Rainbow phenomenon

[starlight]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxf...e-34637103

[Camfer]

I thought Northlad was getting his name in rainbow letters. But it was nice to see that rainbow, for sure. Keep posting, D!

[starlight]

I thought Northlad was getting his name in rainbow letters. But it was nice to see that rainbow, for sure. Keep posting, D!

I can't change my name until 1000 can i lol

Cheers

[Insertnamehere]

I can't change my name until 1000 can i lol

Cheers

And then you have to fight a member for their colors. To the death.

Tis the only explanation I find logical.

[starlight]

And then you have to fight a member for their colors. To the death.

Tis the only explanation I find logical.

Do you really ? lol

[MikeW]

The use of "phenomenon" is exactly accurate when referring to rainbows, circumzenithal or otherwise. That is to say RAINBOWS DO NOT EXIST OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD. They *are* the quintessential "phenomenon". Rainbows are OBSERVED but do not have any *actual* existence EXCEPT AS observed phenomena.

Seriously, folks, no light gets into your brain unless you've got a cracked noggin. The light only gets as far as your retina. From that point forward its all electrochemical signals traveling up the optic nerve to the brain where it is "processed" and "experienced" as "a rainbow". Even the experience of "light" (as opposed to "dark") is a neurological phenomena.

The rainbow is not OUT THERE. Yeah, for sure, there is light being refracted through some atmospheric condition like rain droplets or ice crystals, or even a spray mist from your lawn sprinkler. BUT... the appearance of the "object" is just that, an "appearance". And that appearance takes place INSIDE YOUR BLOODY BRAIN.

Ok, so some have argue, "Well, but, you CAN photograph them." Duh. LOL. I mean how does that change anything? Ok, so it is possible to record light phenomena on a digital (or analog) surface. So... how is that any different from light hitting the optic nerve (going no further except as electromagnetic signals)?

So, in other words, a "rainbow" depends on the existence of THREE things: A light source; something to refract that light, and lastly and perhaps most importantly, a "recording" device that is sensitive to that refracted energy.

We're all rainbows!!

[Insertnamehere]

The use of "phenomenon" is exactly accurate when referring to rainbows, circumzenithal or otherwise. That is to say RAINBOWS DO NOT EXIST OUT THERE IN THE REAL WORLD. They *are* the quintessential "phenomenon". Rainbows are OBSERVED but do not have any *actual* existence EXCEPT AS observed phenomena.

Seriously, folks, no light gets into your brain unless you've got a cracked noggin. The light only gets as far as your retina. From that point forward its all electrochemical signals traveling up the optic nerve to the brain where it is "processed" and "experienced" as "a rainbow". Even the experience of "light" (as opposed to "dark") is a neurological phenomena.

The rainbow is not OUT THERE. Yeah, for sure, there is light being refracted through some atmospheric condition like rain droplets or ice crystals, or even a spray mist from your lawn sprinkler. BUT... the appearance of the "object" is just that, an "appearance". And that appearance takes place INSIDE YOUR BLOODY BRAIN.

Ok, so some have argue, "Well, but, you CAN photograph them." Duh. LOL. I mean how does that change anything? Ok, so it is possible to record light phenomena on a digital (or analog) surface. So... how is that any different from light hitting the optic nerve (going no further except as electromagnetic signals)?

So, in other words, a "rainbow" depends on the existence of THREE things: A light source; something to refract that light, and lastly and perhaps most importantly, a "recording" device that is sensitive to that refracted energy.

We're all rainbows!!

*sigh* Here goes me contradicting probably a member of the GS Allmighty Wiseman Council (I've read a few of your posts, wise man indeed)

It's ok, I'm gay....I'm already going to hell anyway, right?

You are using a whole lot of science (kudos!) to reach a rather wrong conclusion.

Existence of a physical process is not subjected to a matter of whether said process can be perceived or not.

A rainbow is the result of a physical process, i.e. visible light (electromagnetic wave 400 to 700 nm in wavelenght) being difracted. It is not a phenomenon.

This is around the same as that question if a tree falls down and no one is around to hear it, then, does it make a sound?

Of course it does, sound being a mechanical wave, transmitted through the collision of molecules.

Light is being produced and trasmitted, scattered, difracted, reflected, refracted whether there are receptors to pick up these processes or not.

What wouldn't "exist", then if there were not any receptors?

The word, concept and abstraction of said rainbow. But the rainbow itself is still out there. Light is still being produced and undergoing various precesses regardless of ourselves.

Images of course are representations of the 3D world that a few neurons make using the light available. The "image", i.e. the "recording" wouldn't exist, but the rainbow, result of a process, is still out there.

Now I'll go delete my account or something.

[MikeW]

Light is being produced and trasmitted, scattered, difracted, reflected, refracted whether there are receptors to pick up these processes or not.

No argument from me about that.

But to call that (rather global) refraction and dispersion of light "a rainbow" is nonsense. It is what it is: light energy being refracted and dispersed. THAT IS WHT IT IS. Not "a rainbow" For THAT, A rainbow, yeah, you do need a receptor... ONE and one with a LENSE capable of focusing the light energy on a receptor surface.

But there's the whole neurophenomenological aspect of the thing, too. The light we SEE is not the light that physics studies. I was taught that by a physicist. The light we "see" is a neurological RESPONSE to the effects of light energy stimulating our nervous system.

BTW, disagreeing with me is totally fine. If I'm wrong and you can make my dumb ass understand how I'm wrong, I have no problem with acknowledging the error of my stupid ways.

In this case, at this point, I'm not yet convinced of my ignorance.

[starlight]

I saw the end of one in a field

[MikeW]

I saw the end of one in a field

Should have gone for that pot of gold, dude.