Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: guest39538 on 29/06/2016 13:36:54
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Staring at the bedroom window at night in an illuminated room I can ''see'' a distance between my eyes and window that is illuminated and not dark but rather ''gin-clear''.
Outside of my window I can ''see'' darkness, the darkness does not reflect light or emit light but I ''see'' the image of darkness in my brain that is a distance away from me, so how does darkness enter my eyes so I can ''see'' the darkness?
The Darkton Particle?
-
No one can see darkness, what a stupid thread and a stupid question from an empty mind? I am amazed this this nonsense is allowed by the moderators.
You clearly do not understand the question, I am quite sure the mods and other members will understand quite ''clearly'', you are completely wrong of course, of course you ''see'' darkness or else you would not see the darkness behind the window or shadows at a distance.
You will not influence the moderators with your posts, they can already see that you are here to try and attack people on a personal level.
Empty mind indeed, everyone else calls that an open mind .
-
No one can see darkness, what a stupid thread and a stupid question from an empty mind? I am amazed this this nonsense is allowed by the moderators.
You clearly do not understand the question, I am quite sure the mods and other members will understand quite ''clearly'', you are completely wrong of course, of course you ''see'' darkness or else you would not see the darkness behind the window or shadows at a distance.
You will not influence the moderators with your posts, they can already see that you are here to try and attack people on a personal level.
Empty mind indeed, everyone else calls that an open mind .
Darkness is the absence of light it is the absence of reality, it is is a negation a non-thing. When you were looking at the black imagine you posed, "Tell me exactly what you were seeing pleeaase??"
Yes you do have an open mind, maybe the most open- minded person ever on the forum, but my advice to you," is to try avoid to opening it to the extent that it falls completely out of your head"
My logic does not ever fall out of my head , I start with an open mind , a blank canvas, then build up a ''picture'' of information looking at both perspectives of objective and subjective thus leading me to logical conclusions . I then have a mind ''erasure'' that allows me to start over with a blank canvas when I obtain more information to edit my built picture of information.
Darkness is the absence of light but only in one of many ambiguity meanings. In the dark is detected CMBR which is detected as ''light''. Also there is infra-red and all sorts of ''light'' that we can not ''see'' because they are of the invisible spectrum.
Darkness is a very general term and not specific.
When I look at the window at night I am exactly perceiving the same thing you perceive and you perceive outside it is dark and the inside is light. A very distinguishable mental picture difference in our sight cortex.
We are not seeing photons travelling from the darkness to our eyes, but the space between the window and eyes is perceived to be light. If the space between your eyes and window was dark then you would not see the window thus showing dark is not just the absence of light but an entity that lies under the light.
We can clearly see it is dark in its exact location outside of the window. The space outside the window being relatively ''opaque'' compared to the ''gin-clear'' space inside the room.
-
The image he posted seems to be just like an ordinary example, the right answers can easily be used on astronomical observation, not that we are not already observing, but would be very helpful understand why our eyes, telescopes and cameras can indeed capture black...
Expand your answer to beyond the sample picture the man post...
In the other hand I don't approve the approach you used to answer, but I can't Denny that you can be correct..
But one interesting question, I do believe it will not end up with absence of light, but absence of photons, light is resultant of the interaction of photons traveling trough space fabric, so in terms of astronomical observation, the dark we see doesn't truly need to be black, maybe this dark of yours is simple invisible, the problem is our eyes, is not that they are catching the dark out there, it's more likely that in the absence of light they can't catch the invisible...
-
The image he posted seems to be just like an ordinary example, the right answers can easily be used on astronomical observation, not that we are not already observing, but would be very helpful understand why our eyes, telescopes and cameras can indeed capture black...
Expand your answer to beyond the sample picture the man post...
In the other hand I don't approve the approach you used to answer, but I can't Denny that you can be correct..
But one interesting question, I do believe it will not end up with absence of light, but absence of photons, light is resultant of the interaction of photons traveling trough space fabric, so in terms of astronomical observation, the dark we see doesn't truly need to be black, maybe this dark of yours is simple invisible, the problem is our eyes, is not that they are catching the dark out there, it's more likely that in the absence of light they can't catch the invisible...
I have already extended this topic in the past , I have reduced it down to an easy level to understand rather than explicitly talking about my ''box'' singularity.
There is not an absence of photons between my eyes and window, the darkness is distinguishable in its exact location, like looking at an object.
It shows an absence of Photons in that distinguishable area which is provable to be a distance away giving doubt to the integrity of how sight works.
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
No one can see darkness, what a stupid thread and a stupid question from an empty mind? I am amazed this this nonsense is allowed by the moderators.
You clearly do not understand the question, I am quite sure the mods and other members will understand quite ''clearly'', you are completely wrong of course, of course you ''see'' darkness or else you would not see the darkness behind the window or shadows at a distance.
You will not influence the moderators with your posts, they can already see that you are here to try and attack people on a personal level.
Empty mind indeed, everyone else calls that an open mind .
Darkness is the absence of light it is the absence of reality, it is is a negation a non-thing. When you were looking at the black imagine you posed, "Tell me exactly what you were seeing pleeaase??"
Yes you do have an open mind, maybe the most open- minded person ever on the forum, but my advice to you," is to try avoid to opening it to the extent that it falls completely out of your head"
My logic does not ever fall out of my head , I start with an open mind , a blank canvas, then build up a ''picture'' of information looking at both perspectives of objective and subjective thus leading me to logical conclusions . I then have a mind ''erasure'' that allows me to start over with a blank canvas when I obtain more information to edit my built picture of information.
Darkness is the absence of light but only in one of many ambiguity meanings. In the dark is detected CMBR which is detected as ''light''. Also there is infra-red and all sorts of ''light'' that we can not ''see'' because they are of the invisible spectrum.
Darkness is a very general term and not specific.
When I look at the window at night I am exactly perceiving the same thing you perceive and you perceive outside it is dark and the inside is light. A very distinguishable mental picture difference in our sight cortex.
We are not seeing photons travelling from the darkness to our eyes, but the space between the window and eyes is perceived to be light. If the space between your eyes and window was dark then you would not see the window thus showing dark is not just the absence of light but an entity that lies under the light.
We can clearly see it is dark in its exact location outside of the window. The space outside the window being relatively ''opaque'' compared to the ''gin-clear'' space inside the room.
Indeed you have said it yourself, your mind is a 'Blank Canvas" as you have proved over and over again and it is true, from nothing only nothing can be expected.
"It is easier to try to reason with a lamp post than you?"
Your logic is not of this world maybe, those who exist in some alternate dimension of reality could unravel with great effort what you are trying to convey, but with my limited mind you are way out there far beyond he comprehension of any rational human being.
Oh! Gosh I see black light!
Keep up the bad work!
If this rudimentary observation confuses you why not just ask what you do not understand ?
MY logic is no more than basic thinking, it is of my consciousness,
-
I take it , people are failing to understand this ?
-
Close your eyes. Lots of dark. So it doesn't come from outside.
Indeed your mind in particular seems able to generate darkness and confusion in almost every direction.
-
Close your eyes. Lots of dark. So it doesn't come from outside.
Indeed your mind in particular seems able to generate darkness and confusion in almost every direction.
Closing your eyes is the similarity to breaking a circuit. The dark you ''see'' when you close your eyes is the loss of information that sight gives us. The dark I ''see'' behind the window is not a loss of information, my eyes are wide open and I can ''see'' all the information of my room and also the information that it is dark in the exact location I am ''seeing'' it to be dark. There is clearly a defining distance that separates my eyes and the point where I ''see'' the dark, this distance is ''gin-clear'' and ''light'' compared to the dark space I observe at a spooky distance.
The darkness is quite ''clearly'' provable to be a distance away and outside unless you can explain how darkness enters my eyes so I can see it?
-
is not what your eyes are catching is about what they can't, is not that we're seeng dark out there, the case4 is, your eyes have no awnser for catching the invisible, our eyes can't catch the invisible spectrum so they rest the imagine where the spectrum is invisible, and keep working the area that still be iradiated with light...
One's eye is not seeing dark, one is not being able to see the invisible, so the eye rest... This is different to watch black color, and its similar of close your eyes, is not a enviroment color, is a inactivate state of the eye..
When one's looking to the night sky, its not black hes seeing, is invisible that he's not able to see...
-
is not what your eyes are catching is about what they can't, is not that we're seeng dark out there, the case4 is, your eyes have no awnser for catching the invisible, our eyes can't catch the invisible spectrum so they rest the imagine where the spectrum is invisible, and keep working the area that still be iradiated with light...
One's eye is not seeing dark, one is not being able to see the invisible, so the eye rest... This is different to watch black color, and its similar of close your eyes, is not a enviroment color, is a inactivate state of the eye..
When one's looking to the night sky, its not black hes seeing, is invisible that he's not able to see...
The ''light'' that is ''illuminating'' the space is ''invisible'', what I mean by this is that the light between your eyes and window has no spectral content and we perceive this space to be ''gin-clear'' in visual appearance. The darkness I ''see'' in it's exact location is not ''invisible''but rather ''opaque'' in visual appearance.
When one looks to the night sky they are not ''seeing'' invisible , they are seeing ''gin-clear'', the darkness of the window is different to that of looking into the night sky where ambient light is present.
I can take a tape measure from my eye to my window to measure a distance , I can clearly measure an amount of ''lit'' space and distinguish where dark space starts and the ''lit'' space ends.
I conclude I am ''seeing'' the darkness in it's exact location and external of my brain proven by the exact location .
-
Its just like watch water, deep water, the strange effect is because our eyes fail to see the spectrum, and even if you remove the spectrum your eye capabilitie continue the same, but they still can notice the depth...
-
Our eyes see the dark the same way that our ears hear silence.
-
Our eyes see the dark the same way that our ears hear silence.
I like that, very true.
But we can also hear the darkness. In fact I had a CD of their's on tonight [;)]
-
Our eyes see the dark the same way that our ears hear silence.
Yes in the darkness there is certainly a lack of visible light/photons, however all the science available and none of it explains why we see the dark in an independent location away from ourselves such as the observation of the window.
How can the visual darkness and eye be divided by light in the illuminated distance if dark does not exist as an entity?
It can't , I see the darkness in its exact location, you seem to be ignoring the objective thinking about the geometrical positioning of the darkness relative to me.
-
I have drew the information and thought.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
The Darkton Particle?
Your peculiar logic never ceases to amaze.............................LOL
-
The Darkton Particle?
Your peculiar logic never ceases to amaze.............................LOL
Lol the Darkton was rather sarcastic, if science can have a Photon reflecting off a distance object and entering your eyes to allow you to see that object, then surely I can have a particle that is emitted by the dark passing through the light into your eyes to reveal darkness.
However I would rather stick by my Quanta whole and the ''gin-clear'' thing and connectivity which I think is more viable, however I also have a picture in my head of the inside and outside is dark really, and all that we see is things that ''glow in the dark'' giving a sense of light .
-
There is the invisible spectrum when observing sky at night, and there is shadows, different things, there is invisible and there is shadow, a shadow is not limited to outside a glass, it also happens at the atomic level, meaning that show effect happens even inside dense atomic structure, not only outside of it, at least when we talking at something like glass, the atomic structure of the glass will cause shadows even if its a transparent substance, very different from a invisible one... The precense of any sort of atomic structure will disrupt the field where you're observing, event the oxigen around you will...
Watch the invisible with your eyes will seems to be dark, watch the same invisible from inside a room, trought a window, will only disrupt the spectrum, causing shadows, and shadow is indeed black as any black picture, or tree leaves during day, seems that your experiment is refering and measuring the length of the shadows of the room over the invisible...
Not sure anymore if your experiment is refering to shadows or to invisible, our eyes would interpreted both as almost the same dark thing, but one is colour other is invisible, and of course there is also the shadow around your own eyes, to be able to see the spectrum your eyes should be able to adapt, probably your eyes would have to be black, the sciera, to compensate for the shadows generated from the atomic structure of your own eye...
Want to test the windows shadow effect, close your eyes, look straig to a withe light bulb, wait a few secunds, pass your fingers opened in front of your own closed eyes, and you will be able to see the shadow of your own hand passing in front of your closed eyes...
Put the light bulb otside the window, close your eyes, close and open the window without open your eyes, if the light is strong outside you will be able to noticed the shadow, if the light is weak, as during night, you wont be able to noticed but it will be there anyway...
And I agree with you about silence, a very good one, but it's a hole different question...
-
There is the invisible spectrum when observing sky at night, and there is shadows, different things, there is invisible and there is shadow, a shadow is not limited to outside a glass, it also happens at the atomic level, meaning that show effect happens even inside dense atomic structure, not only outside of it, at least when we talking at something like glass, the atomic structure of the glass will cause shadows even if its a transparent substance, very different from a invisible one... The precense of any sort of atomic structure will disrupt the field where you're observing, event the oxigen around you will...
Watch the invisible with your eyes will seems to be dark, watch the same invisible from inside a room, trought a window, will only disrupt the spectrum, causing shadows, and shadow is indeed black as any black picture, or tree leaves during day, seems that your experiment is refering and measuring the length of the shadows of the room over the invisible...
Not sure anymore if your experiment is refering to shadows or to invisible, our eyes would interpreted both as almost the same dark thing, but one is colour other is invisible, and of course there is also the shadow around your own eyes, to be able to see the spectrum your eyes should be able to adapt, probably your eyes would have to be black, the sciera, to compensate for the shadows generated from the atomic structure of your own eye...
