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

Did you cuss out T-C1-5 in Latin? Impressive!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. I did not cuss nor is that latin. It is spanish (goodbye my confused friend).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sólo bromeando, mi amigo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok I will just give up, and not explain how black body radiation is made by the inverse square law, over lapping from source, following inverse isotropic laws.

 

No worries, and at least we agree on one point... so on to the next...

And what is "dark"? What does it consist of? What can be done with it? Are there sources of it?

This is where I think you start to equivocate terms, to confuse meanings, of the terms you use...
You can not say it is "pitch black" if you remove all reference to sight and the very language that we have developed solely in relation to sight. You are trying to describe something with language of a sense you are not permitting. It is like trying to tell a person blind from birth what yellow is.
I.e. If you remove the sense of sight from the equation, "pitch black", "dark", "light" etc have no meaning. And it only confuses people as to your point if you insist on using them.
[qupte]I agree that this is a crazy idea, but I also see the logic involved.[/quote]It's not crazy, as at the root I see you understanding that our vision is merely of EMR, and that there is no inherent colour, light, dark etc to that other what our brain interprets it as, and so such things are solely within our heads. But this is only true of the interpretation, not of what we are interpreting, which as you seem to agree, very much exists.
So all you are also saying is that such terminology is purely subjective with no existence outside of that subjectivity.

Where I disagree with you is in the claim that "dark" is somehow different to this, that it exists in its own right.
At best we can say that such terms would be meaningless without the sense of sight, through which we have generated the interpretation.
But we can no more say that it is "dark" than we could tell a blind man what "yellow" is.

I think you may be placing too much importance on the use of the word "light" here rather than treating the term as physicists have done to mean all EMR, of which visible light is just a part of the spectrum. As a physicist Einstein would, I think, not have singled out the visible spectrum in his deliberations.

I remain confused with this last point... Why would it not be part of the spectral range?
I agree that we can not see light until it enters our eyes etc, and what we "see" is an interpretation of the EMR that has entered our eyes. But none of this is new, and none of this is an alternative theory. The only alternative aspect to any of this seems to be the "dark" that you says exists.

You don't see a speed. "Look at that 22 km/h!" So this sentence seems wrong. At best you observe something moving at a speed. That said it is known that light is invisible unless it impacts your eye or other observing device. And then it is interpreted.

The absence of something would be constant to everyone and everything. But the absence does not exist. Dark does not exist... it is the absence of light. And in the absence of a means to observe the light, dark has no meaning.

No one says it is in a "constant change of frequency state". Each EM wave will have a specific frequency. When we observe certain multiple frequencies in quick succession our brain interprets that as white, as it is not able to identify specific frequencies. But there is no single frequency for white light. It is like when you add sugar to your coffee, you no longer can tell which molecule is water and which is sugar just through the gross sense of taste, and it becomes a single mix called "coffee with sugar". But each molecule is still separate.

please clarify this example, and how it explains anything.
Cheers.

 

Thank God!

 

REVA (spanish LOL). Entiendo

 

That's abundantly obvious. Now you only need to stop pretending to understand optics, electromagnetics, communication theory, probability theory and harmonic analysis and everything you're posting will be resolved.

That doesn't absolve you of practicing science without a license.

That's contradicted by your ridiculous posts confusing simple concepts in optics.

Whenever you think you're having a novel idea in science, unless you have the requisite training to master first principles, you can rest assured that it had been thoroughly studied and the technical language to describe it is well established. Your problem is that you are living inside your head instead of at least trying to live in the real world.

Not in the customary sense, since those works tend to be literary and actually interesting.

You already admitted ignorance of science therefore your claims about sconce are meritless.

That admits to your ignorance of the meaning of "white" in scientific language (e.g. information theory) as well as ignorance of the meaning of "frequency" (esp. Electromagnetics). You also are ignorant of the means by which the color white is displayed on whatever device you are posting with.

Go learn about optical spectra. Pure sinusoidal light sources are very rare. Nothing short of a carefully designed device, like a laser, is capable of producing light in that form. Note, such a source has to be coherent. That rules out all light ever seen by humans until the first laser was built.

