Amedeo

You may be under the illusion that by your invectives you are great before the eyes of God and other dwarfs, but you are actually showing your true colors. If you think that knowing Maxwell and Optics means that we know more about electro-magnetism than we know about gravity, magnetism or electricity, START telling the story of the physicists [some physicians, too] who have been debating the nature of light for more than a century. (I will not even bother to mention the issues of some e-m waves and light consciousness -- issues you could not fathom in a 1000 years.) And if you think that you have all the knowledge about light that is available, START DESCRIBING THE EXPERIMENTS MADE WITH TINY BLOCKS OF QUARTZ UNDER TREMENDOUS PRESSURE [TO IMITATE THE COLLISON OF EARTH PLATES], AND DESCRIBE FOR THE GENERAL READER IN THIS THREAD WHAT WAS DISCOVERED ABOUT LIGHT, AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH DISCOVERIES ARE. WHAT IS THE BEARING OF THE DISCOVERIES ON THE FORMATION OF THE SMALLEST POSSIBLE PARTICLES? WHAT IS THE BEARING OF THE DISCOVERIES ON THE SUBJECT AT HAND?

One thing is for sure, though. I should have been more careful in making my parenthetical remark that offended your learned majesty: "(PRESENTLY LEAST KNOWN BY SOME LEARNED PEOPLE IN THE PROFESSION)."

PROBABLY YOU COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE COLOR [a light phenomenon] OF MY BOOTS, EVEN IF YOU CAME SO CLOSE AS TO KISS THEM.

skepticalbip

:rolling: ...Priceless... thanks.... :rolling:

.

CanoeMan

Wow. Is it just me, or is he actually getting more arrogant?

Tubbykins

Start telling ME what you think you know. Unlike (I'm guessing) you, I have advanced degrees in physics.

You are flat wrong in asserting that we know less about E&M then we do about gravity.

"Light consciousness"? Please give an explicit definition of it an how it can be evaluated in a skeptical fashion.

And what debate regarding the nature of light? That it is a quantum mechanical entity but it exhibits properties of a classical wave and particle? That's not a debate, that's an anthropic consequence of the length and time scales we perceive.

And why have you lumped physicists in with physicians regarding the "nature of light"? I can't even begin to understand why you have done this.

Otherwise, this is gibberish at best, and extreme arrogance or ignorance at worst. I would appreciate it if you would elucidate your position. Then we can actually discuss something.

What does light have to to do with quartz under pressure? This seems like an enormous non-sequitur

Please provide some references and sources for your claims? The burden of proof is rightly placed upon the one wishing to convince the other.

And the general reader should be more than qualified to go to a basic science website or a wiki page on light and our current understanding of the physics, and ask questions here.

*I* am certainly qualified to provide critical feedback to your claims regarding physics. I am a published, (albeit new) Ph D in nuclear physics. Others here share similar academic credentials, and can (if willing) provide feedback. skepticalbip was spot on regarding our current understanding of E&M.

You would do well, Amedeo, to take at least a year or two of university physics to even begin to understand how limited your understanding of physics truly is. This is not meant as insult. You need introduction to at least some of the tools physicists use before you can question their purpose, efficacy, and use.

If you don't want to pay for a few years worth of education, I can point you to an excellent web resource developed by Gerardus_'t_Hooft.

cheers

Tubbykins

Amedeo

Cf. # 29

A Ph.D. in physics? Then you should know that the light you experience or are conscious of is..... a form of consciousness. Light is not a physical phenomenon; what you may study is e-m waves..... I am not going to keep on repeating the same thing: many people cannot fathom the difference between the two and the fact that the luminosity of an electric bulb or of a star is not a physical thing..... I am not going to repeat myself: How can you make objective measurements about the stars you see, when the luminous stars you experience are not physical phenomena in front of your eyes? Threads have already kept on going ~~ELSEWHERE~~. So, I am not going to be the occasion for THIS nice thread about ghosts to go. (KEEP on resting on your degrees laurels.)
---------
Certain scientific experiments with quartz have a lot to do with light and the future of cosmogenesis... but these are esoteric ideas don't really belong here, in Science and Skepticism (whatever that is)./ I'll go and fool around in the Lounge.

David B

If you would hang around here long enough to explain to me how light is a form of consciousness, I'd really be most obliged.

David B

Vicious Love

Come now, type it like you mean it!

skepticalbip

That one had me more baffled than the other gibberish too. I haven't been able to get Amedeo to answer any of my direct questions (I don't think he likes me very much) so I hope he will answer you.

As an aside, you may ask him to explain gravity for you. This is a problem that has had physicists tied in knots for quiet a while and he has claimed to know all about it (strangely he thinks it is EM that is the poser in comparison so we have apparently overlooked the true simple nature of gravity ). Amedeo's infallible wisdom shed on this problem could save researchers decades of work and finally lead the way to a ToE. But then again maybe he won't share, preferring to publish and collect his Nobel.

GenesisNemesis

Argument ad CAPS LOCK.

Tubbykins

References and sources regarding "light consciousness", please. I've heard of no such thing. This is an extra-ordinary assertion. I feel quite comfortable dismissing it until such time as you provide peer-reviewed, falsifiable evidence supporting this claim.

And, mind you, "assertion" is the most charitable thing I could call it.

Really? It's not a physical phenomenon? Your definition of physical must be light-years away from mine.

I've read a few of your other threads. Repeating yourself is all you seem to do, with very little in the way of substantiation.

Again, I ask you to avail yourself of simple college level physics. The material is readily available and free on the Internet. Otherwise, I predict your threads will keep going to ~E~.

And, as for my "degree laurels" and any alleged resting on said items, you obviously have no idea what a research scientist does. Resting on one's laurels is a good way to find unemployment. I merely mentioned my credentials because they are bright, shiny and new, and because they do demonstrate a certain amount of proficiency with my field of research.

Well then, I await what I am sure will be a breathtaking demonstration and/or explanation of such wonderful science. Surely Nobel Prize stuff.

So, why go to the Lounge? Are you afraid of critical input and review for your esoteric ideas? That's exactly why S&S is here.

cheers

Tubbykins