Want to test the windows shadow effect, close your eyes, look straig to a withe light bulb, wait a few secunds, pass your fingers opened in front of your own closed eyes, and you will be able to see the shadow of your own hand passing in front of your closed eyes...
Put the light bulb otside the window, close your eyes, close and open the window without open your eyes, if the light is strong outside you will be able to noticed the shadow, if the light is weak, as during night, you wont be able to noticed but it will be there anyway...
And I agree with you about silence, a very good one, but it's a hole different question...
The visible spectrum is colour, I am not sure you or anybody will understand this,
In the daytime the ''gin-clear'' of light visual you perceive between your eye and object in the space is dark and not light.
However dark is not dark either, if you are in a pitch black cave the space you perceive to be dark between your eye and cave wall is also ''gin-clear'' and see through.
You only see objects that are not gin clear that are illuminated.
Scrap dark and light, change to invisible space and the Illuminati of matter. We see things that are illuminated in invisible space.
-
The visible spectrum is colour, I am not sure you or anybody will understand this,
I'm trying to, I also share with you the concept of blank state of mind, and also the way you described you can clear your mind, I also like to wonder in that same line, rarely I need to do a physical experiment cause I trained myself to do it using my thoughts, this helps to expurge almost all emotions and with this the positive and negative thoughts over my observations are put aside the whole mental experiment, for me someone that mastered this blank mind practice would always be correct, and one would only be incorrect because of lack of information that wasn't available, so I do share the possibilities of the abstract darken particle concept, as long as the answer is not revealed, I don't agree, but most important I fell nothing for both concepts... I can see the reason why you see visible spectrum is color, I think if is not the shadows, in the pitch black cave there would be no shadows cause there is no light, and you're correct...
I think than that the thing, the particles that are entering your eyes so you're able to see, is wherever forms the space fabric, dark energy in my concepts, but give it the name that suit you the most, photons travel trough space fabric, your eyes work capturing the light, for this the muscle of an ocular globe do not have a very dense atomic structure, not one that "gravity", and by that I mean gravity A, at the quantum level, compression of space fabric is able to pass trough the interior of your eyes, is acceptable once that the photon does, and the atomic structure of your eyes is less dense that one of a wall that it can't, not the photons but the fabric it is traveling trough...
So I accept that the "Dark particle" could be the invisible particle of wherever form the space fabric, assuming that the photon reached your eyes traveling trough space, these also is explained as why our eyes hurt when looking to a strong light but our skin does not, so its hard to put in words but I thing that I comprehend your point of view, and get to the conclusion that your question cannot be answered yet, but its not incorrect, and probable is correct...
The way darkness penetrates your eye "compression"
compression of what?
Space fabric from outside in being compressed against the atomic structure of your eye, as it is doing with any other matter out there.
The darken particle could be represented, by wherever gin-clear particle or substance that forms this fabric.
Why does it seems to be black, its black because of the absence of photons moving around, but this absence of photons wouldn't change the fact that space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, and it is transparent, in the absence of exited photons, and once again..
Our eyes can't see the invisible, the color is resultant from the existed photons over a space fabric that is transparent to light, no light no color, but this is not dark or black indeed, its invisible... Space fabric in the absence of exited photons, does not produce light, even if light is a effect of this fabric, there is no existed particles, the fabric inside a pitch black cave would be completely invisible, so you're not being able to see trough space fabric, but your eyes would be working anyway, simple that your can't see the walls around you cause there is no light around you and your eyes can't see, although you're not blind, the gin-clear hasn't changed...
So sorry, in answering to your specific question, yes there is a particle or something entering your eyes so you can see, all the time, even if your eyes are closed...
I simple still think that is not "dark", the substance is invisible, and there is nothing like it, not even glass nor clean water can be compared to it, there are things that will block the light from entering your eyes, as put a black glass, this will cause "shadow" because of the dense atomic structure, but the absence of light at night would not be the same thing, your eye would not be able to see the space fabric around you, it's invisible, but the particles that are caring the "absence of light" to inside your eyes, is the same that are caring the light, so with 100%, there is something invisible entering your eyes so you can see, if you want to call wherever forms the fabric of space as the "darken particle", than you wouldn't be wrong at all...
and this explanation is a little bit confused cause, share a concept that one does not agree it's very hard, feels unreal, but than again, the act of trying to is much more acceptable than simple deny it's possibilities, simple cause is better try to be wrong than accept the premise that one is absolutly correct when the decision was made based on a prtial knoledge...
-
blank state of mind
This description says it all regarding the subject of this thread.
-
Darkton, spin -2, repulsive. Yes it's ugly.
-
This description says it all regarding the subject of this thread.
Yes I agree with you, but in reference to the question itself, the answers is yes, it can't be answered simple because no one knows for sure what forms space... You can explain many things, but you can't even explain everything that is entering now only trough your eyes, but trough your own body, how expect to answer his question whiteout accepting this lack of knowledge?
The shortest answer someone can provide is "We don't know", since it's not good enough, one needs to try and by doing this be wrong, the collectively will eventually step on the correct answer...
Ignore the questions or use emotions to explain it, those are all products of negative feelings created by the mind to protect itself against hostility from other people, a reality that at the moment before you answered didn't existed yet, and now that one didn't answered, never will...
I'm not proud of his question as I'm not proud of my own answer, not answering the question with your own answer means that one didn't know neither and the worst part?
The user who posted it seems that trough his practice was the only one to be able to notice the possibilities, pretty sure he knew what was coming for himself when he did and he seems to have asked it anyway...
The point is, he's considering to be wrong, he just want an answer from any of the others that would confirm it for himself, not one seems to truly understand his question, and the ones who does don't know how to try or admit that they don't know for sure, doing so they deny the whole experiment he described... This won't help, one's not asking for the correct answers, one's asking for what you thing and why so one can check for himself...
-
This description says it all regarding the subject of this thread.
Yes I agree with you, but in reference to the question itself, the answers is yes, it can't be answered simple because no one knows for sure what forms space... You can explain many things, but you can't even explain everything that is entering now only trough your eyes, but trough your own body, how expect to answer his question whiteout accepting this lack of knowledge?
The shortest answer someone can provide is "We don't know", since it's not good enough, one needs to try and by doing this be wrong, the collectively will eventually step on the correct answer...
Ignore the questions or use emotions to explain it, those are all products of negative feelings created by the mind to protect itself against hostility from other people, a reality that at the moment before you answered didn't existed yet, and now that one didn't answered, never will...
I'm not proud of his question as I'm not proud of my own answer, not answering the question with your own answer means that one didn't know neither and the worst part?
The user who posted it seems that trough his practice was the only one to be able to notice the possibilities, pretty sure he knew what was coming for himself when he did and he seems to have asked it anyway...
The point is, he's considering to be wrong, he just want an answer from any of the others that would confirm it for himself, not one seems to truly understand his question, and the ones who does don't know how to try or admit that they don't know for sure, doing so they deny the whole experiment he described... This won't help, one's not asking for the correct answers, one's asking for what you thing and why so one can check for himself...
You have good observation skill, I like you already , not because you are in affect standing in my corner to a degree, but because you have an open mind, well done sir I am well impressed.
-
The visible spectrum is colour, I am not sure you or anybody will understand this,
I'm trying to, I also share with you the concept of blank state of mind, and also the way you described you can clear your mind, I also like to wonder in that same line, rarely I need to do a physical experiment cause I trained myself to do it using my thoughts, this helps to expurge almost all emotions and with this the positive and negative thoughts over my observations are put aside the whole mental experiment, for me someone that mastered this blank mind practice would always be correct, and one would only be incorrect because of lack of information that wasn't available, so I do share the possibilities of the abstract darken particle concept, as long as the answer is not revealed, I don't agree, but most important I fell nothing for both concepts... I can see the reason why you see visible spectrum is color, I think if is not the shadows, in the pitch black cave there would be no shadows cause there is no light, and you're correct...
I think than that the thing, the particles that are entering your eyes so you're able to see, is wherever forms the space fabric, dark energy in my concepts, but give it the name that suit you the most, photons travel trough space fabric, your eyes work capturing the light, for this the muscle of an ocular globe do not have a very dense atomic structure, not one that "gravity", and by that I mean gravity A, at the quantum level, compression of space fabric is able to pass trough the interior of your eyes, is acceptable once that the photon does, and the atomic structure of your eyes is less dense that one of a wall that it can't, not the photons but the fabric it is traveling trough...
So I accept that the "Dark particle" could be the invisible particle of wherever form the space fabric, assuming that the photon reached your eyes traveling trough space, these also is explained as why our eyes hurt when looking to a strong light but our skin does not, so its hard to put in words but I thing that I comprehend your point of view, and get to the conclusion that your question cannot be answered yet, but its not incorrect, and probable is correct...
The way darkness penetrates your eye "compression"
compression of what?
Space fabric from outside in being compressed against the atomic structure of your eye, as it is doing with any other matter out there.
The darken particle could be represented, by wherever gin-clear particle or substance that forms this fabric.
Why does it seems to be black, its black because of the absence of photons moving around, but this absence of photons wouldn't change the fact that space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, and it is transparent, in the absence of exited photons, and once again..
Our eyes can't see the invisible, the color is resultant from the existed photons over a space fabric that is transparent to light, no light no color, but this is not dark or black indeed, its invisible... Space fabric in the absence of exited photons, does not produce light, even if light is a effect of this fabric, there is no existed particles, the fabric inside a pitch black cave would be completely invisible, so you're not being able to see trough space fabric, but your eyes would be working anyway, simple that your can't see the walls around you cause there is no light around you and your eyes can't see, although you're not blind, the gin-clear hasn't changed...
So sorry, in answering to your specific question, yes there is a particle or something entering your eyes so you can see, all the time, even if your eyes are closed...
I simple still think that is not "dark", the substance is invisible, and there is nothing like it, not even glass nor clean water can be compared to it, there are things that will block the light from entering your eyes, as put a black glass, this will cause "shadow" because of the dense atomic structure, but the absence of light at night would not be the same thing, your eye would not be able to see the space fabric around you, it's invisible, but the particles that are caring the "absence of light" to inside your eyes, is the same that are caring the light, so with 100%, there is something invisible entering your eyes so you can see, if you want to call wherever forms the fabric of space as the "darken particle", than you wouldn't be wrong at all...
and this explanation is a little bit confused cause, share a concept that one does not agree it's very hard, feels unreal, but than again, the act of trying to is much more acceptable than simple deny it's possibilities, simple cause is better try to be wrong than accept the premise that one is absolutly correct when the decision was made based on a prtial knoledge...
I think you understand the question and know how I ''tick'', thanks.
I will reply further to the post after I wake up proper.
People really can't see the ''beauty'' of the question and all it means.
-
People really can't see
Yeah that's the kind of the whole problem, we can't see, but if there are people outhere that accept the possibilitie of negative mass, why not open to the possibilitie that there is the oposite of the white light, I man no one have ever see a planet or asteroid not existing and having considerable mass, althoug we close our eyes to the fast that nothing interacts with space fabric in the way a photon does, I think you're correct, I just thing that the particle is actually invisible, and the dark outhere is a result of depth of what we can't see, in the whole question I do accept the possibilitie of a particle not one that is traveling trough space fabric, but what forms it... Not sure if are particles or substance, or super masive prothons, the only gasp is that it can't interract with dense attomic structure and its related with the photons, similar to them... Observing universe maybe one particle alone, a super massive photon or something like that, and we are existing within it, it can't interract with matter only with different temperatures, such as the photon that forms light...
You see, the last interview I read from Tesla he mentioned many things back there that only nowaay we are confirming, like everything is ligth and space fabric is only inactivated matter, he was the guy to anwser the questions about ligth, even the vibrations and frequencies he was correct about...
The problem with our understanding for will always be the "weigth concept", for me it always sounded unreal at least for planets, many people outhere relate the eletromagnetic bounds within atoms and particles as provinient of themselves, talking about gravity A, I do believe that dark energy can't flow trought an atoms, and this fact alone forces the flow to work around them, compressing them and depending of the the frequency of the atomic structure it atracts more or les particles to it, preducing different kind of matter, the charges are from the particles around the atoms, but their bounds I do believe that is provinient from dark energy around, using general compression because its colder temperature and the heat these bounds cause heat up the space within the atoms and also the one within the atoms and the particles, we will always get to the same conclusion but one is looking at gravity and saying that every single atom structure is the cause of gravity, and I that the atomic structure only provides different temperatures when compressed, and trough this generating more stronger or less expansion.. Basicly for me gravity is exclusive related with dark energy on the quantum level being represented as gravity A with is the compresion of dark energy at the quantum level agains the expansion caused by the frictions of atoms and particles, and at the astronomical level, gravity B, being generated in the same frame but by the the precense of the celestial bodies, just by existing,inside the space fabric, form me all materia structure is a "hole" on its fabric, simple by existing, the same as a rock inside another sphere filled with water, the water can't flow trough the atomic structure of a rock, but is will never be resting on the areas surroinding the objects, simple because it will be always tring to fill the hole on the fabric, in this scenario represented by a rock... For me the weight concept is simple a "alwas comes with" but not real at all, all that mater for gravity B is if you are dense atomic structure mass and if you're big, this will not change the expansion at the gravity A perspective, the atomic expansion force, but it will change the the expansion at the gravity B level....
