It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!

this is seriously a pathetic joke.
there's nothing complex about it at all.
the logic that it consist is elementary.
it's that simple.

edit-
i question that you understand what you're saying yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I said there was some very simple undeniable logic involved, and the answer is one of two choices to my question. And we have not even gone into the complex thought yet.

If you can not understand the basics to the theory, it would be pointless to explain more.

I have noticed there is still nothing to prove the logic a fallacy.

Pathetic joke is not proof.

Undeniable there is only two choices to the question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

now you have resorted to contradicting your self.
the pathetic , elementary thinking, " experiment with the logic " had an answer[actual proof] before you proposed what you think is an experiment.

edit-
not only that but you seem to fail on realizing this comical experiment validates exactly what everyone has told you, rather than the opposite like you are claiming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you cannot - because there are no light sources or reflected light sources that you can see.

I get the feeling you are working up to a point of some sort. If so, you are far from making it, and haven't posted anything coherent yet.

 

The is another obvious choice. There are no photons for our eyes to detect so we see nothing.

You do realize we under stand how the eyes works don't you?

 

On another forum, dozens of posts were spent trying to explain to theorist that a shadow was not a physical object. That was before he was banned.

 

Uh, yikes.....

 

Sounds like another chinglu.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, I'm saying if there is no EMR at the same spectrum that is sensitive to a particular set of eyes, then those sets of eyes will see nothing. It will be dark.

 

I know present knowledge, In my question of logic is does not mention light in the question, and members are changing the parameters of a simple logic question, added light, or the absence of light, photons, which was not asked.

I asked from perceived visual observation, not present knowledge.

Ok, the simple logic is not being understood, so I will try some science word salad, and see if then you understand.


EM radiation in 3 dimensional space is monochromatic , a spectral magnitude of 0,and not a mixture of frequencies, my suggested evidence, and logic is based on defining the monochromatic carrier wave as a base band of f=0, I also conclude that the same base band f=o is equal to sight.
I also conclude that only by interaction with matter is the base band modulated.
I also offer in evidence a Prism, a monochromatic carrier wave incident ray, dispersed , by distance, of angular displacement of time and velocity.

Present knowledge suggests white light, to be a mixture of frequencies, and offers no mechanism for the dispersion, of a prism, refraction only slowing C, and having no mechanism to separate the different frequencies.

 

OK, I see what I see due to the sensitivity of my eyes to a particular wavelength of the EMS.
If I had the necessary equipment, I would be able to calculate that light has a constant finite speed of 186,000 Miles/sec.
I could readily calculate that if the Sun magically disappeared at any particular instant, we on Earth would not notice it for 8.25 minutes.
I would also notice fairly easily, that the intensity of any light source, falls of as the inverse square of the distance between emitter and receiver.
In essence and in time [if I was smart enough

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] I could have enough data on light, to model it exactly as it has been modeled.

You keep using that word "logic", yet I have not seen any.

I conclude exactly what you have said...word salad.
I also reinforce my previous conclusions, of lack of any evidence, lack of reason, and lack of peer review.

 

No it is not.

No it does not.

Yes it is.

You presented neither evidence nor logic.

What is that suppose to mean?

Gibberish.

The problem is that you obviously do not understand how a prism works.

 

Does that include knowing how to write reasonably clear and grammatically correct statements? No. So this proposition falls.

QED.

Are you claiming light waves are not composed of photons?

Are we supposed to pretend we are completely ignorant of electromagnetics in this thread?

At what point do you hold yourself accountable for acting the fool?

Huh? What does chromaticity have to do with radio, radar, cellular, or the EMR emitted by digital circuits? So you have never done any kind of spectral analysis. I'd like to see you explain the spectral content of a very narrow pulse.

Oh really. So what is the inverse Fourier transform of 0?

In the example you just gave we can have any mixture of frequencies as long as the amplitude is zero. Isn't that pretty stupid?

The only relevant evidence you have propounded here is that you have no clue what Fourier analysis is.

Oh are we talking about communication signals now? This is just getting more ridiculous.

So you're talking about modulating a carrier by a baseband. In this case it's DC, which is useless and meaningless. So in other words you know nothing about communication theory either.

Are you one of those people who sees radio waves coming out of the cellular towers? If so take that crap to the paranormal forum.

What are you referring to? A food synthesizer on the Starship Enterprise? Take that crap to the sci-fi forum.

