Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: guest39538 on 17/02/2016 09:06:40
-
Just for fun......
You, science, are accused of misleading information and falsities in that information.
The first accusation is the ''white light'' , white is a colour observed, the light is evidentially ''clear'' to observation, it is passive to sight. We observe the prism experiment through the ''clear'' of the light.
evidence 1 - we observe the white light through the clear.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Do you plead guilty or not guilty?
P.s Your judge and jury are your readers, let us see you try to lie your ways out of these accusations. In the UK a no comment is as good as a guilty plee.
-
M'lud, my learned friend, counsel for the prosecution, seems to have imbibed, inhaled or injected a little too much lunch and is quoting faeces tauri in lieu of evidence. In the interests of sanity, I respectfully suggest an adjournment sine die and that the court be cleared of those of a sensitive disposition.
-
sine die
Adjournment accepted,
With no appointed date for resumption denied my learned friend, that is already an admittance of defeat, does the defence for science concede to defeat in the opening statements?
-
I don't know why but this appropriate for the adjournment.
-
In the UK a no comment is as good as a guilty plee.
Guilty as charged.........................
-
does the defence for science concede to defeat in the opening statements?
The assistant counsel for defence moves for dismissal on grounds of precedent. This matter of white light has been tried before, I refer unlearned counsel for the prosecution to the case of Mr Newton vs Miss Understanding. The jury found in favour of Mr Newton as case proven, and in subsequent trials in school laboratories the judgement has been confirmed.
I suggest M'lud that unlearned counsel should be censured for bringing this frivolous action. We appreciate you have a full spectrum of punishments available to you, however we do not seek a prism sentence, but feel a restraining order might be sufficient.
-
does the defence for science concede to defeat in the opening statements?
The assistant counsel for defence moves for dismissal on grounds of precedent. This matter of white light has been tried before, I refer unlearned counsel for the prosecution to the case of Mr Newton vs Miss Understanding. The jury found in favour of Mr Newton as case proven, and in subsequent trials in school laboratories the judgement has been confirmed.
I suggest M'lud that unlearned counsel should be censured for bringing this frivolous action. We appreciate you have a full spectrum of punishments available to you, however we do not seek a prism sentence, but feel a restraining order might be sufficient.
May I remind you precedence of science is subject to change.
The prosecution feels your frivolous argument is in avoidance to the actual accusation, the defence can not be the judge or juror, may I remind you of court proceedings.
Does the defence submit a defence claim that the observation of light in space is not of clarity but that of liking to the opaque of white paper?
Remember you are on oath thus obligated to the tell the truth of what you observe.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I have marked exhibit (A) the opaque observation within the clarity of space with an A. I present this to the Judge and juror's.
-
If I may: "Science" does not assert that white light is opaque--rather that white paper, when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white. When white paper is illuminated with "red light" the paper appears to be red. Likewise for all of the colors observed in the rainbow (and combinations thereof). Furthermore "white light" can be separated by the action of a prism or diffraction grating into multiple constituent colors or light. Again, "Science" is not asserting that any of these forms of light are opaque.
-
If I may: "Science" does not assert that white light is opaque--rather that white paper, when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white. When white paper is illuminated with "red light" the paper appears to be red. Likewise for all of the colors observed in the rainbow (and combinations thereof). Furthermore "white light" can be separated by the action of a prism or diffraction grating into multiple constituent colors or light. Again, "Science" is not asserting that any of these forms of light are opaque.
The prosecution is not arguing the process of the white light and interaction with a prism resulting in spectral frequencies. The prosecution provided evidence shows that the frequencies including white are opaque compared to the clarity of the surrounding space, this observed clarity of the nature of light which science insists to as white light by poor definition , is by observation different to white light so should be distinguished in being that.
To say the white light of space or daytime is relatively a lie to the observation.
The prosecution notices in your defence (when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white.)
Why does the defence put white light in apostrophe? it this the admittance that the daylight in/of space is observably not white and misleading to say so?
Are you denying a rainbow is opaque to vision , visually hiding the sky behind it?
-
The prosecution notices in your defence (when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white.)
Why does the defence put white light in apostrophe? it this the admittance that the daylight in/of space is observably not white and misleading to say so?
"white light" is is quotations because it is unscientific and unspecific terminology. Any real scientific discussion or description of light would refer to the spectrum of "white light." For instance, the spectrum of "white light" from your computer screen is very different from that of the sun, which is also different from that of an incandescent light bulb, which is different from the many different types of fluorescent lights, which are all different from "white" LEDs etc. etc. etc.
Ultimately, I think this boils down to yet another case of you making the false claim the "Science" has defined something outrageously. Your own misunderstanding of what "Science" says about color, time, space, probability, logic etc. is the source of this confusion.
-
The prosecution notices in your defence (when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white.)
Why does the defence put white light in apostrophe? it this the admittance that the daylight in/of space is observably not white and misleading to say so?
"white light" is is quotations because it is unscientific and unspecific terminology. Any real scientific discussion or description of light would refer to the spectrum of "white light." For instance, the spectrum of "white light" from your computer screen is very different from that of the sun, which is also different from that of an incandescent light bulb, which is different from the many different types of fluorescent lights, which are all different from "white" LEDs etc. etc. etc.