In a rudimentar model if you simulate a planet size object with the same size of earth using a very strong and dense atomic structure as layer and set o the interior of such object a eletromagnetic device that generates the artificial poles, the space fabric would not care or know if your are empty on the interior, it will compresse you with the same amoung of compression proporsional to your artificial expansion, being the solid natural planet or the artificial sphere generating eletromagnetism, both will be the same thing to it... For me a crost of a planet is casuality, the heat on the interior generating eletromagnetism leaking from the poles is the only things that matter and determines how much compression you'll recieve from outer space, the effests you're atificialy producing and not the weight of your mass bending space, once they are existing within the compression of a horizontal spiral disk generated by a star or black hole, there only ifference between both is the existence of the same crost, as long the are on the horizontal disk being compressed they have no weight and always will be space that is being itself around them...
For me two objects will never atract one another, but their very existence will inevitable force space fabric to conserve energy and by that the most pratical way is push one agains the other within its flow, compressing them... How would we know if we can't see space fabric?
How one would know for sure that not the charges of the particles, but their bounds within the elesctrons is not provenient from the invisible compresion of gravity B due different frequencies? Different temperatures? Ypu can look to a planet or atom as much as you want, the both concepts will seem to be correct, and humanity would accept not the most logical one, we will consider that the objects that we can see are the source of the atraction, above the possibilitie of the compression of a invisible substance being pushing one against the other, it would always seems the same...
one could even calculate with accuracy the force of the "reactions" without have ever compreed if they where atracting due eletromacnetism and weight bending space or being compressed by the very space due the different temperatures, "density" the heat of their vibrations, "frequencies" were changing the density of space fabric, they don't even need to be heating up, they only need to be more colder than the space normal temperature, and the gravity A the heat provinient of their atomic tructure would be aways present, meanin that at the quantum level the object is not at the same temperature and density of the enviroment around them, they would inevitable sees to be bein atracted one by the other...
I can also be totally wrong, but somethings tells me that I'm not, my prove will come or not when they finally get close enought to observe a black hole, if they get to the conclusion that is a deep depresion a hole indeed due its weight over space fabric, I'll disconsider my theory, but if they get to the conclusion that it is actually expanding out, I'll know to be correct, not the details but the general cocept of heat and cold interacting with space fabric and not the weight... At this very moment warp space will be changed from generating negative matter to bend space, simple to cause a specific sort of heat behind to expand and push, and generate or not very cold temperatures forward to compress, just like a EM drive is doing but with a very different design and in a much more efficient way than a propulsor...
-
People really can't see
Yeah that's the kind of the whole problem, we can't see, but if there are people outhere that accept the possibilitie of negative mass, why not open to the possibilitie that there is the oposite of the white light, I man no one have ever see a planet or asteroid not existing and having considerable mass, althoug we close our eyes to the fast that nothing interacts with space fabric in the way a photon does, I think you're correct, I just thing that the particle is actually invisible, and the dark outhere is a result of depth of what we can't see, in the whole question I do accept the possibilitie of a particle not one that is traveling trough space fabric, but what forms it... Not sure if are particles or substance, or super masive prothons, the only gasp is that it can't interract with dense attomic structure and its related with the photons, similar to them... Observing universe maybe one particle alone, a super massive photon or something like that, and we are existing within it, it can't interract with matter only with different temperatures, such as the photon that forms light...
You say we can't see! But what if we can see and the brain is directly connected to the constant quanta whole of ''invisible'', this invisible ''thing'' being an invisible couple/circuit that connects our brains with seeing matter and spectral content between 400-700nm .
I believe I could show this to be true, if we place any opaque object in front of our eyes the connectivity to any objects behind the object is lost.
If we placed a sheet of glass in front of our eyes we retain connectivity because the glass is ''invisible'' like the space is ''invisible'' so we don't really notice the glass that well.
We close our eyes we lose most of the connectivity, although we can see bright lights or shadows etc with a bright light illumination.
I agree light has to enter your eyes so that you can see things, but how far does the connectivity extend from the brain to the object?
I would say all the way because I can quite clearly distinguish distance and even measure it and I ''see'' colour in its exact location.
-
If we placed a sheet of glass in front of our eyes we retain connectivity because the glass is ''invisible'' like the space is ''invisible'' so we don't really notice the glass that well.
yeah we share almost the same concept, but see a glass would do that not by being invisible, the glass on your example is the same as close your eyes looking to light, space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, the density of them...
I do understand but I thing the property of the glass being invisible or not is irrelevant, its the atomic structure of the object that changes, any lower dense atomic structure, the tort of density that would still let light pass trough, means that space fabric compression is also able to pass trough, like a piece of clothe or anything, I really thing the glass being invible or not is irelevant for your expermient to be correct, you never needed the glass in the first place, any less dense atomic structure that light can pass trought would have done it too...
I'm short of time, a tip, thing about the density of your fingers when you turn a flashlight against your opened hand, now do it with your hand close, now change your hand for a piece of transparent glass, see? The passing trought it is still the same thing...
-
If we placed a sheet of glass in front of our eyes we retain connectivity because the glass is ''invisible'' like the space is ''invisible'' so we don't really notice the glass that well.
yeah we share almost the same concept, but see a glass would do that not by being invisible, the glass on your example is the same as close your eyes looking to light, space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, the density of them...
I do understand but I thing the property of the glass being invisible or not is irrelevant, its the atomic structure of the object that changes, any lower dense atomic structure, the tort of density that would still let light pass trough, means that space fabric compression is also able to pass trough, like a piece of clothe or anything, I really thing the glass being invible or not is irelevant for your expermient to be correct, you never needed the glass in the first place, any less dense atomic structure that light can pass trought would have done it too...
I'm short of time, a tip, thing about the density of your fingers when you turn a flashlight against your opened hand, now do it with your hand close, now change your hand for a piece of transparent glass, see? The passing trought it is still the same thing...
I know the glass is not entirely invisible , it has a low opacity, however look at the glass from a different perspective, we can see through the glass it has no spectral content between 400nm-700nm , the light ''passing'' through the glass is still invisible , the glass is ''invisible'',
A good example of my meaning is this
-
If we placed a sheet of glass in front of our eyes we retain connectivity because the glass is ''invisible'' like the space is ''invisible'' so we don't really notice the glass that well.
yeah we share almost the same concept, but see a glass would do that not by being invisible, the glass on your example is the same as close your eyes looking to light, space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, the density of them...
I do understand but I thing the property of the glass being invisible or not is irrelevant, its the atomic structure of the object that changes, any lower dense atomic structure, the tort of density that would still let light pass trough, means that space fabric compression is also able to pass trough, like a piece of clothe or anything, I really thing the glass being invible or not is irelevant for your expermient to be correct, you never needed the glass in the first place, any less dense atomic structure that light can pass trought would have done it too...
I'm short of time, a tip, thing about the density of your fingers when you turn a flashlight against your opened hand, now do it with your hand close, now change your hand for a piece of transparent glass, see? The passing trought it is still the same thing...
I know the glass is not entirely invisible , it has a low opacity, however look at the glass from a different perspective, we can see through the glass it has no spectral content between 400nm-700nm , the light ''passing'' through the glass is still invisible , the glass is ''invisible'',
A good example of my meaning is this
I already understand your Idea, I would only be able to anwser by noon, but I can already give you the short awnser not what the space fabric is, but take back there your diagram, the one with the ballon representing dark energy, keep the diagram but consider the darkne poarticle was already there, it is dark energy, it wasnt irradiated with ligth it was already there, it's always there, penetrating your body, compressing it self against it, being pushed away by your own grvaity A, but in the case ofthe eye its always going in, as with the skin...
In a rudimentar shor version, keep the diagram and expand the dark energy ballon over the hole diagram background, your darkton particle will be not wrong, it is wherever forms space fabric invisible substance, and yeah you're correct maybe the color of the darkton particle is indeed invisible and we see it as it is, transparent to ligth...
But one thing is for sure it was not iradiated with the photon as ligth does, it was already outside the window "null", it was already inside the room, ad no mater to where you're looking it is already around you and compressed against your eyes, close them would be not enought to block it from penetrating... You need indeed cover your whole had with a very dense atomic structure, althoug there will be sace within the atoms that form your very eyes anyway.... you simple can't get rid of dark energy compression against you...
-
I already understand your Idea, I would only be able to anwser by noon, but I can already give you the short awnser not what the space fabric is, but take back there your diagram, the one with the ballon representing dark energy, keep the diagram but consider the darkne poarticle was already there, it is dark energy, it wasnt irradiated with ligth it was already there, it's always there, penetrating your body, compressing it self against it, being pushed away by your own grvaity A, but in the case ofthe eye its always going in, as with the skin...
In a rudimentar shor version, keep the diagram and expand the dark energy ballon over the hole diagram background, your darkton particle will be not wrong, it is wherever forms space fabric invisible substance, and yeah you're correct maybe the color of the darkton particle is indeed invisible and we see it as it is, transparent to ligth...
But one thing is for sure it was not iradiated with the photon as ligth does, it was already outside the window "null", it was already inside the room, ad no mater to where you're looking it is already around you and compressed against your eyes, close them would be not enought to block it from penetrating... You need indeed cover your whole had with a very dense atomic structure, althoug there will be sace within the atoms that form your very eyes anyway.... you simple can't get rid of dark energy compression against you...
I have explained previously about light energy and dark energy being interwoven in various forms of explanation, I just don't think they understood, but clearly you understand my thinking.
Also though what a person has to consider is that this darkness outside of the window also extends into your room all the way to your eyes, the light and dark interwoven. Also one has to consider the CMBR which is light but observed to be dark outside the window and it also, I believe extends all the way to my eyes.
Just maybe the CBMR is the Aether for light and a ''medium'' of connectivity for sight, I think there is so many questions to be answered involving these thoughts.
added- Photons and Darktons are interwoven to produce ''invisible'' space relative to sight, however the Photons and Darkton are indistinguishable from invisible space, the photon is invisible in the dark and the Darkton is invisible in the light, producing invisible visual space and a space that contains objects that are illuminated in which we observe through invisible space by the connectivity of an interwoven Photon and Darkton whole. (a big lol though)
-
Elaboration- In a universe with only a single star and one observer, it is neither dark or light .
[ Invalid Attachment ]
typo sorry, ~neither
-
Elaboration- In a universe with only a single star and one observer, it is neither dark or light .
Yes, understood, the ligth is also invisible, or eyes can see colours does mean it has colours, our cameras also work in the same way of our eyes, oyl the infrared cameras can capture the heat out there, radio waves, ligth waves those are all frequencies, the colour is provided by our eyes alone, what is there is different atomic frequencies depending from where or what element it is coming from...
Now I have to agree, I can see trought this very room and I can observe the wall, if one remove light my brain would not be able to see the wall not because there is no light but because the density of the invisible fabric around me, till the wall not because photons arent around, but because one could say there is no heat exiting particles...
Could be a photon when subjected to different temperatures became inactive?
We know that light is one way or another produced from heat existing photons away from the heat source, would than be possible the photon when submited to cold temperatures became inert?
Hard to formulate a question but what if now folowing Tesla, could be the case that the heat and not the photons that are traveling? Speed of ligth is the limit sped of space fabric, could be ligth be interpreted as heat beams, like a flashlight, a star, a sun, all those objects emanate heat, exiting photons, cold be the case that the heat and not the photons are moving?
I mean your question would make sense, photons are related with dark energy, and dark energy is everywhere, the photons only travel trought it, dark energy can't penetrate dense atomic structure, gravity acts as a linear force, could be that dark energy are inactivated photons? And we never indeed trully moved a photon when turning a ligth bulb on? I mean light is also specrum and also is transparent, if the infrared find hidded on a ray of ligth is the only thing that maters?
The question is colud be the photons by havving no mas never have being moved at all, but instead they simple spread the head amoung themselves?
Particles are not my thing, ligth could be a reaction dark energy triggers when exposed to heat? Transfering the heat one to another in one universal sea of inactivated photons?
Could heat activate a photon to transfer the heat to another without have ever moved, and in the same way could could teperatures or the absence of the heat that was transfered away from the heat source become invisible again?
In this scenario it provides a good expanation for ligth and dark energy, also the reason why nothing be able to travel faster than light.... Would be possible that the photon have never moded simple tranfered the heat to the other by haviing no mass? the effect would be something like a neon led letter, where one light turns on and off one after the other, if you increase the speed it will seems to us that was a ray of ligth when in the reality where one ligth tuning on and off very fast...
Could than be space fabric formed by potons compacted one with the other to the point they compress wherever they can't interact or penetrate, in this case normal matter?
-
Yes in the darkness there is certainly a lack of visible light/photons, however all the science available and none of it explains why we see the dark in an independent location away from ourselves such as the observation of the window.
Just because one does not know the science doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have the suspicion that this thread is the result of not looked very hard at or for the available science. There are many books on the physics and psychology of seeing.
One thing that one should understand is that the darkness around us is usually still fairly well lit. So our eyes and brain can distinguish between the amount of light coming from one area and other. And the "empty space" around us is filled with stuff, stuff that often reflects light, so our eyes and brain can distinguish between the amount of light coming from one given volume of space and another.
Plus, there is the fact that what we see is not what the world is like; what we see is a construction of our brain. We never "see" our own blinking, for example, or the slight shaking of our own head, for another example. What we see is not always a good guide to how the world is.
-
the colour is provided by our eyes alone,
Possible, but it is also possible that a red apple is just really red outside of our minds. It starts of green then turns red, however we can place a red apple in a shadow and it remains red, there would be no way to know if the apple was still red in the dark, I think it would be rather naive of us to think that colour did not exist outside of our minds.