Oh so now you're talking about fiber optic transmission. The last part of that statement is not even decipherable. Maybe you should consider taking remedial English. You can take that alongside a course in mathematical analysis which covers Fourier analysis plus a course in communication theory plus a course in electromagnetics and get back with us when you've figured out what is bothering you.

... that you don't know what present knowledge is. Hence remedial education is warranted.

When you get to communication theory you will learn that the word "white" means a uniformly distributed random process, which applies to most common light sources (roughly).

When you add a course in stochastic processes to the above list don't forget a course in optics.

You obviously have no clue how a prism works or what diffraction is, do you?

So now that we've established that you have none of the basic education needed to intelligently discuss this subject, why have you even opened this thread? What is your purpose here?

 

See earlier posts, where I say I am a not a scientist. See explanation, I know the statement was word salad, this is not to say I do not know what refraction is etc.

This is comparison words, if an idea is new, and has no words to explain it, no recognized meanings, they are spoken for, what am I suppose to call it.

There is no sci fi involved. Science has absolutely no proof that white light is a mixture of frequencies, if it were a mixture , and the constant of 3 dimensional space was a mixture, then satellites would not work, the carrier signal would be lost.

Example- 3 dimensional space, lets say a 10 hrtz frequency, and if you tried to send a 10 hrtz carrier signal through it, it simply would not work.

 

''OK, I see what I see due to the sensitivity of my eyes to a particular wavelength of the EMS.
If I had the necessary equipment, I would be able to calculate that light has a constant finite speed of 186,000 Miles/sec.
I could readily calculate that if the Sun magically disappeared at any particular instant, we on Earth would not notice it for 8.25 minutes.
I would also notice fairly easily, that the intensity of any light source, falls of as the inverse square of the distance between emitter and receiver.
In essence and in time [if I was smart enough

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

] I could have enough data on light, to model it exactly as it has been modeled.''


That is still not what you personally observe, that is again the science involved and not visual perceived image. The answer was we all observe dark, we all observe we can not see in the dark, we all observe we can not see through the dark, we observe and conclude that we are blind or the dark is obstructive to our sight.

We then conclude we are not blind, and the dark is obstructive, because by adding an infra red beam, a laser, we can see the dot on the wall through the dark.

 

P.S - why can people not discuss an idea, without instantly ruling out the idea and instantly reverting back to present knowledge, without even considering the idea or thinking about the idea .

It makes very little sense, to have an alternative theory, if people are only willing to say, that's wrong it is this way. an alternative theory is exactly that, alternative, so of cause it will be different to present knowledge.

You are basically telling me, I can not have an alternative theory, because it is instantly wrong because science says so, that is not discussion, and I am not here to have a slagging match about my educational background, so please refrain from the insults.

 

Just because you are in the Alternative section, does not mean you have free reign to say what you like. If you sprout nonsense, you will be called nonsensical. All alternative theories will be given the third degree...All alternative theories will be scrutinised.
Even our most accepted scientific theories at their inception, had to undergo the same scrutiny and run the gauntlet, before they were accepted on their merits.
All present accepted scientific theories have undergone peer review.

In saying all that, it should be noted that you do not have any alternative theory.....You do not even have a genuine hypothesis.
You have a nonsensical mish mash of ridiculous fairy tales.
No wonder you were banned from other forums. To label "dark" as obstructive, or to attach physical reality to a "shadow"is down right ludicrous.

Or you are a troll, purposely trying to get a raise out of people with the most ridiculous situations and notions you can dream up.
I'm going for the last one, as I don't believe anyone could really believe the unsupported crap that you put as logic.

 

I will try again , and try again to explain my logical thought, and where and how I get the idea.

I will add a logical thought, that give me the idea.

If a Cat could talk, and I and the Cat had a discussion at night time.

ME- It is dark tonight cat.

cat- is it, I can clearly see it is light.

me - you cat can see in the dark

cat- no, you must be blind


It becomes daytime.....


Both I and the cat conclude we now both can see in the dark.

 

I am not a troll, I have been learning about light for several years, I have had countless forum time and information about present knowledge.

A shadow is the obstruction of light, which allows us to see the natural behind the light , which is darkness. Dark is the constant natural, light is added to dark, where as dark is always there.

 

How many forums have you been banned from?


And the following statement by you, absolutely refutes the claim that you have any knowledge about light.

Anyway, I'm out. This is rather boring, refuting something a 8 year old could set you straight on.