I do not understand any of it! can somebody please explain?

Scroll to see replies

You seem to be using the word 'proof' in a very narrow, literal sense of the word

Well proof means proof, it does not mean half concocted theories that are then subjectively programmed into students by education to convince them that these half concocted theories are proof. When in reality most of the theories are so far away from being proof , they might as well be sitting in heaven, something else there is no proof of.

You are subjected to the subjective, I was lucky enough to quit school before the end because I simply could not see the point.

If you are truly objective you would see this very evidently point I am making, you only say Photons exist because you were learnt they exist, but ask yourself this question without even thinking about it, do you see photons between your eyes and these very dark , absence of light words, or do actually see a quanta whole and ''gin-clear''?

The darkness of these words is not transmitting light into your eyes so you can see these words, you are seeing the silhouette that is not an illuminated surface. These words are in their exact geometrical position, they are not inside your head and just a picture.

Science is wrong , I am right, causality is the infinite speed of sight.

Reply 21

Absent Agent

Original post by AlbertXY

Let me reiterate that you are assuming that proving a physical phenomena is to make it available to perceptual experience. Taking into account how our perceptual faculties function, it's intuitively evident that the fact that we cannot observe entities such as photons, electrons and etc, is due to our lack of sensory access to the subject-matter of such theories.

You are subjected to the subjective, I was lucky enough to quit school before the end because I simply could not see the point.
If you are truly objective you would see this very evidently point I am making, you only say Photons exist because you were learnt they exist, but ask yourself this question without even thinking about it, do you see photons between your eyes and these very dark , absence of light words, or do actually see a quanta whole and ''gin-clear''?

The darkness of these words is not transmitting light into your eyes so you can see these words, you are seeing the silhouette that is not an illuminated surface. These words are in their exact geometrical position, they are not inside your head and just a picture.

I have already said why not only me but also others who have studied the theories that led to the conclusion that photons 'must' exist, in order to make the photoelectric effect intelligible, confirm that they exist. We agree they exist because we can observe their effects or consequences. Just exactly the same way we agree that gravity exists, not because we can observe gravity, but because we can see its effects.

If you are still sceptical about this theoretical understanding of unobservable causes by accounting for their effects then I should say you're doomed to failure from the outset because you would be violating the principal framework of scientific enquiry as it has been an absolute presupposition of nature for any effect to have a cause.

Science is wrong , I am right, causality is the infinite speed of sight.

I wouldn't like to comment on what you would like to think of yourself but you still lack the intellectual confidence to believe you are correct, for otherwise you wouldn't ask the general public to comment on your work. (By the way, I'm saying this deliberately.)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 22

AlbertXY

Why wouldn't I discuss this with anybody . ? If I didn't discuss it then nobody would know, I would not know other than forums what to do with my ideas . I am pretty common, I suppose me and swats may not mix in real life. But then again maybe we would . I get on with everyone in real life and intellect is what you make it.