And if colour worked like we presently think it does, then surely a blue object would turn red when put into a shadow because the absorption and reflection temporal distortion of light would certainty lose radiation pressure and magnitude.
Like the window and seeing dark in exact location, we also see colour in its exact location. Light is just for illumination, I think the colours exist without light.
-
Light is just for illumination, I think the colours exist without light.
That answer is a bit misleading Mr. Box. While the structure and chemical composition of the object in question determines which color we recognize, white light is composed of all the colors of the rainbow. And we only see the colors which the object does not absorb and reflects back to our eyes. An object which we see as black, is in effect, absorbing all the colors present in white light. While an object we recognize as red absorbs all the other frequencies of radiated light, a white object appears white simply because it's surface reflects all frequencies of light back to our eye.
If you've ever experimented with a prism, you should have learned about the refractivity of light and how the different colors of the rainbow organize themselves in a predictable pattern. One interesting fact about the blue bird: It's color is not caused by chemical absorption but by refraction of the light similar to how the prism separates light into it's various frequencies.
-
Light is just for illumination, I think the colours exist without light.
That answer is a bit misleading Mr. Box. While the structure and chemical composition of the object in question determines which color we recognize, white light is composed of all the colors of the rainbow. And we only see the colors which the object does not absorb and reflects back to our eyes. An object which we see as black, is in effect, absorbing all the colors present in white light. While an object we recognize as red absorbs all the other frequencies of radiated light, a white object appears white simply because it's surface reflects all frequencies of light back to our eye.
If you've ever experimented with a prism, you should have learned about the refractivity of light and how the different colors of the rainbow organize themselves in a predictable pattern. One interesting fact about the blue bird: It's color is not caused by chemical absorption but by refraction of the light similar to how the prism separates light into it's various frequencies.
White light is not ''gin-clear'' light, and because we can make ''coloured'' light with a prism, that does not mean the light is the reason for the colour of objects necessarily.
If you consider the present information and how an object absorbs light and reflects light to give the perceived colour, then the colours should change when an object is put in shadow because the intensity changes so does the absorbing rate and reflecting rate, a blue object according to science should turn red in the shade.
-
we can make ''coloured'' light with a prism, that does not mean the light is the reason for the colour of objects necessarily.
If you read my post through, you should have noticed:
"While the structure and chemical composition of the object in question determines which color we recognize."
The effect of these physical characteristics either absorb or reflect various wavelengths of light.
The end result is: The wavelengths which are not absorbed and become reflected are the colors we see. The character of the object determines the color we see but light is responsible for the transmission of that information.
This thread is just one more example of your inability to sort out good information from the bad and inspires you to concoct another one of your bogus and flawed concepts. We don't see darkness, our minds only recognize the absence of the light. Try taking Alan's advice and close your eyes for a moment and open up your mind for a change..............."good luck with that one"
I'll not be holding my breath...............
-
This thread is just one more example of your inability to sort out good information from the bad and inspires you to concoct another one of your bogus and flawed concepts. We don't see darkness,
You are of course incorrect, are you really trying to say that you cannot distinguish the difference between night and day?
-
You are of course incorrect, are you really trying to say that you cannot distinguish the difference between night and day?
That twisted retort is not even worthy of a reply Mr. Box.............but for the sake of consistency, I'll make it plain enough that even you should grasp the concept. That consideration may also be assuming too much I'm sad to say. Nevertheless........................................
There is a technical difference between "to distinguish" and "to see". I "see" when light provides information to my eyes. But I can "distinguish" the absence of light when there is none to be "seen".
Nobody ever "sees" the dark because without light, the eye doesn't receive any luminal information to send the brain. The brain then correctly determines that because no objects are "visible", it must be dark.
So yes Mr. Box, I can "distinguish the difference between night and day." When it's daytime, light provides information about my surroundings. However, when it's totally dark and no light is present, my eyes "see nothing" so my "intelligence" tells me that because I can "see nothing" it must surely be dark.
Now Mr. Box, or should I now call you "Mr. Troll"? Understanding that; As you have formerly so properly confessed to being: The most prolific troll present here at TNS.
-
You are of course incorrect, are you really trying to say that you cannot distinguish the difference between night and day?
That twisted retort is not even worthy of a reply Mr. Box.............but for the sake of consistency, I'll make it plain enough that even you should grasp the concept. That consideration may also be assuming too much I'm sad to say. Nevertheless........................................
There is a technical difference between "to distinguish" and "to see". I "see" when light provides information to my eyes. But I can "distinguish" the absence of light when there is none to be "seen".
Nobody ever "sees" the dark because without light, the eye doesn't receive any luminal information to send the brain. The brain then correctly determines that because no objects are "visible", it must be dark.
So yes Mr. Box, I can "distinguish the difference between night and day." When it's daytime, light provides information about my surroundings. However, when it's totally dark and no light is present, my eyes "see nothing" so my "intelligence" tells me that because I can "see nothing" it must surely be dark.
Now Mr. Box, or should I now call you "Mr. Troll"? Understanding that; As you have formerly so properly confessed to being: The most prolific troll present here at TNS.
Yes you can call me Mr Troll if you like, but you would still be incorrect. Do you know the difference between subjective and objective?
You re trying to tell me your subjective thoughts that were learnt to you by education and ''programmed'' into your mind by using somebody else subjective thoughts. . The objective reality is what we see and not of somebodies so called ''objective'' thoughts with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists.
We can distinguish a distance that is ''illuminated'' between ourselves and a shadow, we can see that the darkness of the shadow is a distance away from us thus proving we see darkness.
Anyone who thinks anything other than this is quite clearly deranged.
-
with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists.
Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
We can distinguish a distance that is ''illuminated'' between ourselves and a shadow, we can see that the darkness of the shadow is a distance away from us thus proving we see darkness.
Wrong..........We see shadows as areas of our lesser illuminated environment.
Try this experiment: Place yourself in a totally dark room. Looking around you should "see nothing", no light or illumination of any kind. Now, close your eyes. What do you see? Are you prepared to tell me that you can see darkness with your eyes closed? Because in this environment, whether your eyes are open or closed, you see the same thing.............NOTHING.
When it's totally dark, no light at all, we "see nothing", we don't "see" darkness.
Anyone who thinks anything other than this is quite clearly deranged.
So now you revert to insults do you?
New flash.............When anybody refuses to accept reality and chooses to live in their own made-up version of it, the medical profession would label that person as deranged Mr. Box.
-
with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists.
Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
Fine, you may have the right knowledge to answer, I also do accept that we have evidence for the existence of the photons, heck we even know the process and conditions that create them, but do we have proof that the photons are really destroyed instead of simple became inert in the absence of wavelength frequencies, such as the light? What I mean wth that, when a photon appears and disappears, how do we know that it wasn't another photon activated by the same frequency that activated when passing or letting the first or original one behind?
If possible, how do we even know it was "a photon", and not a whole backgroung aleatory sparking due frequencies, seeming to be moving at the speed of light with the wavelenght frequencies?
Think about a photon properties and its very intristing, not specific shape, can't be splited, only can be created (acceptable) and destroyed (are they?)
Of course photons can still be created, but in the absence of particles to do it, could be possible the wavelength activate inactivated photons that where already there and deactivating them again as the smae frequencies have passed by, never having ever moving the photons but traved trought them?
In a last question, and no one need to know the answer only the possibility, could the photons that we think that we saw and observed as being created on experimentation, never were created at all, only irradiated by the wavelength of the frequency we created on the experiment?
Of course for that you cannot use the hadron collider, cause as they know photons can be easily produced, and inside the tunnels the photons that where created would always have being submited to electromagnetism and other frequencies... I questioning, by asking, if there is one experiment that have ever observed the photons existence without have created them under controled situations nor submited to any kind of exitement of wavelenght of any sort... Any scientific proof that confirms that the photon moving at the speed of the wavelenghts was "the photons" and also the reason why they desapear and reapear, and i'll drop it...
I the conditions I'm asking for observation seems to be impossible, I can accept your word, I don't have problems with logic, but than we would accept the others too...
This is not a trap, not even a assumtion, I don't take sides cause my technical knoledge is much inferior to the one of yours it's just sounds as a very reasonable question... how do we know what we have observed, if they dont hold any charges, have no shape, can't be splited, and enjoy keep desapearing and reapering?
-
with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists.
Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of proof?
-
with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists.
Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
Fine, you may have the right knoledge to anser, I also do accept that we have evidence for the existence of the photon, we even know the process and conditions that create them, but do we have proff that photons are really destroyed insted of simple became inert in the absence of wavelenght frequencies, such as the light? What I mean when a photon apear and desapear how do we know that it wasnt another photon activated by the same frequency that activated when passing or leting the first or original one behind?
Of course photons can still be created, but in the absence of particles to do it, could be possible the wavelenght activate inactivated photons that where already there and diactivating them again as they passed?
In a last question, and no one need to know the anwser only the possibility, could the photons that we think that we saw and observe as being created, never where created at all, only iradiated by the wavelengh of the frequency we created on that experiment?
''They'' do not have proof of a photon's existence, it is of the imagination and subjective. Do not let yourself be subjected to this false testament that ''they'' have proof.
-
Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of evidence?
Can I play? The photoelectric effect!
https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm
-
Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of evidence?
Can I play? The photoelectric effect!
https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm
Yes you are welcome to ''play'', please show in your link where any of that link proves a Photon exists, all's I read is somebodies subjective thoughts influenced by their own opinion.
What evidence do they provide as concrete proof?
-
with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists.
Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of proof?
Try this: www.becker-hickl.com/pdf/spcdetect1.pdf
But we all know you will only accept "proof" that satisfies your own personal and biased views so good luck Mr. Box. I doubt you will even read this document.
-
with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists.
Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of proof?
Try this: www.becker-hickl.com/pdf/spcdetect1.pdf
Interesting , but again I see no concrete proof, if you are counting and make a device to count, the device creates the gaps in the count, i.e between 0 and 1 there is a gap, the gap ''you'' are making by counting.
You are making the result rather than ''seeing'' the result.
There is a big difference in .... and _ , something that is continuous.
-
Yes you are welcome to ''play'', please show in your link where any of that link proves a Photon exists, all's I read is somebodies subjective thoughts influenced by their own opinion.
What evidence do they provide as concrete proof?
Honestly, if that is your response, you are obviously not interested in science.
-
Yes you are welcome to ''play'', please show in your link where any of that link proves a Photon exists, all's I read is somebodies subjective thoughts influenced by their own opinion.
What evidence do they provide as concrete proof?
Honestly, if that is your response, you are obviously not interested in science.
I am very interested in science what I am not interested in is make believe and subjective thinking.
If you want to talk Photoelectric effect I have no problem switching to maths
Kmax=(hf/S)/S and do not think for minute I do not understand what that means,
p.s mods the maths thing is broke and upload attachments being faulty.
added - or in further explanation hf/S delta Q/S=W because heat expands things added - and likewise charges
hf/S delta q delta Q/S=W where q is charge and Q is heat and S is entropy and W is work and delta is change
but also hf is equal to A (area XY)
A(hf)/S
-
with no experimental proof's that a photon actually exists.
Wrong..........Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
''They'' do not have proof of a photon's existence, it is of the imagination and subjective. Do not let yourself be subjected to this false testament that ''they'' have proof.
Here I'll have to disagree for a moment with you, is also confirmed the existence of the photon, when it is created using wavelength and electromagnetism finding particles with the right charge, the photon is indeed created, as a particle, my question is about what happened to the created photons, this since the beginning of universe and modern times, are they destroyed or is acceptable that they eventually loose moment as soon as the frequencies cease and than they stop and join the rest of the other photons that, in this scenario, could be all around, everything... That they exist I have little doubt about it, its hard to know because the experiments that they use to confirm particles create them using collisions and keep the particles momentum conserved using electromagnetic fields, witch is frequencies... And this second possibilities leads me to doubt if the photon without momentum or frequencies still being "a photon" or it is somehow absorbed by the whole, joining them, resting till there is frequency again.... Of course is not subjection is a plenty reasonable question despise the odds...
-
You are making the result rather than ''seeing'' the result.
Wrong....................Each individual photon is making the result and the honest scientist is "seeing" those results as evidence.
But alas Mr. Box, reasoning with you scientifically is a waste of time because you are not interested in experiment or the "results" of that experiment. You will believe what you only choose to believe. The true scientist acknowledges what the evidence shows him whether it fit in with his former view or not. The honest scientist will abandon former views when confronted with new evidence and the "dishonest scientist" will continue to hold to his flawed opinions even though those opinions have been shown to be in error.
Examine which kind of scientist you prefer to be Mr. Box, the honest variety or the dishonest one...................Good luck with that one as well!!
-
You are making the result rather than ''seeing'' the result.
Wrong....................Each individual photon is making the result and the honest scientist is "seeing" those results as evidence.
But alas Mr. Box, reasoning with you scientifically is a waste of time because you are not interested in experiment or the "results" of that experiment. You will believe what you only choose to believe. The true scientist acknowledges what the evidence shows him whether it fit in with his former view or not. The honest scientist will abandon former views when confronted with new evidence and the "dishonest scientist" will continue to hold to his flawed opinions even though those opinions have been shown to be in error.
Examine which kind of scientist you prefer to be Mr. Box, the honest variety or the dishonest one...................Good luck with that one as well!!
You are not thinking objectively about what the devices actually are and what they are doing, the act of measuring a rate produces spacing gaps. It is not I being dishonest with the bit of evidence we have that contradicts the visual of gin-clear objective.
