You are correct that I was unable to summarize an incredibly complex tangled web of economics, sociology and politics in a few hundred words on a forum. I don't think any of us can do this. Of course it's an oversimplification. Is the comment I'm replying to also not doing this? Are you also not doing the same thing?
My only point is that this seems like an awful lot of confirmation bias. Something everyone suffers from.
Not all people suffer the same level of confirmation bias, especially across all topics. And, for most topics, broad consensus of experts is better and less biased than individuals.
But can someone explain this to me?
>Light is technically something called electromagnetic radiation and it has a frequency and wavelength. That wavelength can vary, depending on the energy of the wave. High energy waves have a higher frequency and shorter wavelength, and low energy waves have a lower frequency and longer wavelength.
>This means that the same amount of energy at different wavelengths will not be perceived as the same brightness. For example, a light with a wavelength of 555 nm (green) will appear brighter than a light with a wavelength of 450 nm (blue) even if they have the same energy.
The article asserts that the wavelength (thus color) changes with the amount of energy, but then it says that you can have light of different wavelengths (color) with "the same energy."
These energies are very small. You can add a lot of photons per second, increasing the brightness of that color, and this now has the energy per second of all those photons. So you can have a lot of red photons which sum to some energy, or a different number of blue photons that sums to (very, very close) the total red energy.
These are the two energies he confuses in those two places.