Jump to content
Science Forums

Omnifarious

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Omnifarious last won the day on February 17

Omnifarious had the most liked content!

About Omnifarious

Recent Profile Visitors

207 profile views
  1. I'm not sure if I ever thought about science like that. I suppose I thought it was like a compendium of absolute truths. A directory of true of false.
  2. I'll have you know your post came in while I was talking to my therapist about this very issue and I told here what you just said. She said I was not mentally ill and that you a rude and abusive bully.
  3. It matters because it's connected to my issues regarding the possible infinitude of art from my other discussions. If our movement is limited like this then so is our ability to create in the physical world. You mentioned the movements of our eyes compensate for our photoreceptors. I also thought of that but if muscle movement is quantised then so is eye movement right? And how is putting forth my hypothesis and then asking what people think of it unacceptable?
  4. You're no an expert? Are you at least someone who knows about these things?
  5. I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying that it's true and common knowledge? I'm thinking of any image that can fit in our field of vision. I understand the answers you gave me, I just don't think they fix my problem. I don't think I "move the goal posts." If anything I think I've only made the question clearer. Through my research I found that eyes do constantly move and at first I thought that solved the problem but then I wasn't so sure.
  6. With all due respect I don't think VictorMedvil or Write4u should be considered reliable sources or have their writings taken too seriously. Write4u has shown he/she cannot tell the difference between scientific fact and personal opinion. And has no trouble passing one off as the other. VictorMedvil not only makes erroneous and extreme claims about science but uses sources to to back him/her up. Sources which ironically state that these matters are still theoretical.
  7. Based on my knowledge, my chain of reasoning works like this... When you want to move a muscle your brain sends an electrical nervous impulse along the chain of nerve cells to the muscle you want to move. A nervous impulse is nothing other then a jolt of electricity, the voltage is uniform and the only difference is the rate the jolts are sent, resulting in faster movement. When a muscle is hit by electricity it's reaction is to contract, this is what creates movement. Given all this, is our movement continuous or quantized? Let's say one jolt moves my finger 1 degree, anot
  8. I understand what the last 2 members said but it doesn't change anything for me. I must insist that you give yes or no answers to the following questions. Do photo receptors work like they do in the picture at the start of this forum? Yes or no? If yes, is this something proven beyond all doubt? Yes or no? Can humans see any one of an infinite number of images? Yes or no? I don't see how I can make it any simpler to answer.
  9. I have considered before what you've said about eye movement. But it occurred to me that if muscles move when stimulated by electric signals, is there a minimum amount a muscle can move? Thus still making our perception finite?
  10. I see how you are trying to help me but frankly it's only making it worse. I know that photo-receptors are tiny and the signals coming of them would be tiny. If human perception does work like that, the number of possible images our eyes could see would be immense. But to me, that does not make even the slightest bit of difference. Because it still means there are a finite number of images we can possibly see. I can see the way you think, it's a finite number but such a large number it's not worth bothering about because you'll never exhaust it in your lifetime. But I don't think lik
  11. Years ago I sought to get an understanding of quantum mechanics and I found this documentary: Nova, quantum mechanics And it says that "energy is quantized" at 11:40. And to illustrate this point the image on the screen splits into lots of uniform cubes. This led me to conclude that everything is made of indivisible, uniform pieces. Like any image on this pixelated screen. No only because of they way they showed it but because they said that quantum mechanics governs the things that everything is made of. Also they said energy is quantized and some other sources have said that e
  12. I appreciate what you tried to do here. But everything you wrote only strengthens my fears. To, me your basically saying it's true because you are saying the eye does work like I fear it does.
  13. True, photons are smaller then photoreceptors but only when they are sufficiently stimulated they send a signal to the brain. The nature of that signal is what I'm talking about. Actually I posted a question like that on this forum and several people said that spectrum in continuous. As have several other discussions I've found. Does Quantum Mechanics Mean There Is A Finite Number Of Colours? - Physics and Mathematics - Science Forums If you are saying the Planck length is a minimum length for everything, it is not. Planck is a unit of measurement like meters or inches, it to
  14. No you did not answer it. You only pointed out the light spectrum extends beyond what our human eyes can perceive. Are you saying that confirms there are only a finite number of images we can see? Because I can tell you it does not. Light is continuous and can have an infinite variation in it's wavelengths, no matter what the spectrum is limited to. And as a matter of fact I do know some of this stuff because I have been obsessing over it for years! Apparently you can't tell from this writing but I've been anxious, distraught, frustrated, angry and in despair this whole time I've bee
×
×
  • Create New...