Answer this one question objectively, not influenced by thought or opinion , do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?
-
Science has plenty of evidence for the existence of the photon.
Then you should without any problems be able to provide this proof on request, so please provide your first piece of evidence?
Can I play? The photoelectric effect!
https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm
[/quote]Can I play? The photoelectric effect!
https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm[\quote]
Thanks for the information, just one serious, impartial question, I don't take sides, curiosity alone because I don't know...
How did Einstein knows that "the photons" were traveling with the frequencies in the higher state, and not the frequencies traveling trough photons? Witch set the electrons free? The frequencies or the photons? By changing the frequencies the most important thing to set the electrons free was the higher wavelength frequency or the photons? Witch is the most relevant of both?
You see I'm not questioning no one, it's just curiosity.
1-Photons traveling, (trough space-not know) at the speed of light with the wavelengths in a higher frequency set the electrons free?
2- Wavelengths traveling at their own speed traveling, trough space " infinity of inert self compressed photons" setting the electrons free?
Ignoring early new attachments that where based over this one black there than, how to know for sure if the photons after the frequencies (controlled observation) were really destroyed? Or they were already there since the beginning?
In the slightly possibilities that this experiment have being miss interpreted, should I possible refer to photons as space fabric?
I'm presuming nothing is just that I always wondering the speed of the photons as being zero due the absence of mass, and that the frequencies that where caring information of the elements and colours, never occurred me this possibility cause I never have questioned a photon, it's that is just curious...
-
Answer this one question objectively, not influenced by thought or opinion , do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?
Frankly Mr. Box, how is any one able to answer a question without "thought" as in thinking about the issues of the question? As for the question: "do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?"
Firstly: The photon has a dual character, described as the wave/particle. And that duality, observed specifically in the double slit experiment, shows us how illusive the photon can be when trying to observe it's timely position in space.
Secondly: The very small dimensions of a particle photon would make it impossible for the naked eye to visualize.
Thirdly: The vast number and profusion of photons would make it impossible to distinguish individual photons from the maze of population impinging upon our eye ball. However, we can see this population of photons in varying strengths and wavelengths by comparing the light given off from a single match to that of looking directly at the noonday sun. Which is BTW something one should avoid.................
And fourthly: Considering the speed of light, 186,282 mile/sec, your eyesight would never be able to detect a single particle in flight. And it should also be noted that because light travels at this speed, one must ask, if not the photon, what is moving at this great velocity? Surely you're not going to tell us that light isn't traveling at c. Then again, it would not surprise me to hear any absurd remark coming from your lips.
Think of it like this Mr. Box. Have someone blow smoke into your face and attempt to pick out a single particle of smoke to view. Understanding that the photon is unimaginably very much smaller, one only sees light similarly to you only seeing the cloud that was blown into your face.
-
Answer this one question objectively, not influenced by thought or opinion , do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?
Frankly Mr. Box, how is any one able to answer a question without "thought" as in thinking about the issues of the question? As for the question: "do you see Photons in the space between your eyes and object?"
Firstly: The photon has a dual character, described as the wave/particle. And that duality, observed specifically in the double slit experiment, shows us how illusive the photon can be when trying to observe it's timely position in space.
Secondly: The very small dimensions of a particle photon would make it impossible for the naked eye to visualize.
Thirdly: The vast number and profusion of photons would make it impossible to distinguish individual photons from the maze of population impinging upon our eye ball. However, we can see this population of photons in varying strengths and wavelengths by comparing the light given off from a single math to that of looking directly at the noonday sun. Which is BTW something one should avoid.................
And fourthly: Considering the speed of light, 186,282 mile/sec, your eyesight would never be able to detect a single particle in flight. And it should also be noted that because light travels at this speed, one must ask, if not the photon, what is moving at this great velocity? Surely you're not going to tell us that light isn't traveling at c. Then again, it would not surprise me to hear any absurd remark coming from your lips.
Think of it like this Mr. Box. Have someone blow smoke into your face and attempt to pick out a single particle of smoke to view. Understanding that the photon is unimaginably very much smaller, one only sees light similarly to you only seeing the cloud that was blown into your face.
Very slippery in your direct answer to the question!
From your answer I conclude you admit to not directly seeing a Photon?
And this answer needs no thought, it requires a straight forward visual explanation.
-
Thanks for the information, just one serious, impartial question, I don't take sides, curiosity alone because I don't know...
How did Einstein knows that "the photons" were traveling with the frequencies in the higher state, and not the frequencies traveling trough photons? Witch set the electrons free? The frequencies or the photons? By changing the frequencies the most important thing to set the electrons free was the higher wavelength frequency or the photons? Witch is the most relevant of both?
I think that Einstein did not know. However, he was able to demonstrate that the energy related to frequency was being delivered in discrete bits, so there was identifiable units of delivery.
The contemporary view is that it's weirdly complicated and photons themselves are waves of a sort, but not like we normally think of waves.
-
From your answer I conclude you admit to not directly seeing a Photon?
The history of the psychological study of vision has to lead one to the conclusion that photons are not directly seen. What we think we see is not extremely reliable.
And this answer needs no thought, it requires a straight forward visual explanation.
It seems obvious that you are opposed to thought, but that is not really helpful where science is involved.
-
From your answer I conclude you admit to not directly seeing a Photon?
The history of the psychological study of vision has to lead one to the conclusion that photons are not directly seen. What we think we see is not extremely reliable.
And this answer needs no thought, it requires a straight forward visual explanation.
It seems obvious that you are opposed to thought, but that is not really helpful where science is involved.
Astute observation PhysBang, Mr. Box is opposed to any and all thought except his own. And he is most certainly very confused even where those thoughts are concerned.
-
The contemporary view is that it's weirdly complicated and photons themselves are waves of a sort, but not like we normally think of waves.
[/quote]
OK I accept that, thank you again, but could be the case that the frequencies were the particles, and the waves were the photons leading the trajectory of the particle frequency on the background?
I mean is not my intention o doubt many proves, but if the photon is not traveling at speed of light at all, could we consider "a photon" over a fabric made of what we consider photons, ad the particles belong to the energy wavelength?
Like in the double sit experiment, could be the case that the photons where already there flowing trough the openings like waves, and those waves where leading the electrons that didn't shock themselves with the wall, trough the openings?
In this scenario part of the quantum mechanics would simple be "erased" as they say, and never where related with observation ad possibilities, but indeed a force of compression that where already there?
I don't doubt the existence of a "created photon", but as soon as the frequencies cease, is possible that photon simple became inner and join the others on the fabric, waiting for another frequency to pass by?
Could the experiment have being miss interpreted back there and we working as Tesla predict on mathematics to fulfill our own theories, becoming more and more away from the reality?
The question is, "hypothetically" speaking, what would happen to modern science and equations, if we "hypothetically" agree that the photon was not "a photon" but a fabric, and that they never traveled at all?
Just wondering what would happen?
-
The contemporary view is that it's weirdly complicated and photons themselves are waves of a sort, but not like we normally think of waves.
Waves are made, if light passes through a medium that is not dense it will turn ''red'' , if light passes through a medium that is more dense it will turn ''blue''.
If light has no medium to pass through it is ''stretched'' out to the max and a perfect linearity and ''gin-clear''.
If we was two make two splits we could determine a wave.
If we could make a single slit and narrow it we could determine a ''high pressure jet'' that would create a wider ''splatter'' on the wall.
Light is like elastic that is self ''stretching'' unless there is something in the way.
Also the darkness outside my window in it's exact location shows that what I am seeing is external of me.
-
Very slippery in your direct answer to the question!
Not sure exactly what you mean there Mr. Box? My answers were direct and "honest BTW", something we here at TNS always appreciate even though there have been occasions when honesty has been lacking, if you get my drift.
From your answer I conclude you admit to not directly seeing a Photon?
Anyone with eyesight sees the numberless cloud of reflected photons in every wave length of the rainbow, it's called electromagnetic radiation. Notice I did say "numberless cloud of reflected photons" but seeing "a Photon" with our physical vision would be impossible. However, we can detect them, remember the link I gave you were science has the technical ability to actually count them one by one? So contending that just because we can't see individual photons with our unaided eyes means they don't exist is really Very "Unscientific".
And this answer needs no thought,
This reply is also; "Very Unscientific" Science is all about thought and repeatable experiment. Without either thought or experiment, your spinning your wheels and producing nothing but Dribble!
it requires a straight forward visual explanation.
Straight forward is nice when possible Mr. Box but not always a viable option. And about your hang-up with this "visual" thing of yours. Visual evidence is not always good evidence, take the eye witness issue in the criminal justice system for an example. It has been proven many times to be inaccurate and has sent several individuals wrongly to prison. This is why experiment is always necessary and is more reliable when it can be repeated by more than just one researcher or facility.
Give us a break Mr. Box, your ideas are sometimes entertaining and it's always fun to discuss these issues with you but give us here at TNS a little credit at the very least. Many of our members are very well educated and for the most part, are interested in helping folks like yourself when they have serious questions about the sciences.
Some of us are more patience than others and I must admit, I'm not always as patient as I should be. But if I believe a member is serious and truly interested in finding some help, I will offer it if I have the answer. What is truly frustrating however, is when someone like yourself asks a question and continually rejects the help that's offered.
If you're convinced that you know better, and it sounds many times as though you do, there should then be no need to even ask the question in the first place............right?
In any case, just be thankful that this help is offered free of charge.
-
Anyone with eyesight sees the numberless cloud of reflected photons in every wave length of the rainbow, it's called electromagnetic radiation. Notice I did say "numberless cloud of reflected photons" but seeing "a Photon" with our physical vision would be impossible. However, we can detect them, remember the link I gave you were science has the technical ability to actually count them one by one? So contending that just because we can't see individual photons with our unaided eyes means they don't exist is really Very "Unscientific".
I will gladly temporarily accept your Photon cloud because I like your wording of it, however I still hold judgement and wait for 100% proof.
Yes I remember your counting device for Photons, and in an experiment you can continue and repeat , I will use this repeat of experiment to prove we see darkness like the title asks.
I can objectively repeat the measurement of distance between my eyes and the darkness location, showing darkness is in it's exact geometrical position seen.
So how is my counting any different to your counting of the photon device that you accept has evidence?
I have provided proof in measurement yet I am wrong?
proof
-
I will gladly temporarily accept your Photon cloud because I like your wording of it, however I still hold judgement and wait for 100% proof.
I appreciate your compliment Mr. Box but there's one issue I suspect you're unaware of. Proving anything to be true within the scientific method is a misleading characterization of how the scientific method works. What we seek to do is illuminate the competing theories through experiment and thereby reach a majority consensus as to what the reality is most likely to be. Absolute proof is a rare thing indeed. For one thing, if someone is unwilling to accept the data, no amount of arguing will ever "prove" anything to them.
Yes I remember your counting device for Photons, and in an experiment you can continue and repeat , I will use this repeat of experiment to prove we see darkness like the title asks.
I think the impediment to our agreement is basically in how you and I define and use different words. As an example: When I use the word; "see", I interpret the word "see" to mean; "the physical function that light produces upon the eye". The word can also be used many other ways. Example: "I see you've been promoted". This example is really just an observation and has little to do with "vision"
My point here is that when one uses the word "see" when speaking about vision, I submit that they are talking about light. So when you say that you can "see" darkness, I have to disagree. What you're observing is the absence of light and not really "seeing darkness", you're observing the absence of light.
I agree that this is a bit technical but when individuals become interested in science, it becomes critical to view reality in the most technical ways possible.
I can objectively repeat the measurement of distance between my eyes and the darkness location, showing darkness is in it's exact geometrical position seen.
What this experiment is "showing" is; an area of lesser illumination. Lesser light means it's darker but you're not seeing darkness. You're seeing an area less illuminated.
So how is my counting any different to your counting of the photon device that you accept has evidence?
You're counting of distance has nothing to do with the question. You're only measuring a distance from an area more lightly lite to an area less illuminated.
We see because light, the photon, carries information from objects to our eyes. When light is not present, we see nothing. Darkness is not something we see. It is something we understand to be the absence of light.
-
I will gladly temporarily accept your Photon cloud because I like your wording of it, however I still hold judgement and wait for 100% proof.
I appreciate your compliment Mr. Box but there's one issue I suspect you're unaware of. Proving anything to be true within the scientific method is a misleading characterization of how the scientific method works. What we seek to do is illuminate the competing theories through experiment and thereby reach a majority consensus as to what the reality is most likely to be. Absolute proof is a rare thing indeed. For one thing, if someone is unwilling to accept the data, no amount of arguing will ever "prove" anything to them.
Yes I remember your counting device for Photons, and in an experiment you can continue and repeat , I will use this repeat of experiment to prove we see darkness like the title asks.
I think the impediment to our agreement is basically in how you and I define and use different words. As an example: When I use the word; "see", I interpret the word "see" to mean; "the physical function that light produces upon the eye". The word can also be used many other ways. Example: "I see you've been promoted". This example is really just an observation and has little to do with "vision"
My point here is that when one uses the word "see" when speaking about vision, I submit that they are talking about light. So when you say that you can "see" darkness, I have to disagree. What you're observing is the absence of light and not really "seeing darkness", you're observing the absence of light.
I agree that this is a bit technical but when individuals become interested in science, it becomes critical to view reality in the most technical ways possible.
I can objectively repeat the measurement of distance between my eyes and the darkness location, showing darkness is in it's exact geometrical position seen.
