bfchat.brainformation.com

I have to admit that I never did understand how color is produced, which is how I got on the topic in this thread. Not knowing the exact mechanism doesn't mean I don't understand what I've been told. It's been a long time since I've been in high school, but I think that is the first time I was told that white light contains the entire color spectrum, which is why objects reflect back various different colors and shades of colors. It all originates in the single source, white light. Black is the absence of color. I suppose you can look at it as an object absorbing all the white light and reflects nothing back, but that's more the property of the object than the color. Black is the antithesis of white, i.e., lacking all color.

Color is an observable phenomena that sighted people are fortunate enough to witness. The brain organizes the colors and shapes and objects into a landscape in which we live comfortably. I recall seeing a documentary on television way back in the days that I deliberately spent time looking at it. The subject was an exploration of some primitive tribe of people on some continent I don't recall at the moment. The anthropologists were able to establish communications with these people and learned quite a bit. One of the strange things they discovered is that these people who never were exposed to contemporary civilization did not recognize a photograph. When shown a picture of themselves that the scientist took, the natives only saw a jumbled pattern of colors. They had no way to convert it to a recognizable person; not even when the picture was of the viewer. It's hard to believe that something like that is learned and not an intuitively obvious instinct. I'm thinking people who were born blind have a similar condition. They feel the sun's warmth and can associate it with a color. Feelings are affected to a large degree by color. It's something psychological and built into the genes. The fact that the blind person calls it yellow was most likely taught to them by a sighted person. Likewise, they know blues don't match "by the label." They feel something sewn into the label and know what works because they were told by a sighted person.

You are a brave individual to volunteer discussing science and religion. LOL It's been done here many times many years ago. It's all somewhere in the archives if you care to look for it. There seems to be two major explanations for our existence. One is scientific and the other is philosophical. The trend in past decades has been for scientists to adopt a philosophical approach to their theoretical works. The latest series of comments I've read are from cosmologists who have a distinct impression that there is a deliberate design to the universe. This is an attempt to combine the concept of god the creator with what is known about the astrophysics. All I can say about it is that the scientists who propose such a theory are not atheists.

Critical thinking and the scientific method are tough disciplines to master. They are the generally accepted approach in the science community. The Bible is mostly allegorical writing. Scholars who study the Bible as the word of God can concede that the Big Bang is the source of the universe as we know it. Not all make that concession, but I've seen it written. The question that sustains their belief is "what was there before the Big Bang?" The obvious answer is the Prime Cause, a Supreme Being, God. That might have been a good argument before quantum physics was discovered. It is now known that something can spontaneously be created from nothing. The universe is a pretty big "something" to be sure. But if it works on a sub atomic level, it's possible on a cosmological level too.

It's all an interesting exercise of the higher mind. I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter from whence we came. But, I am curious, and curious minds want to know.

I'm going to try a flip-flop on the blind vs the deaf for a second here.
I was raised around a few totally deaf people, one was a close friend of the family.
When I was a young tyke, dad would take me up to the corner family owned tavern, where I would play with the tavern owners son, and the grocery store owners son, in a back storage room, usually over at the grocers side.
The thing that most caught my interest about my dads deaf friend, who read lips well also, was he would go drop a few coins in the juke box to play a record. He would keep a hand either on the juke box itself, or on one of the speakers over a corner table. Dad said he could feel the vibrations.
Fast forward about 25 years to when the man was in his middle 50's.
He was wearing a fairly large device as an extension to his glasses, but due to their size had an upper band like a pair of headphone. These did not go into his ears. They pressed against a bone just behind the earlobes. These caused sores until callouses built up in those areas.
I never did learn if he made them himself, or if he was part of an experiment for a developer.
He could enjoy music more fully from the git-go, and over time, he could discern some speech, but only because he had learned to read lips and associated certain vibrations with words he saw and understood.
After about two or three years, he had mastered voice vibrations, but only of certain voice ranges, usually male or deep female. Even so, he could not listen to an audio tape and know what was said.

