It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If Humans can only see a certain frequency of light, what else is out there?

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
If Humans can only see a certain frequency of light, what else is out there? Why is it that birds can see in UV light frequency but we cant? I was deciding if i should make a thread about this because the subject is so forigen to people. Can we even percive other colors we havent seen?




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I always wondered about this subject myself. There are so many more frequencies out there that we cant see, uv, infrared,.. something like out of the predator movie. I would think it would interfere with our vision though unless you grew up seeing other frequencies. Some people claimed to see auras all their life so its normal to them.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
TY for the topic..

I have been thinking about this for the last few months, it all started with a feeling of being watched, and thinking of aanimal sight, like how a hawk can use its telescopic vision from afar and see mice from 500 meters or more. And many animals see with sound and different light frequecies.

Anyways, the reason I keep thinking about this, if anyone or foriegn entity"ET", was advanced enough to get here, they would deffinately be advanced enough to know what "we" see, that said, who is to say some other gov't has not developed the abilty to cloak or stay in this spectrum and be rite under our noses.
Or the many things we could be not seeing that is natural, I think it would most likely scare the bejesus outa us if we could see "everything" going on around us.

I know I did not bring anything of use to this thread, but ty again for it.
I just wanted to let you know there is interest, at least from me.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Read some Lovecraft. Maybe it's fiction but that guy saw something way before his time.

In particular, read "From Beyond"

Here's the story



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Interesting subject...Imagine being able to see like Hubble!

I imagine we will be able to see in any frequency we wish one day....when body & computers merge.

I have tasted colors before, but that is for another forum.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
very interesting topic my friend! never be afraid to share on ATS! first I agree that we can't see everything! reality as we know it, is created in our brain! using our 5 sense to our understanding is the only was to comprehend it! so we interpret reality differently! I believe that what we can't see or have the ability to see is in fact our 4th dimensional world in which we do see from time to time! everything is a creation in our brain! if we could use our brain to its full capacity we would in fact experience sth different! in my opinion!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
What a great thread. I commend you on your thinking.
This has been something that I find extremely important...

It would explain a lot of mental illness in a completely different way than we currently understand it. People who "see" things may not all be ill, but some may indeed be gifted (people who see auras, etc.).

Of course, if we don't understand how we're seeing, or what it is, how can we know its nature or origin?

Not to be an alarmist, but really this information is not as foreign as it may seem.

People have observed glimpses of a different kind of reality all throughout history, interpreting it to the best of their understanding. Some had more resources to understand it than others (i.e. a culture that has some science or history versus one that is more subsistence-based), but people always try to understand things, no matter who they are or what kind of people they may be. So there have arisen explanations, necessary because the things observed were begging for one.

Only things that are not understood need an explanation. Some of these certainly were simply things that hadn't been figured out, but eventually would be. And, as we know, some were never explained, so we have turned again and again on the observers, and decided the explanation may lie within them.

So far, we have diagnosed lots of folks with mental illness, but have we ever EVER diagnosed someone with something that was not an illness?

If someone sees auras, but does not disturb anyone, act out, freak out, etc., there is no official category, they are just ignored.

If "seeing" things is a mental illness, wouldn't we all be safer if everyone who "sees" something is immediately diagnosed and restrained from the rest of us? That's ridiculous, and it's not happening. Therefore, it cannot be true that seeing things is a sign of mental illness.

Having established this, that all who see things that everyone else does not is NOT mentally ill (where are their disability checks?!), we must conclude that this explanation does not apply to everything that has been mysteriously seen.

Also there's the little matter of Ephesians 6:12: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."
It describes the part we cannot see with this human eye, because we need the explanation. Someone who did see gave us this insight. It backs up exactly what you are discovering, OP.
Kudos to you. S & F



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Maybe off topic a little bit, but




As well as this news story



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
That's cray z but what if we could develop these sense's like how a fish that resides in eternal darkness in the sea depths learns other ways to find food and live.