What this experiment is "showing" is; an area of lesser illumination. Lesser light means it's darker but you're not seeing darkness. You're seeing an area less illuminated.
So how is my counting any different to your counting of the photon device that you accept has evidence?
You're counting of distance has nothing to do with the question. You're only measuring a distance from an area more lightly lite to an area less illuminated.
We see because light, the photon, carries information from objects to our eyes. When light is not present, we see nothing. Darkness is not something we see. It is something we understand to be the absence of light.
Yes I agree you see areas that are less illuminated, but these areas are quite clearly and measurable to be in their exact geometrical position. These areas are not inside our brain, to see and to ''see'' is not what you are seeing.
Take any sealed box, you know inside that box it is dark, even though you cant see inside that box, you know it is dark, inside the box you know there still exists space, you know this particular space is not illuminated space, you know this dark space exists outside of you mind, the space proves it exists , the space that is not illuminated.
-
We see because light, the photon, carries information from objects to our eyes. When light is not present, we see nothing. Darkness is not something we see. It is something we understand to be the absence of light.
Ethos you seems to have understood well the "Darkness entering the eye", of course the mistaken here between you both is the gramatic as you figure out, both talking the same language now, I would like to ask you...
Light has a wave duality, wave and particle, considering one hypotetical scenariowhere photons do not travel but they are already everywhere, when Einstein increased the frequencies to set the electrons free generating current, could it be that the waves where the photons already there and the particle was the wavelenght of energy, light, itself?
I mean the wave being the self compressed inert photons that are everywhere since the creation, photons without momentum or charge accumulating on the background, like the space within the planets, and the space within the nucleos of the atoms and the particles, all that being photons that lost their momentum, and consequently spread their area to join the background...
Obviously one can still createand isolate a photon conserving its momentum on a colisor for example, but talkingabout Einstein experiment that set the existence of the photon and also the possibilitie of the photon be destroyed... I'm not questioning that you can create a photon coliding waves and particles with the right charge using electromagnetism and radiation, I'm questioning the possibility of a photon have ever traveled with the speed of light byquestioning if the creation of photons is trully necessary for the speed of the frequencies be the speed of light....
What I mean maybe the speed of the wave lenght frequencies, including light, never where the speed of light, the whole observation could have being mis intepreted by the speed of light as beng the maximum speed with a fabric made of photons would alowed any frequency to travel? It hard to be specific with my limited english, could be the speed of light the maximum speed of the frequency, becouse, the "photon fabric" density or compression, determinates so?
In one simple version what happens to a photon before its created?
And about quantum mechanics, could be that our observation interacts with the electron? And a spca fabric consisted by iner photons transfering frequencies one to the other instantaneusly, like a neo letter, or maybe even a whole photon fabric made from absorsion of inert photons, generating waves and disturbance caused by anything that has mass and exists within its whole?
Likealice and bob experiment, maybe the meassurement, affected only the electrons that have charge and this can be influencied, the only alteration we could cause on the experiment to change the waves, would be reated with the whole, the simple readings or movement, would generate a constant changing on the Aliece and Bob results, simple because this whole fabric made of photon, photonic fabric, would response with different densities to charges during the measurements, and also would resond physicaly to acceleration of any dense atomic structure on the experiment, this including us and the machines...
I just curious, was Einstein photonic experiment more than correct, also well interpreted?
-
Yes I agree you see areas that are less illuminated, but these areas are quite clearly and measurable to be in their exact geometrical position. These areas are not inside our brain, to see and to ''see'' is not what you are seeing.
Everything that you see is inside your brain. Your visual field is a construction of your brain. Many, many times, our brains do not properly represent the world around us.
-
Ethos you seems to have understood well the "Darkness entering the eye", of course the mistaken here between you both is the gramatic as you figure out, both talking the same language now,
Good communication depends upon every party privy to the conversation having a proper understanding of the technical correctness of the words used. It is especially critical when the subject being discussed is in the field of the sciences. Careless use of simple words we use every day can complicate comprehension of the facts.
I would like to ask you...
What I mean maybe the speed of the wave lenght frequencies, including light, never where the speed of light, the whole observation could have being mis intepreted by the speed of light as beng the maximum speed with a fabric made of photons would alowed any frequency to travel? It hard to be specific with my limited english, could be the speed of light the maximum speed of the frequency, becouse, the "photon fabric" density or compression, determinates so?
BTW, welcome to the forum Alex. And about the difficulty communicating when it's not your native tongue, I completely understand. And I applaud you for the effort it must take, especially when trying to communicate complicated ideas.
Regarding what I believe to be the crux of your inquiry: It sounds like you are proposing what is commonly called an "Aether" theory. That space is not empty but is composed of what the early scientists referred to as "Luminescence Aether". This concept has lost favor over the years and was shown to be invalid by the "Mickelson Morley Experiment". However, it has gained some traction lately with a few inquiring minds but has yet to produce any verifiable evidence. The problem with this theory centers around the inability to find evidence for this supposed medium and until such evidence is discovered, I'm afraid it will remain only speculative in nature.
Early on, I was drawn to this idea myself but have drifted away from it owing to current research and discoveries regarding the nature of space/time and how it is viewed by a majority of the scientific community.
Nevertheless, I have not given up my interest in this possibility nor have I discounted it entirely. But until evidence is found to be otherwise, I prefer to stick with the current and most popular theory.
-
I think I will just give up, it is like talking to a bunch of subjective programmed drones, repeat answer, repeat answer, repeat answer, not even your own answers, answers you were taught, can't anyone think for themselves.
I can measure darkness in it exact location, which part of that simple physics does people not comprehend?
I am not seeing the darkness in my head, I am seeing the darkness in its exact geometrical position,
ok , black holes are make believe, it is the absent of light and all in your head?
-
I think I will just give up,
I don't think any of us want you to give up, at least I don't.
If I can be quite honest Mr.Box, I think I know what your problems are. You once told me that your desire was to make your children proud of your accomplishments. And I told you at the time that I considered such a goal very admirable. And I'm on your side and have wished you much success regarding that noble aspiration of yours.
But you're not going to have much success in reaching that goal by trying to shoot down every well known theory created by minds much greater than any one here at TNS. To qualify that remark, we have a splendid group of excellent individuals here and a few are extraordinarily gifted and very intelligent. Nevertheless, are any of us on par with the likes of Newton, Einstein, or Galileo? And I'm not saying that possibility is totally remote, only that is may be highly unlikely.
You're not going to acquire a position of great stature by trying to shoot done accepted theory without extraordinary evidence. And to say this as politely as I know how, we have not seen such evidence coming from you. You would have much more success if you would start by building upon accepted theory and adding something remarkable to those ideas or possibly subtracting something without abandoning the basis for the theory all together.
Great minds have built a remarkably sound scientific structure for us over the last century and you're in for a rude awakening if you think you're going to have much success tearing it down with a totally new fabrication that only exists within your imagination.
Nevertheless Mr. Box, I do wish you success. And especially for those children of yours. But please take this simple advise. First become very familiar with current thinking and understand the evidence for those scientific positions. Maybe someday you'll stumble on to something new and those children will be able to read about your discovery in a scientific journal.
Good luck............................Ethos
-
Ethos you seems to have understood well the "Darkness entering the eye", of course the mistaken here between you both is the gramatic as you figure out, both talking the same language now,
Good communication depends upon every party privy to the conversation having a proper understanding of the technical correctness of the words used. It is especially critical when the subject being discussed is in the field of the sciences. Careless use of simple words we use every day can complicate comprehension of the facts.
I would like to ask you...
What I mean maybe the speed of the wave lenght frequencies, including light, never where the speed of light, the whole observation could have being mis intepreted by the speed of light as beng the maximum speed with a fabric made of photons would alowed any frequency to travel? It hard to be specific with my limited english, could be the speed of light the maximum speed of the frequency, becouse, the "photon fabric" density or compression, determinates so?
BTW, welcome to the forum Alex. And about the difficulty communicating when it's not your native tongue, I completely understand. And I applaud you for the effort it must take, especially when trying to communicate complicated ideas.
Regarding what I believe to be the crux of your inquiry: It sounds like you are proposing what is commonly called an "Aether" theory. That space is not empty but is composed of what the early scientists referred to as "Luminescence Aether". This concept has lost favor over the years and was shown to be invalid by the "Mickelson Morley Experiment". However, it has gained some traction lately with a few inquiring minds but has yet to produce any verifiable evidence. The problem with this theory centers around the inability to find evidence for this supposed medium and until such evidence is discovered, I'm afraid it will remain only speculative in nature.
Early on, I was drawn to this idea myself but have drifted away from it owing to current research and discoveries regarding the nature of space/time and how it is viewed by a majority of the scientific community.
Nevertheless, I have not given up my interest in this possibility nor have I discounted it entirely. But until evidence is found to be otherwise, I prefer to stick with the current and most popular theory.
Ok, now I have time to write it properly, I understood both of you, in a pitch black cave is not that your can't see the wall, or the windows showing darkness on its exact location, its just that there is no light being reflected by the wall, the windows is the same thing happening in a enviroment with a little bit more of light occuring, such as night, what youre seen is the walls of the pitch black cave not reflecting any light, and in the case of windows showing darkness o its exact location the same thing...
I'm questioning the photon like I'll describle on this exemple...
Let's consider that dark energy are photons, and the source of mass production are the blackholes irradiating particles with electromagnetism and radiation..
Now the example, water.
Lets assume that the creation of a photon is similar as the creation of a drop of water, you combined hydrogen with oxygen and you just created a drop of water, lets assume that the drop of water that you created has charge and acceleration provinient from the frequency that is passing trought it, and as long as the frequency is present the drop of water, due its charge, is happening, traveling trough the fabric that in this scenario is made of water, and this water is also made of a infinity amoungt of drops of water that were accumulating since the production started, as soon as the drop of water looses its aceleration and charge as the frequencies have passed by, it became inert and by doing so it simple joins the other water, the one that is not being irradiated by frequencies...
Imagine now a few spherical rocks inside the sphere made of water, imagine now a black hole that is decomposing matter into particles using its acceleration sproducing electromagnetism and radiation on the process, converting the molectular structure of that rock into "drops of water", and those drops of water are joining the fabric, the sphere made of water where the rocks exists within it...
The rocks are constantly being compressed by the very production of the drops of water being created as the rocks are being converted into it, this production would generate one force, that at the end are indeed two forces, "from the rocks point of view", this mass production of drops of water are exclusive generating a expansive force, by converitng the rocks into drops of water, expanding the water sphere, this is the reality from the water sphere perspective, but there is another interpretation happenign at the same time, from the rocks point of view, they will be recieving compression, just by being existing within the water sphere...
The dense atomic structure of the rocks does not let the water flow trough them, at this very moment the rocks would observating a empty space around them, and the rocks will consider that themselves are being compressed and the source is coming, somehow, from they mass, weight,electromagnetism, doesn't matter, the rocks will try to find a explanation from their points of view for the "compression" they are feeling over them... But as we assume there was never compression as a force, but expanssion of the water sphere by production of drops of water, and the compression noticed by the rocks, it's simple a "reaction" provenient of nothing more than their dense atomic structure, existing within the water sphere...
As bigger the rock, if it keep being dense, as bigger it gets more dirruption it causes and more water expansion it is able to disturb, and from the rocks point of view more compression it is recieving...
At the same time from the water sphere point of view as bigger the rock gets more expansion it is able to recieve...
Both would be correct, expansion for the water sphere, and compression for the rocks within it, but form what matters to us, there was never, atraction by two rocks, only a predetermined path for expansion...
They orbits can stay out of this, simple cause the "expansion" of the water sphere over the rocks within it, is also generating a inverted scenarion at the inner core of the rocks, a upside down universe...
In there the traped water is heating up, inside, a rock sphere... See? One the opposite of the other...
All this generating heat, generating electromagnetism, an the electromagnetism alone, at least for me is the responsably for the locals, orbits...
So I'm not questioning the photon creation, I just considering the posibility of the photon behave as a drop of water, at the moment it is created it have accelration and the force that created it give it charge so it wont join the water shpere imediatly, but as soon it colides agains a more dense atomic structure, as the rocks, it will be deflected and became inert, like a drop of water hiting the surface of a lake, it is a drop, but as soon as it hits the surface of the lake, its density, it spreads its acceleration forming waves, and sequently it joins the water that forms the lake, considering if the photon hiting the dense atomic structure, as the window, is not doing the same, is not that one is seen darkness on its exact location, is only that a barrier where added on the middle of the fabric, disturbing and reflecting any kind of light, but in the case of the window is not blocking the frequencies, only the waves of the water sphere, simpe because the box, exists inside of it, and the closed window disrupts the waves, not the particles traveling trought the waves, one is not seing darkness, one is seing the deflection of the waves form outside the room against the window....
in the scenario of the pitch black cave, your eyes are indeed seeing the wall, not the darkness, the facric made of drops of water is constantly pressing the water against your eyes, you're eyes are "phisicly" seeing the wall, you can't see the wall, not becouse of your eyes, it is right there in front of view, and your eyes are phisicly seeing it, the problem is tha "the wall is not reflecting any light", also the water between your eyes and the wall, there is no light "frequency" traveling or being deflected anywhere, "but" if you turn a flash light on, there will be wavelenght frequencies, traveling isntantaneusly trought the "water fabric" that your eyes were already "seeing", you where seen the absence of light, but not the absence of photons, you simple couldn't see cause there where no frequencies...