I know they have come up with vision enhancing glasses for folks who are only partially blind.
But wasn't some work conducted only a few years ago about converting light to sound to help the blind feel light?
It's one of those things you read about from the science magazines while waiting in a doctors office, then never hear anything else about it ever again.

Personally, I don't have hearing in a certain high voice range. I don't hear piazzo crystals beeping, or young girls screaming while playing. I always considered this a benefit until electronics started using beeps I cannot hear. I can hear the old buzzer and ringer types of alarm clocks, but not the new ones that make beep sounds, also makes it hard for me to use cell phones, which is probably why I don't like them.
I did try a pair of hearing aids once that converted my lost frequency sounds down to a frequency I can hear. I honestly didn't like it one bit. Probably because it also messed up other sounds, and since I was a musician at the time, it could throw my playing off. Made me feel like I hit a few wrong notes when I didn't.

I always loved Science and Physics! I've also never found a conflict between what I learned in either to the scriptures. Too many folks try to write in what was not stated, or interpret them without a basis for their interpretations.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two totally separate events. Yet everyone tries to combine them as being the same event.
Although I no longer have it, lost it in our two floods, I had a 1611 version of the bible, plus was married to a Hebrew speaking gal for 20 years, who's children also attended Epstein Hebrew Academy.
They say the King James Version is unchanged, other than spelling corrections. This is not true at all. To start with, the letter "J" was not invented until the mid-17th century. So when the KJV was rewritten in 1769 I think it was, there were hundreds of name changes. James, John, Joseph, Jehosephat, Jeremiah, Joshua, Jesus, Jonas, Jonah, etc. are not found in the 1611 version of the bible, and what names were used in the 1611 bible are in many cases not even close to their Hebrew counterparts where applicable. Many new testament names were in Aramaic which also did not covert well to the Greek language.
However, the old testament is almost identical in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and English.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Not the period at the end of the sentence. End of this story. It doesn't say how or when either. So let me reword it.
In the beginning God created on his drawing board, space and matter, and matter was without form, and void.
You know the rest of the creation process from Genesis 1. But this does not mean it was put into action yet.
Genesis 2.5 proves Genesis 1 was only on the drawing board, and clearly states BEFORE it was in the earth.

My take on this is simple. God combined all of the elements of his creation into a single capsule (or thought) and set it in the center of the universe. Besides the flora and fauna, both men and women were included in this capsule (or thought).
Thus the heavens and earth were finished, and all the host of them.
God leaned back on his throne and said "Let it be so!" And the Big Bang took place. And on the seventh day God rested.
No time frame is given from the time of creation and up to the time it was time to bring forth a mist to water the plants.

In Genesis 1, he created them male and female and told them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.
To me, this means the earth, after it was formed and watered, gave life to the plants as food for the animals, etc.
The people began to fill the earth.

This next part is going to require some thought. Referring to Genesis 2. God planted a garden in a town already named Eden in the east. A river parted into four heads, and each of these four rivers had a name also. The river Gihon compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. Obviously the people who lived there were Ethipians. The river Hiddekel goes further east into Assyria. Here too, obviously the people there were known as Assyrians. My point is, who named these places, and why would they need names if there were not people living there already.

Back to God planting His garden in Eden. He made a man from the dust of the ground and put him in the Garden of Eden. God named him Adam, and gave him the job of naming all the animals in the garden.
Keep your thinking cap on here for a bit longer.
Adam must have known the people who lived outside the garden, and here is why.
The Lord took a rib from Adam and made Eve. Now listen to Adam's exact words of Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Now answer me this. If the earth was not already populated before Adam was created, when and how did he learn about the existence of a father and mother, and of marriage?
OK, to substantiate the above, let's jump to Genesis 4:14 where Cain said ...and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. Who is the everyone he is concerned about?
And where did Cain go? Further east to the land of Nod, where he built a city. It takes one heck of a lot of people and laborers to build a city. So once again, it is obvious there were one heck of a lot of people living on planet earth.
Don't add words to the bible that are not there! The generations of Adam come next.

That's enough food for thought for one day!

