From: Adrian on
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

>>>Actually electricity will pass through anything if you make the voltage
>>>high enough.

>>What about an absolute vacuum ?

> You think electrons can't traverse a vacuum? How do you think what
> passes for my brain works you dolt.

We've long wondered.
From: Norman Wells on
Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:29:31 +0100, "Norman Wells"
> <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>>> The "green flash"
>>> is another phenomenon that became almost a matter of faith by those
>>> who claimed it existed, while scientific circles were very
>>> dismissive of the possibility until a high-speed camera was set up
>>> that captured it on one of the rare days that it occured, and then
>>> scientists were jumping on the bandwagon to suggest theories of
>>> what caused it, and reasons why previous experiments had all
>>> failed. It was, incidentally, something that I had myself
>>> considered to be very unlikely after having failed to see it after
>>> looking on many tropical evenings. I was certain that it was an
>>> artifact caused by after-images on the retina of the observer.
>
>> It obviously is. Turn off a bright light of any colour and the
>> retina will say you're seeing the complementary colour. Turn off
>> red-orange suddenly and you'll see a green image.
>
>> No mystery.
>
> So most respectable scientists believed for centuries despite the
> people who observed it insisting that it was unlike any after-image.
> There was no proof that any genuine green flash occured, it was fairly
> rarely seen and could not be reliably reproduced, so it must all be in
> the imagination of the people who claimed to have seen it. Then, as
> affordable sophisticated photographic apparatus became available,
> someone managed to capture it on film. Then more people managed to
> photograph it.
>
> Film suffers from neither "after-image" illusions nor imagination.
> Scientists were forced to concede that the green flash was real, and
> went to work thinking of and testing possible explanations.
>
> Obviously *you* will continue to disbelieve that it exists despite
> proof to the contrary. Probably because you don't believe anything
> that you don't understand.

If you say so. The fact that I understand it very well doesn't come into
it.

There is no proof whatsoever that it exists as anything other than a retinal
after-image, nor any sensible scientific explanation of how it could
possibly occur if it isn't.

People are self-delusional. If they are non-scientific, when they seek
explanations, they are often prepared to accept anything, no matter how
bizarre or improbable. It's as true with the 'green flash' as with
homeopathy or crop circles. You have only to look at the Wikipedia entry
for green flash to see such nonsense in action.


From: boltar2003 on
On 5 Jul 2010 14:53:33 GMT
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>>>Actually electricity will pass through anything if you make the voltage
>>>>high enough.
>
>>>What about an absolute vacuum ?
>
>> You think electrons can't traverse a vacuum? How do you think what
>> passes for my brain works you dolt.
>
>We've long wondered.

Thats lame even for you and you set a pretty low benchmark as it is.

B2003

From: Cynic on
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:53:04 +0100, "Norman Wells"
<stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>>> It obviously is. Turn off a bright light of any colour and the
>>> retina will say you're seeing the complementary colour. Turn off
>>> red-orange suddenly and you'll see a green image.
>>
>>> No mystery.
>>
>> So most respectable scientists believed for centuries despite the
>> people who observed it insisting that it was unlike any after-image.
>> There was no proof that any genuine green flash occured, it was fairly
>> rarely seen and could not be reliably reproduced, so it must all be in
>> the imagination of the people who claimed to have seen it. Then, as
>> affordable sophisticated photographic apparatus became available,
>> someone managed to capture it on film. Then more people managed to
>> photograph it.
>>
>> Film suffers from neither "after-image" illusions nor imagination.
>> Scientists were forced to concede that the green flash was real, and
>> went to work thinking of and testing possible explanations.
>>
>> Obviously *you* will continue to disbelieve that it exists despite
>> proof to the contrary. Probably because you don't believe anything
>> that you don't understand.
>
>If you say so. The fact that I understand it very well doesn't come into
>it.

How can you understand something that you claim does not exist?

>There is no proof whatsoever that it exists as anything other than a retinal
>after-image, nor any sensible scientific explanation of how it could
>possibly occur if it isn't.

Well, other than a shitload of photographs, some experimental data and
a huge number of eyewitnesses.

http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/gf1.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/understanding/greenflash.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A295300

And a host of other hits

>People are self-delusional.

I know. There are people who refuse to believe in things such as the
"green flash" even after seeing all the evidence.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

> If they are non-scientific, when they seek
>explanations, they are often prepared to accept anything, no matter how
>bizarre or improbable. It's as true with the 'green flash' as with
>homeopathy or crop circles. You have only to look at the Wikipedia entry
>for green flash to see such nonsense in action.

Sure. The idea that light can be refracted into different colours
does indeed sound absurd. You are quite right to dismiss the
possibility out of hand. Only us folk with stupidly open minds would
even consider such a possibility.

--
Cynic


From: Cynic on
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:08:17 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)boltar.world
wrote:

>>The idea that an effect occurs with some materials but not others is
>>hardly unusual, is it? In fact, it is by far the usual situation.
>>Magnets only affect "special" types of materials, electricity will
>>only pass through "special" types of materials etc. etc. So it is
>>more likely than not that *if* water has a memory, it would apply to
>>some materials but not others.

>Actually electricity will pass through anything if you make the voltage
>high enough.

No it will not.

> It just happens to pass easiest through metals at the voltages
>we normally work with.

>Oh , riiiiight. Now it only has a memory for *some* materials. And which
>would these happen to be then? Have the homeopathic quacks got a table
>substances that the effect works on?

It is yourself who is so certain that any such effect must be
universal, so obviously you have a far better insight as to what
principles are at work (or not) than I am able to supply.

--
Cynic