One would need to determined that the mass of the photon is zero, only to explain how it is able to travel at the speed of light.... one requisite that wouldn't be necessary if the photons where already there, and the speed of light in this scenario, is not even the "limit speed of the wave length frequencies, their speed could be infinity, the speed of light "would be the limit speed of the photonic fabric", limitating the inifinity speed of the wave lenght frequencies, determining them...
And this alone, this delimitation of a mesurable speed of light, would confirm that the photonic fabric, and the photon do have mass, maybe not one photon but as a whole fabric made of them... Otherwise the speed of light of the wave lenght frequencies would be instantaneously... They are not cause of thedensity of the photonic fabric...
I reall toguht that the water example as being the photonic space fabric, and the drop of water being a photon, would help to picture it... Any of this make sense now?
The only real compression, as "force", is the one of inside out the iner core of the rocks, because situation in there is inverted, a space made of dense atomic structure, and in the middle the photonic fabric recieving the outer space expansion, a complete twisted version of the space outside of the rocks, "planets"...
i already supported this expansion, but could be the photons as drops of water, forming a whole and this whole simple being "already everywhere" allowing the frequencies to pass trought them? Like light and rocks does inside water? In this scenario the seepd of light would be the one as we know, and the speed of the photon would be zero again, because it wouldn't have to be mass less, cause it isn't traveling at the speed of the frequencies, but the frequencies trough them...
When I refer to the photon being zero and at the sime time instantaneous, I mean thing about infinity as a speed? No, right, there is no such thing as infinity acceleration, but it can be real in an alternative consideration "the existence", the being at point B and at point A at the same time, as whole...
The being at both locations, and all locations at the same time already, could be interpreted as instantaneously or infinity, not by acceleration, but simple by already being here and there, wherever there or here is, independently...
So the speed of the photon being zero, and also considering the possibilitie of the photons forming a space fabric, dark energy, that is everywhere since the creation, would somehow alowed the speed of the photon as being zero, but the speed of its photonic fabric, the whole, as being instantaneusly, infinity jst by being everywhere before any acceleration have ever happened...
The speed of the wave lenght frequencies being than the speed of light, constant and determined by the density of the photonic fabric they are traveling trough, but the photonic fabric by being everywhere is infinity...
is it slightly possible, a photon joing the whole, as a drop of water when looses its acceleration spreading it as waves?
-
I can measure darkness in it exact location, which part of that simple physics does people not comprehend?
Look, you are lying, either to us or to yourself. You are not "measuring" anything.
I am not seeing the darkness in my head, I am seeing the darkness in its exact geometrical position,
Then you are a truly unique individual different from every human being in the history of human beings.
-
I can measure darkness in it exact location, which part of that simple physics does people not comprehend?
Look, you are lying, either to us or to yourself. You are not "measuring" anything.
I am not seeing the darkness in my head, I am seeing the darkness in its exact geometrical position,
Then you are a truly unique individual different from every human being in the history of human beings.
I am lying really, how tall are you?
-
I think I will just give up,
I don't think any of us want you to give up, at least I don't.
If I can be quite honest Mr.Box, I think I know what your problems are. You once told me that your desire was to make your children proud of your accomplishments. And I told you at the time that I considered such a goal very admirable. And I'm on your side and have wished you much success regarding that noble aspiration of yours.
But you're not going to have much success in reaching that goal by trying to shoot down every well known theory created by minds much greater than any one here at TNS. To qualify that remark, we have a splendid group of excellent individuals here and a few are extraordinarily gifted and very intelligent. Nevertheless, are any of us on par with the likes of Newton, Einstein, or Galileo? And I'm not saying that possibility is totally remote, only that is may be highly unlikely.
You're not going to acquire a position of great stature by trying to shoot done accepted theory without extraordinary evidence. And to say this as politely as I know how, we have not seen such evidence coming from you. You would have much more success if you would start by building upon accepted theory and adding something remarkable to those ideas or possibly subtracting something without abandoning the basis for the theory all together.
Great minds have built a remarkably sound scientific structure for us over the last century and you're in for a rude awakening if you think you're going to have much success tearing it down with a totally new fabrication that only exists within your imagination.
Nevertheless Mr. Box, I do wish you success. And especially for those children of yours. But please take this simple advise. First become very familiar with current thinking and understand the evidence for those scientific positions. Maybe someday you'll stumble on to something new and those children will be able to read about your discovery in a scientific journal.
Good luck............................Ethos
I could say the same of science, science provides little real evidence.
To me science seems to totally overlook the objective unbiased visual of what we see and the observation of what we see.
To say I do not see my hand and the sun at the exact same time in the same time frame would be an out and out lie. I have give many models and explanation to show this. A person can not agree we see ''gin-clear'' then argue the space is full of little tiny ''dots'' that we do not observe without having some solid proof such as an observation, otherwise it is no more than pure speculation.
My rocket question in the main forum shows I am correct.
If a Rocket travelled to the sun at c , it would take 8 minutes to arrive from Earth. As you on Earth recorded the rocket ships time to get there, it also took 8 minute. so this shows you that you see the rocket ship in real time and not fake time.
departure 12am
arrival 12:08pm
seen to arrive 12:08pm
NOT 12:16pm
-
My rocket question in the main forum shows I am correct.
No it doesn't.
If a Rocket travelled to the sun at c , it would take 8 minutes to arrive from Earth. As you on Earth recorded the rocket ships time to get there, it also took 8 minute. so this shows you that you see the rocket ship in real time and not fake time.
departure 12am
arrival 12:08pm
seen to arrive 12:08pm
NOT 12:16pm
If the rocket arrives at the sun at 1208 it still takes the light of that arrival 8 mins to travel back to earth. So we see the arrival of the rocket at 1216. When we see that event it is also 1216 on the sun. We are not seeing back into the past, only what happened in the past.
This thread and the one in main forum don't deserve title of new theory, they are just confusions over basic timekeeping. A view is forming that you are just trolling with these questions as it is unlikely anyone of reasonable intelligence could get so confused.
-
My rocket question in the main forum shows I am correct.
No it doesn't.
If a Rocket travelled to the sun at c , it would take 8 minutes to arrive from Earth. As you on Earth recorded the rocket ships time to get there, it also took 8 minute. so this shows you that you see the rocket ship in real time and not fake time.
departure 12am
arrival 12:08pm
seen to arrive 12:08pm
NOT 12:16pm
If the rocket arrives at the sun at 1208 it still takes the light of that arrival 8 mins to travel back to earth. So we see the arrival of the rocket at 1216. When we see that event it is also 1216 on the sun. We are not seeing back into the past, only what happened in the past.
This thread and the one in main forum don't deserve title of new theory, they are just confusions over basic timekeeping. A view is forming that you are just trolling with these questions as it is unlikely anyone of reasonable intelligence could get so confused.
Colin! you are clearly not looking at this correctly, let me run you through it really slow and you should understand.
Just please answer these with a straight forward answer.
You are standing on a train platform at 8am (B), the train you are waiting for has a 15 minute journey from A to B at a constant speed, it leaves the station at precisely 7.45am to make its way to your station, what time do you see the train arrive?
-
Staring at the bedroom window at night in an illuminated room I can ''see'' a distance between my eyes and window that is illuminated and not dark but rather ''gin-clear''.
Outside of my window I can ''see'' darkness, the darkness does not reflect light or emit light but I ''see'' the image of darkness in my brain that is a distance away from me, so how does darkness enter my eyes so I can ''see'' the darkness?
You see what your eyes detect. Photons entering your eyes are picked up by your visual cells. The stars are picked up. the moon is picked up. These signals are sent to your brain that converts the images to your mind. Areas if darkness produce no signals. Thus you brain gets no signals. The brain then converts all these signals into a picture. It is quite amazing and quite complex how we see. Sometimes the brain will add things. At a distance a brick wall missing one brick may show up as a perfect brick wall without the missing brick. thus what our eyes pick up is often modified by our brains. And of course if we pick up nothing then everything is dark.
-
Staring at the bedroom window at night in an illuminated room I can ''see'' a distance between my eyes and window that is illuminated and not dark but rather ''gin-clear''.
Outside of my window I can ''see'' darkness, the darkness does not reflect light or emit light but I ''see'' the image of darkness in my brain that is a distance away from me, so how does darkness enter my eyes so I can ''see'' the darkness?
You see what your eyes detect. Photons entering your eyes are picked up by your visual cells. The stars are picked up. the moon is picked up. These signals are sent to your brain that converts the images to your mind. Areas if darkness produce no signals. Thus you brain gets no signals. The brain then converts all these signals into a picture. It is quite amazing and quite complex how we see. Sometimes the brain will add things. At a distance a brick wall missing one brick may show up as a perfect brick wall without the missing brick. thus what our eyes pick up is often modified by our brains. And of course if we pick up nothing then everything is dark.
yeah yeah ,. just like it says on wiki .
-
yeah yeah ,. just like it says on wiki .
We've all tried reasoning with you Mr. Box, and you have chosen to ignore our investment in this process. I had you on my ignore list once before but thought you might be worth another try. Sadly, you are proving to be unworthy of the trust so once again, Welcome to my ignore list.
I suggest everyone else that wishes to spend their time and conversation engaged in a worthy exchange should do the same.
Good by and good luck Mr. Box..................Ethos
-
yeah yeah ,. just like it says on wiki .
We've all tried reasoning with you Mr. Box, and you have chosen to ignore our investment in this process. I had you on my ignore list once before but thought you might be worth another try. Sadly, you are proving to be unworthy of the trust so once again, Welcome to my ignore list.
I suggest everyone else that wishes to spend their time and conversation engaged in a worthy exchange should do the same.
Good by and good luck Mr. Box..................Ethos
I wondered when your true colours were going to show, I already pre-warned this forum that the ''trolls'' may find me and start to ''attack'' me. You are now trying to influence people not to discuss with me hoping I go away when the silent treatment starts.
If you or anybody wishes to ''preach'' wiki then do it in the appropriate section, this section says new theories at the top, thus not requiring present information. Not even trying to help to develop the new theory in any sense, nothing but trying to force your subjective on an individual.
I will not allow myself to be brainwashed and become a stereotypical ''bot'' repeating present information.
You quite clearly along with many others on here fail to think for yourselves with any sort of open mind, then as soon the person will not accept your attempt of forced discipline, spitting dummies out and saying , I am not speaking to you no more. Quite childish if I do say so myself.
Your choice though , there will always be somebody to speak to somewhere.
-
I will not allow myself to be brainwashed and become a stereotypical ''bot'' repeating present information.
Your choice though , there will always be somebody to speak to somewhere.
If you think that learning the basics of science is "brainwashing", then perhaps you should be speaking to a therapist? I don't mean to offend you, but your statement seems a little over-the-top to be considered reasonable.
-
I can measure darkness in it exact location, which part of that simple physics does people not comprehend?
Look, you are lying, either to us or to yourself. You are not "measuring" anything.
I am not seeing the darkness in my head, I am seeing the darkness in its exact geometrical position,
Then you are a truly unique individual different from every human being in the history of human beings.
Like normal when the questions get tricky rather than dealing with them the thread is removed like the one just from main that as been locked.
I am measuring space, why do you insist I am not measuring anything, the space is provable to be there even with our eyes shut, a 1yrd stick is a 1yrd stick and if it is one stick to my window then there is 1yrd to my window. Outside my window it is not light, where it is not light is 1yrd away from me, the space 1yrd away from me is not inside my head, the space exists. This space is dark, I can objectively see the dark space that is one yrd away from me, I can objectively measure that space, I am beginning to think you are all quite mad .
-
Like normal when the questions get tricky rather than dealing with them the thread is removed like the one just from main that as been locked.
No, it's when they get to the point of being ridiculous.
Behave like a troll, get treated like a troll.
-
Like normal when the questions get tricky rather than dealing with them the thread is removed like the one just from main that as been locked.
No, it's when they get to the point of being ridiculous.
Behave like a troll, get treated like a troll.
I just took notice of your signature Colin, and how appropriate to the moment it rings!
-
I think I will just give up,
I spent some honest effort in trying to talk you out of abandoning your quest for knowledge Mr. Box. Nevertheless, if you continue to reject everything every member offers, and you remain convinced that only you have the answers wrapped up in your personal imagination, then by all means "give up". You may as well, you'll get nowhere with your present attitude and conduct.
-
if you continue to reject everything every member offers,
The point most members seem to miss is I already know most of my subject matter in accordance with present information, Google , Wiki and countless forum time. It is not my inability to talk about something new without resorting to just quoting present information.
None of yourselves seem to have the ability to discuss new material, you all fall back to quoting present facts and not once considering or trying to think about the new idea.
Darkness is the absence of light, we do not see unless Photons enter our eye and then the information you ''see'' happened a ''while'' ago.
White light is a mixture of frequencies, we only see though, frequencies between 400nm-700nm, this is known as spectral content and seen by the brain as the visual perception of colour.
So on and so on, electromagnetic wave, dual slit experiments, prisms, rainbows, lions and tigers and bears , oh my.
You wonder why I get attitude when people do not know how to discuss something. I rarely ask to discuss present information, I ask questions that I think of about present information.
I will always say in life , I know nothing and will always know nothing, that is because my mind is truly open.
Can any of you on here say you know nothing?
No you can't, because you do not have the ability to just empty your minds of what you think you know and discuss the idea being put forward in an objective manner, it is subjective to say to somebody they are wrong according to their own beliefs, without actually discussing the content posted by the opp and looking at it in an objective manner.
