originally posted by: ConnectDots
originally posted by: Box of Rain
So is that why the light we can see on Earth isn't EM radiation . . .
My understanding is that the light we can see is radiation from the sun which is part of the EM spectrum, yes. I would not call it EM radiation.
I would call it radiation from the sun which is part of the EM spectrum, emphasizing light we can see on Earth.
What science calls the "visible light" part of the EM spectrum are wavelengths of EM radiation between about 380 nm and about 750 nm. Longer
wavelengths of that EM radiation is infrared, microwaves, and radio radiation, and sorter wavelengths are ultraviolet, Xrays, and gamma rays.
Science can tells us through measurement and instrumentation that our eyes and a camera can sense the visible light part of that EM radiation, but not
sense the higher and lower wavelengths. The way we sense that part of the EM spectrum that science calls "visible light" is by receptors in our eyes
that are sensitive to the EM radiation of those wavelengths, and groups of those receptors (along with our brains) puts together an image based on the
EM radiation from those wavelengths.
Gary N and Sadang claims that our eyes and a camera can NOT sense that part of the EM spectrum, but rather the "mysterious stuff" that our eyes can
sense as light is something else entirely (what it is, they don't say), and not the same thing that science calls "light", which is EM radiation
between certain wavelengths on the EM spectrum.
By the way, we have other cells in our bodies that can sense the EM radiation from other EM wavelengths -- our nerve cells can sense Infrared
radiation (just above "visible light" in the EM spectrum) and our brains register it as heat. We also have cells that contain a substance that is
sensitive to the UV part of the EM spectrum (just below "visible light" in the EM spectrum) and those cells respond by changing color.
So why would it seem unlikely that we have cells in our eyes that would be sensitive to other wavelengths of EM radiation -- namely the portions of EM
radiation that is of wavelengths that science refers to as "visible light"?
And if our eyes or a camera are sensitive to that portion of EM radiation, then why would they mysteriously NOT be sensitive to those wavelengths in
space (as GaryN and Sadang claim)?
Furthermore, we have built cameras with EM radiation-sensitive receptors that can capture both what science calls "visible light" (although GaryN and
Sadang disagree that 's what it is) and the parts of the EM spectrum on either side of the visible light part -- namely Xrays, UV, IR, microwaves, and
Similar technology is used to build the EM-sensitive receptors that can detect both UV and visible light, but GaryN and Sadang claim that while that
camera can detect the UV radiation part and the IR radiation part of the EM spectrum in space, it mysteriously can't detect the visible light
radiation part of the EM spectrum.
But why not? They don't say.
You lost me on the rest of your post . . .
The rest of my post is in response to the notion that some people have saying "mainstream science doesn't know everything, so alternative
science ideas are also valid"....
...As if someone asks the question:
"why wouldn't the part of the EM spectrum that includes the wavelengths between 380 nm and 750 nm be able to be detected in a vacuum with our eyes
or with a camera, but CAN be detect with our eyes or with a camera on Earth?"
and the answer given is:
"Because mainstream science doesn't know everything, so maybe that part of the spectrum really isn't the light we can see"
That's all fine and dandy, but if our eyes aren't detecting that part of the EM spectrum when we see light, then what is our eyes detecting? If a
camera really isn't detecting that part of the EM spectrum when it captures an image, then what IS that camera detecting?
Alternative science is fine, and sometimes valuable, but there needs to be some substance behind the alternative claims, not just unsubstantiated
edit on 8/4/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)