Fundamentally you and I share some strong suspicions, if not beliefs, about Genesis. It's obvious that you have studied the Bible, or at least one of it's versions, in much greater detail than I ever attempted. You certainly have retained more than I did from what I was taught. The historical implications of Genesis which you point out lend credence to the myth of a civilization that existed here on earth well before the current one. About 25,000 years ago, plus or minus a few millennia, a highly advanced civilization of humans populated the earth. They died off and humans were not heard of again until the time of Genesis. That does not mean they disappeared altogether. They just had to start from ground zero much like we would have to do in the event of a nuclear winter. There are certain people who suggest we were visited by aliens and got things going again after the great extinction. Those aliens could be who the authors of the Bible are talking about when they wrote Genesis. It all seems pretty far fetched, but also credible.

The thing that raises red flags in my mind is how the concept of a God has been personified. Putting God in human form makes things more acceptable, as opposed to thinking we are the progeny of some outer space civilization. When I think of qualifications to be a God, that being would have no use or purpose for anything human. God is the quintessential manifestation of perfection and would not have a need to stoop down to our level. The God which supposedly created our world existed before Genesis took place. The explanation for that is God always was and always will be. Talk about a need for a thinking cap. LOL

About the only thing I can relate to a quintessential God is ... infinity. Infinity is everything that always was and always will be. It includes every possible state of existence in potential form which by the way is the prerequisite for a universe to develop spontaneously out of nothing. Thus there is no God per se and the universe we know is the product of random quantum events. I realize that's a difficult concept for you and I to understand, and we are fairly intelligent people. Try explaining it to the average schlep who was raising sheep about 4000 years ago. That, in my opinion, is how the Bible came into being.



High frequency hearing loss is common among people our age. Speech is divided into consonant and vowel sounds. When you lose the ability to hear high frequencies, you lose the ability to pick out consonant sounds. Thus us partially deaf people can actually hear only half of what is being said, literally. That also explains why converting the high frequencies to something lower does not clarify the speech. It just adds emphasis to what we can hear.

Sound is vibration which is why deaf people can hear sounds if they make tactile contact with it. Bones and body tissue are terrible conductors of high frequencies so that the deaf person doesn't have a chance to hear at the quality level even us partially deaf ones can hear. But, they can hear something given the right equipment and training. One of the things I regret about my hearing loss is that my wife's voice has changed to something more guttural over the years. It's me, not her. I also can't hear the song of most birds.

well, gentlemen, this has been ever so interesting! i'm still trying to fathom your rainbow just sitting out there suspended in the air. hm... what about auroras where the colours are dependent on which gas was hit? and since the magnetic field encompasses the entire globe, why do we never see the northern lights south of 40°?


my room is still like a badly organized storage unit as punkin's not found anyone to fix the roof... the guy we had lined up had the misfortune to have one of his rental unit's wall collapse - due to lack of maintenance. oops. so, he's out and i don't miss him, he was such an arrogant know-it-all.

so, i've decided to set up loki on the dining room table and stuff it into the bookcase when not in use. that's sorted then.

as for mr god, i see red when some people have had the worst time ever; talking deaths in the family etc and well-meaning people spout endlessly of offering prayers for them. isn't it a bit late now? and why did all this crap happen to good people in the first place? but i'm polite and (lo and behold) keep my lips zipped and fingers crossed, so i can't type either.

but then again, it's like saeed said when i suggested that his religion made no sense. "of course not. that's why it's called faith." super smart guy and so funny! since he was totally ignorant of normal canadian social life it was always a toss-up of his kidding or being serious. i mean ignorant as in never in life having spoken to women except his mother and sisters. poor soul, we had so much fun.

Auroras are cool, and I only have a vague notion of why we see what we see. So, I'll make up something that sounds plausible. The light from the aurora travels along the lines of electro magnetism that is inherent to the earth. These magnetic lines run from the north pole down to the south pole, as opposed to being parallel with the equator. All the lines of magnetic energy converge at the poles so that the density of the magnetic field is greatest at the poles. It takes a whopping amount of energy to ionize the gas that produces the pretty colors. There seems to be enough energy at the poles, but it sort of thins out as you go toward the equator. I'd also add that auroras probably do not occur as far south as 40 degrees, and once you get below that latitude the curvature of the earth prevents you from seeing over the horizon; unless you happen to be inside the ISS ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1B3CE66UKU

The big complaint I see more often these days are the "thoughts and prayers" from congressmen offered to victims of mass shootings. These are the same people who could actually do something about the laws, but all they have to offer is something spiritual. Lovely, eh?

