Do scientists really explain colors ?

>>8158932
> it's another qualia thread

No. Electron theory and electromagnetic waves are a fraud.

>>8158964
>*he says, furiously typing on his electronik typer*

>>8158969
Do you even understand that ideas in our heads are not necessary an accurate representation of the reality. Or for you God exist because we believe in his existence.

>>8158985
sounds like the kind of garbage a teenager would say when he's '2smrt4skool and unchallenged'. Just a general statement that doesnt mean anything. If the theory is a fraud, disprove it. Ready, Go.

>>8158985
Occam's razor, which theory is pure assumption? I'll answer for you, "that nothing really exists". So you know, such existential 'questions' are philosophy, not science.

>>8158932
yes, we have cones in our eyes that have peak sensitivity at specific wavelengths. some even have 4 cones instead of the usual 3 (a few females). a few people even are sensitive to near IR.

beyond that, it's all about perception. but the sensor hardware is generally the same.

>>8158999
>Disprove the existence of God
wew

>>8158932
What seems to trouble you about our understanding of colors?

>In 1905 Albert Einstein published a paper that explained experimental data from the photoelectric effect as the result of light energy being carried in discrete quantized packets.
All our modern understanding of light is based on one Jew's belief. Einstein just says because we have the photoelectric effect thus light are consists of particles. Why? Because he just like it idea! That's why.

>>8159031
that people claim that colors are modeled numbers.

File: endoctor.jpg (74KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 501x585px

>>8159043
Somebody failed their photoelectric effect lab!

>>8159043
>Showing not even the slightest iota of knowledge about the photoelectric effect.
Go back to /pol/, anon.

>>8158985
This. Science today consists of 2 primary parts:
1. Math equations
2. Ass pulled explanations.

If you have an equation and it can predict experiment results, then you are right. No matter how crazy you are. You can even add time as dimension, or add 11 dimensoins, or even use your dick size as constant.

>>8159043
Sorry that physics triggers you anon

>>8159044
Why is that troublesome?

You can use sensors independent of human perception to measure physical quantities and assign numeric values to them. This is no more mysterious than weighing yourself on a scale.

By simulating mathematical physical models, you can check prediction against measurement. Of course all physical theories are models, and a model will break down if its underlying assumptions are exceeded, but this does not invalidate a model, it just says it doesn't work at all scales. Often times simple models are limiting cases of more accurate models.

If you find something you think is suspicious, by all means perform an experiment and do the math. If they are in agreement, you can have more confidence in the theory. If they disagree, first check to see if you worked within the bounds of the model. If you did, and it's not an artifact of the model, then you might have something interesting on your hands.

The point of science is to explain and predict. If a theory does not do both of these well, it's not a good theory. And you don't have to take anyone's word on it, just prove it to yourself by doing the math and the lab work.

>>8159052
>even use your dick size as constant.
If a Smoot is a valid unit, then the "muh dick" should be acceptable.
Now to pick a symbol...

>>8159072
>and the lab work.
can you send me the materials?

and your notes on the math

File: 1449842175546.jpg (55KB, 400x400px)

55KB, 400x400px

>>8159006
>philosophy
>not science
wew,
just wew

Does anyone know how the rods and cones of an eye behave on a quantum level? Isn't it just photons of a specific energy hit electrons in the rods and cones causing changes in energy? How does this signal lead to your brain creating an image?

>>8161658
> state something true
> get called edgy for it
That's 4chan in a nutshell.

So we all agree that reality is just numbers?

>>8158985
>what is meme magic
Pleb

>>8159043
>All our modern understanding of light is based on one Jew's belief
No, it's based on a the beliefs of two Jews and a nip.