Isn't it weird when you do something new like get a Lovecraft book and have never heard of him before then all of a sudden you see mentions of him everywhere.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
We need the brain to evolve more, in order to interpret other frequencies, so the trick is to learn how to get our brains to evolve.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
We need the brain to evolve more, in order to interpret other frequencies, so the trick is to learn how to get our brains to evolve.



It's pretty clear how to make it evolve. Create the proper condition and see who survives it. Or you could make test tube babies. The whole idea is pretty pointless though. Animals see the way they see for a reason.

It is possible to develop Human echolocation, many blind people are able to live full lives using this technique.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by mosesgunner]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by np6888
We need the brain to evolve more, in order to interpret other frequencies, so the trick is to learn how to get our brains to evolve.


Evolution happens to meet certain needs. We see what we need to see... or perhaps, what we needed to see in order to survive back when we were learning how to be good hunter/gatherers. But technology has supplanted the need for anything more. Humans build tools instead of evolving.

This is where and when we separated ourselves from the natural order and why today, we still think that a dog wagging its tail isn't going to eat our face off.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Thank you so much for restating what I said.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mosesgunner
reply to post by redoubt
 


Thank you so much for restating what I said.


Hey, it was the dog and wagging tail analogy that sold the ticket. Yours was still far more educational.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   


reply to post by redoubt
 



Hey, it was the dog and wagging tail analogy that sold the ticket. Yours was still far more educational.


I thought the dog wagging thing sucked, maybe you should come up with something to do with test tube babies.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by mosesgunner


reply to post by redoubt
 



Hey, it was the dog and wagging tail analogy that sold the ticket. Yours was still far more educational.


I thought the dog wagging thing sucked, maybe you should come up with something to do with test tube babies.


Sorry, I didn't mean to trespass on your thread


(Test tube babies will likely be born with the same grasp of the little doggy wagging its tail as the rest of us. On the upside, they will be hatched having a working understanding of TV remote controls and cell phones.)



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Ha



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
From Supernature by Lyall Watson. He usually has an interesting perspective on things. This is more about sound but maybe relates to sight also. I've read things about kids being able to do things like see the stars during the daylight hours and then loose the ability as they got older.

" The cosmos is a bedlam of noisy confusion. Everything in it is subjected to a constant bombardment by millions of conflicting electromagnetic and sound waves. Life protects itself from this turmoil by using sense organs, which are like narrow slits, letting in only a very limited range of frequencies. But sometimes even these are too much, so there is the additional barrier of the nervous system, which filters the input and sorts it into 'useful information' and irrelevant noise'. For instance if a cat is exposed to a continuous electronic click, it hears and responds to the stimulus at first but is soon habituated to it and in the end effectively ignores the sound all together. An electrode implanted in the auditory nerve, leading from the inner ear to the brain, shows that, after a while the nerve no longer even sends information about the click to the brain; the regular stimulus has been classified as irrelevant background noise and discarded as a source of information. But as soon as it stops the cat pricks up it's ears and takes notice of this novel and therefore incongruous phenomenon."



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
So would anyone say it is possible for other life forms to exist with us but in different wave lengths that we can't see, but other animals can? Because if this were the case it would go along way to explaining many phenomena that we don't understand, such things as Ghost, UFO's etc. I have heard it said that it is a possibility that such creatures live in the upper atmosphere that have been picked up with infra-red camera equipment but have been mistaken for UFO's.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I personally think that it is impossible to perceive any other colours than the ones we already know because it covers the entire range. If you look at a colour palate on a computer, it essentially has every colour that the eye could ever see, and our minds ever interpret. I think that if we could perceive other frequencies, they would be represented by the visible light wave frequency closest in relation to the "new" light waves.

But it's really impossible to say because our brains don't know how to perceive something other than what it already can, especially when it's as broad as the visible light spectrum. That's like trying to perceive an alternate set of numbers even though we already think we know how to "perceive" all the numbers from negative infinity to infinity.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join