In our minds, everything must have a beginning. But does it really?

Aura's: We messed around with Kirlian photography in a lab class at cowledge.
What I personally think they were capturing was the corona discharge from the high voltage.
However, that being said, there were some things that couldn't be explained that way.
Like how if you removed half of the object, why did the image still come out showing the whole object.

Only a few years ago I saw some images taken with a GDV camera.
Makes one wonder what is really out there we can't see.

I've had high frequency hearing loss since birth, and somehow our minds seem to make up for it.
However, as I've aged, understanding words, especially in crowded areas or with a lot of background noises has become more difficult. I think Yogi nailed the reason in his explanation above.

As far as planet earth goes, I often wonder how many times it had to be REpopulated.
And was it by a remnant of the original people, or were new people added at different points?

Now associated with the above: Scientists say the earth has an iron core.
Based on what I learned in physics, although the bulk of the earths core may be iron, I think the very center of the earth is gold, with perhaps lead above that, a few other metals, and then iron over it all.
I think this because of the density of the various known metals.
If the center of the earth is molten liquid, then the heavier metals would be closest to the core, unless gravity ceases as you near the center of old planet earth.

We had a teacher who talked about things dropped in the ocean. His theory, which I don't know if it was ever proven or not, was that not everything makes it to the ocean floor. Pressure increases as an object sinks, and at some point it will reach equilibrium and be suspended when pressure and density become equal.
I thought about this, and wouldn't the pressure also increase the pressure of the item sinking? Perhaps increase its density due to the pressure?
Then I think, perhaps he is right, because of some phenomenon where density of an object can be measured by how far it sinks in a liquid. How many balls are floating when you check your antifreeze with that type of tester? Then there is the Galileo thermometer where temperature dictates which spheres rise and fall in the column.
I used to make a recharge kit to separate mixed bed deionization resins for water filtration. It used the specific gravity of the liquid to separate one resin from another.
Knowing this, perhaps the teacher was right, and objects, especially plastics, will seek their own level in the oceans, tides and currents not withstanding which can alter their resting level somewhat.

The thought experiment of dropping an object into the ocean to see how far it sinks or floats is interesting. My initial thought was that it does one or the other, i.e., sinks all the way every time, or, floats all the time. I came to this conclusion intuitively because I often wondered why the flakes of pepper in a bottle of salad dressing always sink to the bottom of the bottle (given enough time). It doesn't seem right, but doing the math for buoyancy spells it out one way or the other. So, I looked it up on Google (because they know everything), and this is what I found:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ink-to-the My instincts were correct.

Everything does have a beginning. I can't think of anything that exists without an inaugural moment. The notion of infinity would be the sole exception; it has no beginning nor an ending. For the most part life is a compendium of cycles. Cycles have beginnings and endings and repeat predictably. It's only natural to expect everything we experience to have a beginning.

I've seen a few images involving Kirlian photographic techniques. Apparently there is a lot of myth mixed in with the science of it all. Some people also can see a human aura, which to me is much more interesting than photographing electro-static discharges. The problem with it all is that it's not a reproducible phenomena. Some folks see it, and other do not.

I have one of those Galileo thermometers sitting in this room. It was given to me as a gift.

I don't think you can go by what your pepper does in a bottle of salad dressing, hi hi.

I found an opposite answer than what you found, which gives both possibilities, by looking at a story on the problems with lakes and logs. As logs become saturated with water, they begin to sink. Motorboats can hit logs floating only a few inches below the surface. However, as the logs become more saturated and/or decay, they will eventually end up on the bottom of the lake. However, some logs can actually rise back up again as they decompose and trap air molecules giving them buoyancy once again.