So you see this has nothing to do with the color of the light. It has everything to do with your ignorance of a few basic principles of optics and electromagnetics.

Meaningless gibberish. More evidence that you are living inside your head, feeding on your dreams instead of the plain language of the real world.

Well they do so your belief that sat comm has anything to do with this is obviously lost to your confusion over optics and electromagnetics.

Are you by any chance a trucker with a CB or Ham radio? Because you are approaching this thread with the mentality of someone trying to avoid the speed traps, believing that you know something about electromagnetics simply because you have a transceiver, an antenna and mic with a button labeled "Push to talk". You need another kind of device, one labeled "Push to listen".

Duh.

No, lets not. You started out in the optical band, then wandered into the microwave band and now you want to discuss ELF?

Also, the abbreviation for Hertz is Hz.

That conclusion does not follow from the premise. And it has nothing to do with optics.


Just guessing what is blowing your mind, since you don't bother to explain what it is in plain English: Go learn the principle of superposition. You seem to think waves don't add. Learn what wave interference is.

And try asking questions instead of posting bald claims.

 

assumption - Dark is a Vacuum, that EM radiation can not escape, and neither can EM radiation enter. It consists of 9 dimensions, Each dimension is the same for all observers. And there is a central dimension, that all the other 8 dimensions revolve around. What can be done with?, Each dimension can explore the other dimension, and sources of it, a big bang.

Can I prove dark exists, Observe a shadow, we can observe shadows, without being in the shadow, my logic tells me, I am seeing the dark in that shadow. And this shows us that dark, is not the absence of sight by absence of light, and dark is a thing , and the absence of frequency in the shadow, that allows us to see that thing as light in the shadow, when we are submerged in the frequency.

''I remain confused with this last point... Why would it not be part of the spectral range?''
Because the spectral range is what we can see, and the invisible part, we don't see, what I consider is because we are submerged in the invisible, light is already in our eyes, so does not need to reflect of anything into our eyes to see.

''please clarify this example, and how it explains anything.''

Because we are under the water, the water is already in contact with our eyes, so the slightest ripple under the water, and we see through the transparency, and see the disturbance in the constant.

The frequency explanation, was to explain , that a set frequency of x, could not be sent through a 3 dimensional space, frequency of x, an equilibrium to the frequency would not work.

And in reverse, a variable frequency of x,y,z, could not be sent through a 3 dimensional space of a variable frequency of x,y,z, or could x or y or z be sent as a singular frequency through x,y,z

But y or z could be sent through 3 dimensional space at a constant x frequency.

 

Exactly the same nonsense which has gotten you banned from every site you post at.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Two birds with one stone! Love it!

 

That in my experience on science forums, seems to be the eternal problem with most alternative hypothesis adherents.
That and a couple of other "qualities" I have mentioned a few times before.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Wrong. When you turn on a light it does not emit photons, it absorbs darkons. Darkons are the thing that makes the universe dark. The natural state of the universe is fully lighted. The closer you are to the light the brighter it is because there are fewer darkons. The reason it is normally dark in the universe is because about 1 week after the big bang happened there was a flipping of the magnetic monopoles that resulted in a harmoic frequency of all up quarks, spontaneously forming virtual darkons that made everything dark. Certain states of matter such as high temperatures and fireflys result in the matter absorbing darkons making it bright in the area of the absorbed darkons.

Wrong again! There are 8 dimensions. You cannot have an odd number of dimensions or the universe would implode.

Now we are getting somewhere. Of course the 'minor' dimensions orbit the central 'major dude' dimension. This can actually be proven by a relatively simple experiment using ethanol. The ethanol source is not that important but I find that really cheap tequila works best. Carefully measure out 1.5 oz of the tequila into little glasses and line them up. Drink about 10 - 15 of the little glasses and wait. You can have some nachos while you wait. When you get really bleary eyed, lay down and you will experience the orbiting dimensions. After a short time of experiencing the orbiting dimensions you will throw up and swear to never see those goddamn orbiting dimensions ever again.

