From: NM on
On 5 July, 12:30, Cynic <cynic_...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 19:29:31 +0100, "Norman Wells"
>
>
>
> <stibb...(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.
>
> --
> Cynic

I have seen it myself, I was sailing above the mid Atlantic ridge
during a quiet summer evening, horizon clear in every direction, low
wind, almost becalmed, no cloud, watching the sunset. Until then I
would have been doubtful myself.
From: Norman Wells on
Cynic wrote:
> 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?

What is that 'something'? I've not denied that the eye can be confused into
seeing a retinal image of complementary colour when a coloured bright light
is suddenly switched off. That effect is well understood, and the
complementary colour of the sun as it sets is, oh, what a surprise, green!

>> 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

The photos also show that the sun loses its circular outline and even
detaches its top. How strange that it knows to do this at the exact moment
it disappears from _our_ view. Has it singled us out particularly to say
goodbye?

How do you explain those photographically proved, and therefore actually
occurring, phenomena?

Or are they just illusions too?

> 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.

No, that's well proved. But, really, when you have to fiddle the theory
like this:

"The red sun disappears first. Its light is refracted or bent least. The
yellows and oranges are absorbed by ozone and vanish, too. The
blues/indigos/violets should be last, but they get scattered by the
atmosphere (one of the reasons why the sky is blue) otherwise we would see a
blue flash. So the last piece of colour from the sun that the watcher sees
is the surviving emerald green"

surely even you think it's somewhat suspicious, don't you?

> You are quite right to dismiss the
> possibility out of hand. Only us folk with stupidly open minds would
> even consider such a possibility.

Strange then that the BBC pages you referred to can't even come up with a
photo, but have just raided the archives for a nice general sunset, and the
other site shows nothing resembling a 'flash' at all.

Ah, but that's all because it's very rare, and you're very lucky to see it,
and you can't call it up to order, isn't it? Just the excuses any charlatan
uses when it's shown he can't actually dowse water, contact the dead,
predict the future, bend spoons etc etc under scientifically controlled
conditions.

..

From: Cynic on
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 19:05:40 +0100, "Norman Wells"
<stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote:

>> 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

>The photos also show that the sun loses its circular outline and even
>detaches its top. How strange that it knows to do this at the exact moment
>it disappears from _our_ view. Has it singled us out particularly to say
>goodbye?

No more than the last total eclipse of the Sun in the UK singled out
the folk in Cornwall to say hello to. It is to do with the angles
involved.

>How do you explain those photographically proved, and therefore actually
>occurring, phenomena?

Read the articles.

>Or are they just illusions too?

Depends how you define "illusion". Would you consider a rainbow to be
an illusion (or perhaps you don't believe they exist at all)? Note
how the rainbow always moves to remain out of reach no matter how much
you attempt to get to it., how does it know to do that? Has it
singled us out particularly to run away from?

>No, that's well proved. But, really, when you have to fiddle the theory
>like this:

>"The red sun disappears first. Its light is refracted or bent least. The
>yellows and oranges are absorbed by ozone and vanish, too. The
>blues/indigos/violets should be last, but they get scattered by the
>atmosphere (one of the reasons why the sky is blue) otherwise we would see a
>blue flash. So the last piece of colour from the sun that the watcher sees
>is the surviving emerald green"

>surely even you think it's somewhat suspicious, don't you?

Not if you understand refraction, no. Think of it as being a rainbow
around the Sun, with the red (inner) side toward the sun and some of
the colours missing due to absorbtion. You therefore get a gap
between the Sun and the first visible (green) portion of the rainbow.
Some of the photographs show the "green flash" to be more yellow than
green.

>> You are quite right to dismiss the
>> possibility out of hand. Only us folk with stupidly open minds would
>> even consider such a possibility.

>Strange then that the BBC pages you referred to can't even come up with a
>photo, but have just raided the archives for a nice general sunset, and the
>other site shows nothing resembling a 'flash' at all.

You obviously did not follow all the links.

>Ah, but that's all because it's very rare, and you're very lucky to see it,
>and you can't call it up to order, isn't it? Just the excuses any charlatan
>uses when it's shown he can't actually dowse water, contact the dead,
>predict the future, bend spoons etc etc under scientifically controlled
>conditions.

Ah well, if you don't want to consider even the possibility of
something that is now well-established as a scientific fact, that's a
matter between yourself and your closed mind.

One day you might even start believing in radio waves, but I shan't
hold my btreath.

--
Cynic

From: Albert T Cone on
Norman Wells wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> What is that 'something'? I've not denied that the eye can be confused
> into seeing a retinal image of complementary colour when a coloured
> bright light is suddenly switched off. That effect is well understood,
> and the complementary colour of the sun as it sets is, oh, what a
> surprise, green!
>
>>> 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
>
> The photos also show that the sun loses its circular outline and even
> detaches its top. How strange that it knows to do this at the exact
> moment it disappears from _our_ view. Has it singled us out
> particularly to say goodbye?
>
> How do you explain those photographically proved, and therefore actually
> occurring, phenomena?
>
> Or are they just illusions too?
>
>> 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.
>
> No, that's well proved. But, really, when you have to fiddle the theory
> like this:
>
> "The red sun disappears first. Its light is refracted or bent least. The
> yellows and oranges are absorbed by ozone and vanish, too. The
> blues/indigos/violets should be last, but they get scattered by the
> atmosphere (one of the reasons why the sky is blue) otherwise we would
> see a blue flash. So the last piece of colour from the sun that the
> watcher sees is the surviving emerald green"
>
> surely even you think it's somewhat suspicious, don't you?
>
>> You are quite right to dismiss the
>> possibility out of hand. Only us folk with stupidly open minds would
>> even consider such a possibility.
>
> Strange then that the BBC pages you referred to can't even come up with
> a photo, but have just raided the archives for a nice general sunset,
> and the other site shows nothing resembling a 'flash' at all.
>
> Ah, but that's all because it's very rare, and you're very lucky to see
> it, and you can't call it up to order, isn't it? Just the excuses any
> charlatan uses when it's shown he can't actually dowse water, contact
> the dead, predict the future, bend spoons etc etc under scientifically
> controlled conditions.
>
> .
From: boltar2003 on
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:21:19 +0100
Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>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.

Err yes it will my friend. How do you think lightning manages to pass through
wood in trees and solid rock?

>>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.

You're making the claims for homeopathy, you back them up.

B2003