I agree with everything has a beginning, even if we don't understand what that beginning was.
I also agree with cycles for nearly everything we can imagine.

I do think some dogs can see aura's. More than 75% of the dogs I've owned over the years, besides the normal licks of the face and hands, they tend to come to my left elbow and start licking because they must be able to see it is damaged. They have never ever licked my right elbow that I can recall. But even if my left elbow is on the opposite side of where they are, they will invariable climb across me to get to my left elbow. It's not a normal lick they do either, it's more like a mothering type of lick. So I do believe they see something we can't, or perhaps it's their smellers, hi hi.

Sitting alongside my Galileo thermometer is a Storm Glass, and a couple Barometers. One is the cheap colored water filled that has to be cleaned and maintained because it does lose some through evaporation. It's no where near as accurate as the Mercury Barometer sitting next to the Galileo thermometer. Took me forever to get it set up properly. It has a glass cylinder at the bottom about four inches in diameter that is sealed on the bottom of course, and a lid top that is also sealed except for the hold the vertical glass tube sits in and a small hole next to it. The top of the tube has a brass indicator which can be adjusted up and down after you get the unit set up, and at the bottom covering the glass cylinder is a felt and velvet cover to keep dust out of the mercury. It is possible to spill the mercury but not likely as the unit can tip over on its side and none will spill. But if you remove the tube and turn it upside down, I'm sure all the mercury would come out. I've had this barometer for over 35 years, maybe even over 40 years by now.
I just love little gizmo's like these, hi hi.

I think the math behind the physics of buoyancy has been around and accepted for eons. The pepper in my Italian dressing isn't the most scientific method of demonstrating the principle, but it is subject to the same laws of gravity as is a Kitty Hawk class aircraft carrier. The mass of the object is compared to the mass of the liquid it displaces. Whichever weighs more determines if the object will sink or not. Gravity is part of the formula and is a constant. As far as I know gravity works to the full depth of the deepest ocean.

The story of logs that sink or not is interesting because it demonstrates the effects of mass on buoyancy. As the log gains or loses mass it will sink or come back up. Those that stay only a few inches below the surface are near the balance point where the gravity acting on the log is equal to the gravity acting on the water volume it displaces. Unlike civil laws, the laws of physics apply consistently across the board.

The barometer is another one of those devices that should not work. LOL It's hard to believe that there could be enough weight to the air above a cylinder of mercury to make it rise and fall a couple inches.

day late and a dollar short, but thought you might find it amusing. i did.

Funny, but so true

One thing we used to do in the restaurant is toss a sliver of ice into the fryer.
The ice would sink to the bottom before it sorta exploded as it turned to steam.
Made the funniest sound too, and often scared the bejesus out of whoever was working in the area.

We had to filter the oil every night as we drained it from the fryers.
Had to make sure those stainless steel buckets were bone dry before the oil hit them or it would splatter hot grease further than bacon splatter, and a whole lot hotter too.
Trying to get the help to understand this was about akin to pulling hens teeth.

Almost had a disaster one night when a new guy loaded the filter cartridge with the screens and pads.
The pads were dry since they were new out of the box, but he used the set of screens right out of the washer.
He was lucky it didn't blow the top off the canister or the hose out when that hot oil hit those wet screens.
It made the entire fryer wobble and vibrate. Those metal legs on the stainless steel counter made a racket like a you wouldn't believe.

A barometer, at least the kind with mercury in them, once you get them set up and calibrated, are highly accurate. Or should I say they agree with what the weather service is reporting.
I sold it when I moved south, but I had a mechanical barometer that was accurate also. It had flat brass container about four inches in diameter and perhaps a half inch deep. Soldered to this was a small wedge perpendicular to and in the center of the container. A small rod with a ball on the end pressed against the wedge and drove the dial needle on the face side. Naturally dial had designs and printing to let you know what the weather was doing. It also had four sliders around the outside bezel for you to move manually as memory points.
A newer one I had would automatically set the highest and lowest sliders by itself, but then you had two you set yourself also. It was not as accurate as the old big one.
I have one here in my office, a cheap john that comes with the three instruments on a wall hung board, a thermometer, humidity, and barometer. Not at all accurate, but a good wall decoration, hi hi.