Ain't science great!

 

And yet the light of all the stars, including our own, propagates through the darkness of space. Gee, you must be wrong.

Stoner thoughts. Origin was right about the bong. Congratulations BTW on yesterday's progress toward legalization. But eventually the site probably needs a stoner Confused Science forum.

Which makes them totally imaginary since they can not contain space, time, matter, energy or anything belonging to the physical world.

Let me know what strain you're smoking so when I get my prescription I'll know to avoid it.

Your abortions of English for one thing.

Next time you light up, be sure to wait 4-6 hours before posting.

Yes. Your posts do that remarkably well.

This is beginning to sound more like peyote or mescaline.

You are confusing daydreaming with logic.

No, it shows us that you are incapable of linking a conclusion to a premise.

On acid maybe.

Speak for yourself. You are the only one who is submerged in anything. But only a seriously drugged brain could come up with "submerged in the frequency".

 

My head feels like it wants to explode after reading that, Darkon's, wow really!. I will need get back to you on that one.


I wish I could upload my diagrams.


''Wrong again! There are 8 dimensions. You cannot have an odd number of dimensions or the universe would implode.''

9 dimensions, and probably not even the 8 you consider, all 9 dimensions are time, 8 of the times surround a center of mass dimension. All 8 dimensions are being drawn towards the center of mass.

They do want to implode.

If you draw a cube, and label all corners time,<t>. Then from every corner, using a different colored line, link all the corners , giving a center of mass cross section. Label the center of mass <t>.

This shows you that time can not dilate, and time is constant to all observers. You can add velocity to every corner, leaving time also V<t>, and you will see clearly from this model that every day is observed the same day. Time is observed the same. The 4 dimensional model being transparent.

This by the way , proves the time cube theory person , who claimed 4 separate days running simultaneous,he is wrong.

For the next part of the model remove the cube , leaving the lines, you will see 9 dimensions of time and space, equal to all observers by time.

Then you can perfectly fit a sphere around the 9 dimensions, isotropic dimension, fitting in with a black hole.

 

I think my ex-wife emitted darkons.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, in general it's not, unless you force it to be so.

That is a word salad that doesn't mean anything.

No, baseband frequencies are modulated by whatever modulates them. In AM radio the baseband is amplitude modulated by the pressure of air, which is converted to an electrical signal by a microphone (for example.) The electrical signal then modulates the baseband frequency to produce the transmitted signal. I suspect you do not know what "base band modulated" means and just used it to add bulk to your "science word salad."

Of course it has a mechanism to separate the different frequencies.

Your posts are reminiscent of cargo cults shortly after World War II. During World War II, many Pacific islanders were literally showered with wealth; Allied aircraft dropped supplies from aircraft, built runways and bases, and occupied many islands. As a result, islanders got jobs, got soldier's discarded clothing, got the equipment when they left etc. But after they left the supplies dried up. The islanders then decided if they could just make their island _look_ like it used to the cargo would come back. So they built airplanes out of straw, wore coconut headsets to "talk to the pilots," stood on the runways with flags as they had seen airmen do etc. They thought that if they just acted like they had the airplanes the airplanes would come back - even though they had no clue as to how airplanes worked or what might convince them to come back.

Your posts seem to indicate a similar attitude - that if you post enough meaningless "science word salad" that you will seem intelligent, that you will somehow clothe yourself in the respectability of science by making yourself sound like a scientist, even though you don't know the science behind what you are talking about. It doesn't work that way.

 

Duplicate; deleted.

 

Because some ideas are wrong. "Having an idea" is great. Knowing when to abandon it because it is incorrect is crucial.

Sure, you can have an alternate theory. You can have the theory, for example, that the Earth is flat because it looks that way to you. But just having that theory does not make it valid.

Oh, you can have all the alternate theories you want. And if you post them, they will be discussed - and if they are foolish or nonsensical, you will be told that. If you do not wish to hear this then don't post them (or post more valid theories.)

 

for me, this is my opinion for majority of individuals here.
which are massively obvious.