jmdrake_98 at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 11 18:21:53 EST 2002
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan at gmx.de> wrote in message news:<rgr7ta.s6a.ln at miriam.mikron.de>...
> jmdrake wrote:
> > Now THIS is truly crackpot! First there's a huge difference between an
> > organism not having the "perfect" metal in its eye and eyes turning
> > "inside out".
> If you are free to arrange veins, neutrons and sensitive cells as you want,
> arranging them as they are (veins in front, sensitive cells in the back),
> this is "inside out". No sane engineer would do it like that if there are
> no obvious reasons. Example for an obvious reason: CCD sensors. The active
> material (silicon) is the substrate, so all the other stuff (power supply,
> sense lines) has to be put on top of it.
Actually Bernd there is an "obvious reason" to do this. The extra layers
of non-sensitive cells that the light must pass through before reaching
the sensitive cells acts like a "filter" to protect from UV radiation.
That's such a concern that human "engineers" have devised UV blocking
sunglasses to further block potentially damaging rays. The eyes of the
squid work fine under water where the water itself serves to filter out
extra rays. You're going off of the misconception that squid eyes
are somehow "better". They might be "better" for their enviornment
but they'd be a disaster on land. Nice try though.
> > Second the record is full of instances of "bad mutations"
> > that have been passed on from generation to generation.
> Sure. But having a complete line of life evolving their eyes "inside out" is
> pretty beyond what I can accept as "bad mutation". The eye must have
> started the wrong way, at a time they were generally that bad that this
> small "mistake" didn't really matter.
> And it's not just crippling: It's turning a complicated structure inside out
> while keeping it working. If you believe that's possible, you give more
> power to evolution than I do.
> >> Science requires a critical mind, and I still fail to see how lots of
> >> faith does not contradict that.
> > Well Bernd you seem to have a lot of "faith" in your own theories,
> > even though you haven't tested them and they seem to contridict the
> > NASA scientists who have. But hey, maybe they'll give you a job.
> Just because someone at NASA does patent stupid things does not make him an
> authority, nor puts down the rest of NASA. Big organizations have their
> crackpots somewhere. One of the antigravity crackpots worked for Boeing,
> and was fired later. If the patent office accepts a patent without physical
> explanation, there is some trouble, too - they should not. If you don't
> understand it, it's not an innovation, but a discovery.
My response is that just because you think something is stupid doesn't
make it so. As far as the patent office accepting things that aren't
yet fully understood that's basically what all genetic patents boil
> My theory is just one possible explanation I found after thinking about the
> problem for a moment (it really springs up immediately). I do not insist in
> it being the one true answer, but I insist that these people are not doing
> serious research, because if they did, this would have crossed their minds,
> too. And it's much closer than ion wind.
Naw. Ion wind is more plausible. At least that's been demonstrated. So
far you haven't given any reference to any demonstration of your theory
beyond your own mind. Any papers on walls as capacitors Bernd? How far
away must the wall be before you can dismiss it? Just saying "the force
is bouncing off the wall somewhere" is quite suspect.
> And if the lifter just lifts outside, it's still the ground that lifts it.
> No distant trees or mountains necessary (and they won't work, either). You
> just claimed that this effect also generates a horizontal force, and the
> article that supports your claim had a photo showing that *they* had walls
> in their lab.
The lifters do more than lift outside. They also move horizontally outside.
John M. Drake
More information about the Neur-sci