I think the only accurate barometer is the mercury in a cylinder device. Anything with mechanical moving parts is subject to deterioration over time and nonlinearity. Unless you are in need of critically accurate measurements the not so accurate variety of barometer does a good job. Most people are only interested in the direction the readings are going and not the absolute value per se.

Playing with oil and water could be a high risk game. Although, I do like the thought of an ice cube blowing up in a vat of hot oil. LOL You must have been a wild and crazy chef.

as for accurate barometers, i find my right knee is quite adequate.

pilvikki wrote: ↑11 Nov 2018, 12:19 as for accurate barometers, i find my right knee is quite adequate.

Yogi wrote:Anything with mechanical moving parts is subject to deterioration over time and nonlinearity.

Seems about right

I did have phun when I worked at an ice cream shop and diner when I was young, that's for sure.
But in later years when I was part owner of a couple of restaurants, I didn't put up with any tomfoolery.
Of course by then, health inspectors resided in the woodwork and would come out when you least expected it, hi hi.
We had one inspector who seemed to show up right around 1:15 to 1:30pm and the first thing he would check was the crumb tray in the toaster. Then the temp of meat bin next to the grill. I bought six new crumb trays for the toaster and from 12:30pm forward, if the toaster was used, we swapped out the crumb tray for a clean one. Also added an elbow pushed handle to the meat tray lid along with a stronger spring so it rolled back shut each time you took a burger patty out.
The only thing he really ever nailed us for was a pencil sized hole in the screen door to the back loading dock. And one time, an employee rolled a mop bucket in front of the refill ice dispenser while he used the John. We lost two points over that one, and the one and only time we ever scored below 97. Over the three year period we averaged 99, had a 100 ten times, a 98 eight times, and a 96 one time. None of our point losses had to do with the food or cleanliness of the place. It was always some non-consequential thing, like a back door left open between boxes being brought in, the tiny hole in the screen door, bread crumbs in the toaster tray during dinner hour. Other than the franchise changing their sauce formula to something inedible, one reason I got out of the restaurant business was because of the ridiculous inspections of things having nothing to do with food service.

Moving parts do wear out, and even a Balance Scale using Certified Weights can give false readings. The little brass sleeve that fits over the stainless post to hold the paten can wear and when it does, it is always opposite to the weighted side of the scale. One would think it would take many years for this bearing assembly to wear out, but not so, especially if you are weighing heavier items 50 to 100 times a day or more. Each year the inspector comes in and checks the scales, and the only thing he does is set an equal amount of weight from his briefcase on the opposite side of the scale to see if it rests on zero. If it doesn't rest on zero, he says we have to have our weights recertified, which isn't cheap by the way. Learned to have the scale itself serviced before the next inspection, it was cheaper to do it that way, hi hi.

Inspectors are always a nuisance. On the other hand it's often what one thinks is inconsequential that can do the most damage. You know, a Zika infected mosquito can find it's way through that pencil sized hole in the screen door without anyone noting it until it's too late. I don't get the idea behind a crummy toaster tray. What possible health hazard could that cause? If it were so bad we would be all dead in this household. I only clean that tray when the crumbs accumulate to the point of the toaster not being operable. LOL

It was one of this inspectors pet peeves. He never once failed to check the toaster tray during a visit in about three years time. One thing he did do that irked all of us to no end, was he would stick his thermometer into different service trays without wiping it off between the trays. He didn't stick it in all of them, usually the back left corner tray, and then the two front trays at each end. The refrigerated trays he never checked once that I recall, probably because there was a built in thermometer showing the temp, same with the cooler.

Regarding the screen door. Someone was always going in and out to get to the walk in cooler on the back dock. If they had to carry a larger size box in, they would prop the door open as they went out, and close it after they came back in and set the box down. If a skeeter was going to get in, they would do so when the door was wide open. The only time we had to be really careful was during fly and gnat seasons. We kept the curtain between the storage and prep area closed like during the month of October, and I forget the spring month, May maybe. That was many years ago.