, that stuff is off topic and best left for the appropriate
newsgroups.

Time to remember the Pledge.

jon

"John Steinberg" wrote

Jon Isaacs wrote:

Time to remember the Pledge.

Desk could use a light dusting, eh Jon?

Hey, kids, don't be using Pledge on your optics, unless you're as old
as H. Lester, in which case your optics could well be made of wood.

I woodn't talk, ya young fart, you! You're talkin' about my favorite
middle-class blues musician, "Blind Lemon Pledge."

Hey, kids, don't be using Pledge on your optics, unless you're as old
as H. Lester, in which case your optics could well be made of wood.

Lemon Pledge is definitely a no-no for optics, but it is the standard for a
quick wipedown of a nice bike frame.

jon

In article , Chris L Peterson wrote:
[...]
Interestingly, there is a UV sensitive chromophore in one population of cones
(response range 300nm-385nm, peak 342nm.) However, these cones normally are very
insensitive because UV is absorbed by structures in the eye before it can get to
the retina. The strongest absorber is the lens, which yellows with age, passing
less and less blue and UV. Eventually, cataracts develop and the lens is
removed. In recent years all replacement lenses include UV blockers, but plenty
of people are around who don't have these, and they have quite good UV
sensitivity. The same for children, with lenses that still pass shorter
wavelengths.

O Chris,

Very interesting -- does this mean our eyes have *four* (or more?) types
of cones? Or is this an additional sensitivity peak in one of the
three I'd already heard of, and if so, which?

Stuart Levy