-
Maybe Thebox means that if you switch off the source of light in a vast space, darkness comes rushing at you at the speed of light or maybe you are immediately emerged in darkness?????????????????????
-
Maybe Thebox means that if you switch off the source of light in a vast space, darkness comes rushing at you at the speed of light or maybe you are immediately emerged in darkness?????????????????????
If you removed the Sun and all the other stars etc, you would be submerged in darkness.
added- It is only dark space that allows electromagnetic radiation to permeate. Matter is ''saturated'' in radiation. The laws of thermodynamics allows matter to retain equilibrium, however if the ''saturation'' is increased, work is done within the matter.
-
I am measuring space, why do you insist I am not measuring anything, the space is provable to be there even with our eyes shut, a 1yrd stick is a 1yrd stick and if it is one stick to my window then there is 1yrd to my window. Outside my window it is not light, where it is not light is 1yrd away from me, the space 1yrd away from me is not inside my head, the space exists. This space is dark, I can objectively see the dark space that is one yrd away from me, I can objectively measure that space, I am beginning to think you are all quite mad .
In an effort to discuss the questions rationally, I will respond to this part.
If I understand the setup correctly, TheBox is standing in a room that is illuminated by a light, and there is a transparent window to the outside, where it is night, therefore appearing dark to TheBox.
I think this example does not show that there is "Darkness" that exists beyond the window. There just isn't anything there to reflect the light back into TheBox's eye. Imagine for a moment that a visitor, such as myself, were to approach the window from outside. I would see the window as substantially lighter than the surrounding walls (because light from the bulb is coming out, and little light is reflecting off the outer walls of TheBox's house). As I get close to the window, I will also begin to reflect light back through the window such that TheBox will see me. If I stand just outside the window, I will appear almost exactly as bright as if I were just inside the window.
So, TheBox, where has the "Darkness" gone? Has it moved? Note that there is no extra source of light added to my scenario, just another person, who can also observe and be observed...
-
Darkness is the absence of light Period!
-
Darkness is the absence of light Period!
Agreed.
However, TheBox has made it apparent that simply defining what is being discussed is not what (s)he is after. I am simply trying to demonstrate why the scientific community has embraced this definition, using examples that were proposed within the thread...
-
Chiral - The perceived darkness doesn't go anywhere, it remains around the face in the window, it is only the face that reflects the light and is within the proximity of the magnitude of light. The perceived darkness is also gin clear and the perceived darkness outside the window does not really exist. The space outside of your window is no different to the space inside the box and is clear.
Absolute darkness is when our eyes are shut and we are sleeping, another absolute darkness would be before the big bang and a point of imagination that nothing existed , in considering nothing we imagine a dark blank picture, in imagination we can imagine this picture, the absolute darkness, to be infinite in size or infinitesimally small and the result in thought is always a dark picture without dimensions. (try it)
Only when matter enters the frame of the dark picture does the space become a light picture. If you could stand on the sun and there was no other bodies in the universe, you would observe a small universe when you looked up and perceive it to be dark. I would hardly call darkness the absence of light when you are standing on the suns surface.
-
http://stupidstuff.org/main/nonsense.htm
The dilettante about another omphalos is inexorably unseemly. Now and then, a somnambulist inside a haunch lazily tries to seduce an eagerly polite cup. Some cigar makes love to the piroshki. Toscanini and I took some coward inside a labyrinth (with an omphalos, the sublime starlet, a few starlets, and a greedily darling cup) to arrive at a state of intimacy where we can slyly avoid contact with our philosopher. :-'( ::)
-
DISCLAIMER
The Thebox makes me somewhat reticent to critique his ideas, because we just might be dealing with one of the most profound original thinkers in all of human history and because we do not or cannot understand what he/she is trying to convey we reject it as nonsense!
This is a serious comment by me!
Alan
-
What Thebox is alluding to is that we detect photons which is a positive event. How then can we detect an absence which is not even a negative event since we would never detect it. Implying that the darkness must also be a positive event to trigger a recognition of it being dark. This is a subtle but profound point when examined.
-
Thebox please don't take my remarks as an encouragement. They are not.
-
Thebox please don't take my remarks as an encouragement. They are not.
Lol, I don't need encouragement.
What do you mean by positive and negative event? Sorry I did not really understand your other post.
added- I understood it now , and yes exactly that, that is why I suggested in ''jester'' the Darkton has the positive event.
-
Thebox please don't take my remarks as an encouragement. They are not.
Lol, I don't need encouragement.
What do you mean by positive and negative event? Sorry I did not really understand your other post.
added- I understood it now , and yes exactly that, that is why I suggested in ''jester'' the Darkton has the positive event.
You should find your sense of humor the post of mine you did not understand was a joke, almost as difficult as comprehending you convoluted circular "science"??
-
Thebox please don't take my remarks as an encouragement. They are not.
Lol, I don't need encouragement.
What do you mean by positive and negative event? Sorry I did not really understand your other post.
added- I understood it now , and yes exactly that, that is why I suggested in ''jester'' the Darkton has the positive event.
You should find your sense of humor the post of mine you did not understand was a joke, almost as difficult as comprehending you convoluted circular "science"??
Sorry I missed the joke, yes I am difficult to understand I suppose.
-
Thebox please don't take my remarks as an encouragement. They are not.
Lol, I don't need encouragement.
What do you mean by positive and negative event? Sorry I did not really understand your other post.
added- I understood it now , and yes exactly that, that is why I suggested in ''jester'' the Darkton has the positive event.
You should find your sense of humor the post of mine you did not understand was a joke, almost as difficult as comprehending you convoluted circular "science"??
Sorry I missed the joke, yes I am difficult to understand I suppose.
No, you are very easy to understand Mr. Box. We deal in facts and you invent issues to confuse what should be very simple for the educated mind to understand. It is quite apparent that it is you who is confused and not us.
-
Thebox please don't take my remarks as an encouragement. They are not.
Lol, I don't need encouragement.
What do you mean by positive and negative event? Sorry I did not really understand your other post.
added- I understood it now , and yes exactly that, that is why I suggested in ''jester'' the Darkton has the positive event.
You should find your sense of humor the post of mine you did not understand was a joke, almost as difficult as comprehending you convoluted circular "science"??
Sorry I missed the joke, yes I am difficult to understand I suppose.
No, you are very easy to understand Mr. Box. We deal in facts and you invent issues to confuse what should be very simple for the educated mind to understand. It is quite apparent that it is you who is confused and not us.
How do you know it is not I who is not confused and the world is confused?
-
How do you know it is not I who is not confused and the world is confused?
It becomes apparent by using the same scientific method that any good scientist uses...................it's called observation of evidence.
And the evidence is: Your confused posts and replies.
Are we to believe that you, contrary to the whole "world" of scientific endeavor, alone have the answers? That only you know the facts and the rest of us have got it all wrong? These views clearly reflect your inability to sort out good information from the bad. This behavior is also not emotionally healthy and forces me to ask a serious question:
Can anyone with such a selfish esteem for their own point of view ever discuss profitably with anyone else?
And if not, they are destined to never learn anything except what grows within their own imaginations thus limiting and stunting their growth in knowledge.
"No man is an island"
We need each other Mr. Box!
-
How do you know it is not I who is not confused and the world is confused?
It becomes apparent by using the same scientific method that any good scientist uses...................it's called observation of evidence.
And the evidence is: Your confused posts and replies.
Are we to believe that you alone, contrary to the whole "world" of scientific endeavor, have the answers? That only you know the facts and the rest of us have got it all wrong? These views clearly reflect your inability to sort out good information from the bad. This behavior is also not emotionally healthy and forces me to ask a serious question:
Can anyone with such a selfish esteem for their own point of view ever discuss profitably with anyone else?
And if not, they are destined to never learn anything except what grows within their own imaginations thus limiting and stunting their growth in knowledge.
"No man is an island"
We need each other Mr. Box!
Agreed one man can not alone be sure of his own reality, but one man can be sure by evidence that the very darkness and lack of Photons entering your eyes from these very words is a different reality than you understand.
-
but one man can be sure by evidence that the very darkness and lack of Photons entering your eyes
Light has energy Mr. Box, and darkness is a word that describes the absence of energy. It takes energy to "enter" anything and darkness has none. We only recognize darkness when light is absent, darkness as a moving or energized entity does not exist. It is only a word to describe the absence of light. Why you continually try to add energy or force to nothingness, is beyond a reasonable individual's common sense.
-
but one man can be sure by evidence that the very darkness and lack of Photons entering your eyes
Light has energy Mr. Box, and darkness is a word that describes the absence of energy. It takes energy to "enter" anything and darkness has none. We only recognize darkness when light is absent, darkness as a moving or energized entity does not exist. It is only a word to describe the absence of light. Why you continually try to add energy or force to nothingness, is beyond a reasonable individual's common sense.
Darkness does not move, but darkness exists, your perception of the very screen you are reading this on , the surface area is illuminated leaving the silhouette of darkness to reveal words. However these words are clearly on the screen and in their exact geometrical position, the pixels that are not illuminated have XY co-ordinates, I would like to know how anybody can argue that these words are not in their exact geometrical position?
You say darkness is not an entity, yet if you removed all the EMR from space then only dark space could exist, I insist because it is the last answer to the logical conclusion and often an only answer.
P.s dark energy is a negative, it would not seem to have energy.
-
P.s dark energy is a negative, it would not seem to have energy.
Dark energy is the name science has given to the driving force behind the accelerated expansion of the universe and most certainly is a form of energy. We just have no idea what is at the heart or responsible for this release of energy causing this accelerated expansion. And when you say: "it would not seem to have energy", is a confused and misdirected statement. Dark Energy is energy of a form that we don't yet understand. To say it does "not seem to have energy" is a total convolution regarding what the term "Dark energy" is describing. Dark energy does not need to have energy, it is energy.
Instead of saying; "it would not seem to have energy", maybe what you're trying to say would be something like this: "We don't as yet understand what causes Dark energy".
And BTW, Dark Energy has nothing to do with what humans recognize as darkness. The word "Dark" in this case is used simply to denote something unknown and hidden.
-
Mr. Dear, Dear Box
If darkness is in your eyes is it not obvious that you cannot see due to the absence of light?
-
P.s dark energy is a negative, it would not seem to have energy.
Dark energy is the name science has given to the driving force behind the accelerated expansion of the universe and most certainly is a form of energy. We just have no idea what is at the heart or responsible for this release of energy causing this accelerated expansion. And when you say: "it would not seem to have energy", is a confused and misdirected statement. Dark Energy is energy of a form that we don't yet understand. To say it does "not seem to have energy" is a total convolution regarding what the term "Dark energy" is describing. Dark energy does not need to have energy, it is energy.
Instead of saying; "it would not seem to have energy", maybe what you're trying to say would be something like this: "We don't as yet understand what causes Dark energy".
And BTW, Dark Energy has nothing to do with what humans recognize as darkness. The word "Dark" in this case is used simply to denote something unknown and hidden.
No I meant what I said, dark energy is not an energy like you know, that is why you don't understand it, dark energy is the dark, the dark you can not see, you assume I am incorrect, but if you do not understand it then how do you assume I am incorrect?
Let me explain something to you,
In the Universe only exist two true forces, likewise there is only two directions, there is a contracting force and an expanding force, now all expanding force is a process of +hf=+ve(W) which is plus energy is equal to positive direction work(expansion),
Now all contracting work is quite the opposite, -hf=-ve(W)
But the contraction is not an increase in something but rather a decrease in hf.
What you fail to understand and like the rest of the world, gravity is not what you think it is, gravity is the decrease in hf and the contracting force that is a product of process and thermodynamics.
Dark energy which is really dark space is like an infinite volume rubber ball that is at an equilibrium, all the points of the ''ball'' area adjoined but does not have velocity or momentum and things can pass through it as if it was not there, the space remains ''stationary'' but the space passes through things that move through it.
Dark energy is not the cause of expansion, dark energy is the essence of space and the whole , light energy is the cause of expansion,
If you were to place a positive ion in a dark energy void, it would instantly become crushed because the energy inside the particle that stops it contracting is instantly lost to the ''void'' of dark energy. It is the stars that keeps particles ''charged''. and stops them from contraction annihilation. Likewise charges repel and stop things collapsing into the dark energy.
Dark energy destroys everything.
-
To answer the question, photons excite retinal receptors and no photons means no excitation and a perception of darkness. Different wavelengths of light hit either rods or cones to produce impulses that travel along optic nerves to the brain and are processed as perception of colour. The lack of these impulses and lack of retinal receptor activation produces what the brain perceives as black.
To add to what this topic has evolved into, I have thought about this "dark energy". I simply think of it as a lack of existence where there is nothing. Not like a vacuum because a vacuum still has time and space. This nothingness has no time or space or anything. It can't even be perceived and not even thought of, maybe.
-
Sorry I missed the joke,
The joke is not the only thing you're missing Mr. Box.
-
Mr. Dear, Dear Box
If darkness is in your eyes is it not obvious that you cannot see due to the absence of light?
The absence of visible light is not the same as the absence of light, it is not obvious that when there is a lack of visible light, i.e things reflecting light, we cannot see. I personally think that when there is a lack of visible light, we still can see but there is simply nothing to see that is reflecting visible light.
I do not think it is obvious , I think it is complacency to end it there at the absence of light means dark and no vision. I can see a laser dot in the dark, this leads me to believe that the dark is not really dark but perceived to be dark. when actually the dark we perceive is actually ''gin-clear'' no different to when we perceive light and the space is ''gin-clear''.