Bernd Paysan bernd.paysan at gmx.de
Thu Dec 12 04:30:14 EST 2002

jmdrake wrote:
> 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.

As the human eye also has developped under water, this is utter nonsense. 
And the vitreous body of the eye blocks UV pretty good; the small layer of 
neurons and veins doesn't add much to it. Veins and neurons block red light 
mostly, something that is quite important under water (i.e. in the 
environment where fish eyes, and thus our eyes have evolved).

Furthermore, mammals were night-living creatures for quite a long time, and 
there the advantage of the squid eye also pays off.

> 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.

You are obviously completely locked in to that crazy idea. First, people 
like you claim that the eye is perfect; if you are confronted with evidence 
that it is not perfect, you resort to "degeneration". Now confronted with 
an explanation why this can't have degenerated that way, you revert back to 
"it's perfect" (which was bullshit the first time, and still is). We don't 
play ping pong here.

> 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
> down to.

They are even worse, because no man has ever invented a genome. These are 
definitely discoveries.

> 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?

When there's time, I'll write one. No serious research is going on here, 
because it's not worth the time, nor can you get glory from debunking crazy 
ideas. You just get to argue with crackpots, which is depressing.

> 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.

Nah. I did not utter such nonsense. I said the ground (and walls if they are 
nearby) must be treated as capacitor plates, tied to ground voltage (which 
they are, walls are usually sufficiently conductive). The photo in the 
paper you pointed me to shows a wall about one meter from the turned 
lifter, which is quite close.

Just do the simple math: You have two plates with different distance/force 
curves, one (plate A) flat (nearly no dependency nearby), one (plate B) as 
cable (1/r dependency nearby). The forces between them are equal (actio est 
reactio), they are attracting each other. Now put a third, ground-level 
plate. The forces between ground and A have a different distance/force 
curve than the ones between ground and B. Do you fail to see how this can 
give a lifting effect? Have you ever seen a charged high-voltage capacitor 
bouncing a ping-pong ball in between? Electrostatic charges are powerful.

Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list