Nice picture. That looks like bacterium. Plurally bacterial. The image I posted is nothing like that. I'm not confused like you seem to think. I'm having trouble explaining that those images aren't of actual physical objects. Not even microscopic ones. They've been built from observer to observer. Click the lens back again and there you go. This guy sees it, that girl agrees, bam. There you have the next image. It may be illusion as you look smaller than the eye can see, yet it seems to make just enough sense to keep you trying to see. There is probably an unacceptable secret that we'll feel content trying to know, without ever knowing. The illusions in the microscopic and cosmic words are just there to sidetrack maybe.
-
Features
What bacteria is this?
- Thread starter another1
- Start date
Peez
Member
It is even worse than that. Reality is no more than an illusion, including this post, so just ignore it.
connick
Junior Member
So are you saying that what is seen under a microscope isn't really what is physically under a microscope? I'm curious to know more about your position here.
Hmm a position. I would have to say it has to do with a limitation in our vision of the microscopic world. I think our minds make things up as we go along when it comes to microscopic world.. and DEFINITELY space. For all we know, we're looking at the same thing, either way we look, which is the mind itself? So yeah, I guess my position is that anything too small to see is imaginary - and anything too far away to see - imaginary. Still very real because we have some sort of static relaying the illusions, but still, not present in terms of actual reality. When I come across unbelievably mocking images of space and the "microscopic" world, it just proves my point further. What is the quote about it looking back at you? Well, what is looking back could be our own minds. Humans have abyssal imaginations for a reason. That could be their very purpose. To look around and assume a form for nature.
Maybe we do it to sustain our existence, like we have a limitation in vision, like I said. A firewall in nature. Either way, I propose there is nothing in there - or out there. Just right here, which too is questionable, once you submit to this idea or one of the millions like it.
Last edited:
Peez
Member
Sarpedon
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,976
- Location
- MN, US
- Basic Beliefs
- the Philosophy of Not Giving a Damn
Most people grow out of the phase where they think things they can't see don't exist by the time they reach their first birthday. This is why babies scream when mommy leaves the room. It's called 'object persistence' in child development jargon.
I'm talking about object nonexistence... but how would you apply the term to the scientific world? Good question, Sarpedon. "Babies scream when mommy leaves the room" is a decent enough way to describe what we're (not) looking at in this scenario. I think something fishy is going on, don't you? How far can an image be reduced? Refresh me on what images do when they are reduced as far as we can reduce them.
I skipped my hourly dose just for you. Better? Pardon while I inhale now thank you.
connick
Junior Member
While looking at an object under a microscope you can poke and interact with it. I do this all the time at work. When looking at an object through a telescope you can send a friend into the distance (even on a spaceship to the moon) and have them poke and interact with it. What makes you doubt microscopic or telescopic images?
Malintent
Veteran Member
another1, are you saying that the objects we can observe with a microscope are just the imaginations of the observer, like seeing bunnies in passing clouds?
Do you reject germ theory as just the imaginations of some observers too?
connick
Junior Member
So, I thought I'd add a little image to help illustrate the scale of the spider mite in the original image. First off, looking at the Wikipedia page for spider mites I realize that I've seen these in person on plants and can confirm their generalization that they are less than 1 mm (1,000,000 nm) in size. So in the left part of the image we have the spider mite with a bar for scale. In all reality, this specimen was probably less than 1 mm but let's be generous.
On the right side of the image is a 14 nm transistor which is very much like the transistors in my personal GPU which happen to be 16 nm. Obviously the image on the right is not to scale so I did some napkin math and found that in comparison to the mite image it would be only 1/100th of a pixel. So you see the little white dot under the words "To Scale", right under the "S"? Well, I suppose it's misleading to say it is to scale because that single pixel is one hundred times the size of one of these transistors. Monitors don't display less than a pixel though so close enough, right?
The main point I'm trying to make here is that humans build and rely upon devices at the nano-meter scale which are much, much, much, much, smaller than this relatively large mite. In the semi-conductor industry, a mite this size would be considered utterly Brobdingnagian.
On the right side of the image is a 14 nm transistor which is very much like the transistors in my personal GPU which happen to be 16 nm. Obviously the image on the right is not to scale so I did some napkin math and found that in comparison to the mite image it would be only 1/100th of a pixel. So you see the little white dot under the words "To Scale", right under the "S"? Well, I suppose it's misleading to say it is to scale because that single pixel is one hundred times the size of one of these transistors. Monitors don't display less than a pixel though so close enough, right?
The main point I'm trying to make here is that humans build and rely upon devices at the nano-meter scale which are much, much, much, much, smaller than this relatively large mite. In the semi-conductor industry, a mite this size would be considered utterly Brobdingnagian.
Malintent
Veteran Member
I just dropped my cat off at the vet for some dental work. Is that why when I look at the picture of the 14nm transistor above, I see a tooth? Can someone please tell me what the 14nm transistor REALLY looks like? I mean, I must have just made up its physical properties in my imagination because of my cat... for al lI know a 14nm transistor looks like a piece of toast, or a cupcake, oh oh oh.. or a valentine heart... yes, it must really look like a valentine heart. It does because I like it to.
Another1, am I getting it yet?
Another1, am I getting it yet?
Peez
Member
Do you have your tin foil hat on? If not, there might be a broadcast signal influencing your perception.
Peez
Malintent
Veteran Member
I'm trying... It's hard to get it to fit me. I'm fairly new at practicing woo. But, in this new world order we are living in, I need the practice.