Ultimately, I think this boils down to yet another case of you making the false claim the "Science" has defined something outrageously. Your own misunderstanding of what "Science" says about color, time, space, probability, logic etc. is the source of this confusion.
There is no confusion from the prosecution, your defence is lacking in answering the prosecutors questions to a degree of satisfaction, you have in all attempted to avoid the actual question submitted before you, let me redefine the question for you .
In the space between your eyes and the computer screen what spectral frequency does your brain perceive?
May I remind you of your statement
''Any real scientific discussion or description of light would refer to the spectrum of "white light."
Where can I observe this white light you speak of?
-
The prosecution has failed to disclose in evidence where science has asserted anything at all.
It is the understanding of the man on the Clapham Omnibus, to whom the Court usually turns in matters of common knowledge, that science is a process, not a legal person, and therefore cannot be prosecuted for a deed or utterance.
Furthermore the prosecution's allegation that "white" and "clear" are synonymous, will alarm every blushing bride who, having spent a fortune on a voluminous white dress, will be told by my unlearned friend that it is in fact as transparent as the fatuity of his argument. I plead with the Court not to confer legitimacy on such ugly rumours by taking them seriously.
-
synonymous
LOL,
The prosecutor gives that science is a process, however the prosecutor gives concern for false representation of science information deemed to be facts and holds the representation of this responsibility liable for the calamity of errors in logic represented and published worldly.
The prosecution does not declare ''white'' and clear to be synonymous they are the words of the defence. The prosecution declares the obvious axiom difference between white and clear, in that which white is opaque visually as in comparison to a piece of paper where as clear is liking to glass and ''transparency'' a complete antonym to opaque.
The prosecution also requests that you answer the question you are blatantly avoiding that proves the prosecution correct.
What spectral frequency do you observe in the space between your eyes and an object?
-
What spectral frequency do you observe in the space between your eyes and an object?
Our eyes only observe the spectrum of light that enters them, and at that, they only show a low resolution of the spectrum, typically detecting at 3 wavelengths (red, green and blue).
The space between an observing eye and a source of light could be filled with a large amount of unobserved light, if said light never enters the eye. For instance, one could hold 5 different laser pointers in their left hand, and shine the lasers laterally in front of one's eyes. If there is nothing in the way to scatter the light, then one would not observe the laser beams. However, if one were to introduce smoke or some other fine aerosol then the beams of light would be quite visible. One could also direct the lasers pointers into the eyes (not recommended), allowing (temporary) observation of these beams of light.
-
What spectral frequency do you observe in the space between your eyes and an object?
Our eyes only observe the spectrum of light that enters them, and at that, they only show a low resolution of the spectrum, typically detecting at 3 wavelengths (red, green and blue).
The space between an observing eye and a source of light could be filled with a large amount of unobserved light, if said light never enters the eye. For instance, one could hold 5 different laser pointers in their left hand, and shine the lasers laterally in front of one's eyes. If there is nothing in the way to scatter the light, then one would not observe the laser beams. However, if one were to introduce smoke or some other fine aerosol then the beams of light would be quite visible. One could also direct the lasers pointers into the eyes (not recommended), allowing (temporary) observation of these beams of light.
''The space between an observing eye and a source of light could be filled with a large amount of unobserved light''
The prosecution requests a remittance and clarification of ''unobserved light'' before the continuation of the rest of your statement.
When it is relatively night time , the prosecution acknowledges the invisible part of the spectrum that is detectable light by device but unobservable by mankind.
-
I don't mean unobservable. I mean the light does not enter the eye, and is therefore not observed by said eye. It could be quite visible to another observer nearby.
Honestly, I'm not really sure what this line of questioning is even about. We can only see the light that enters our eyes. The rods and cones within our eyes absorb the light and send signals to our optic nerve, indicating the intensity and spectrum of the light, which is then interpreted by the rest of the optical pathway and brain.
Obviously light is "clear" in that a beam of light will not interact with another beam of light without some very special circumstances that are beyond the scope of this discussion (see: coherence, interference, sum frequency generation, pair generation...) Asserting that "science" claims anything otherwise is a terrible straw man argument.
-
I don't mean unobservable. I mean the light does not enter the eye, and is therefore not observed by said eye. It could be quite visible to another observer nearby.
Honestly, I'm not really sure what this line of questioning is even about. We can only see the light that enters our eyes. The rods and cones within our eyes absorb the light and send signals to our optic nerve, indicating the intensity and spectrum of the light, which is then interpreted by the rest of the optical pathway and brain.
Obviously light is "clear" in that a beam of light will not interact with another beam of light without some very special circumstances that are beyond the scope of this discussion (see: coherence, interference, sum frequency generation, pair generation...) Asserting that "science" claims anything otherwise is a terrible straw man argument.
''We can only see the light that enters your eyes'', is the defence denying the observation of distance? Is the defence denying that we see objects in the distance and the distance is provably there by motion? Is the defence claiming that from your eye to an object is opaque?
Does my learned friend not observe light between themselves and an object?
-
I don't mean unobservable. I mean the light does not enter the eye, and is therefore not observed by said eye. It could be quite visible to another observer nearby.
Honestly, I'm not really sure what this line of questioning is even about. We can only see the light that enters our eyes. The rods and cones within our eyes absorb the light and send signals to our optic nerve, indicating the intensity and spectrum of the light, which is then interpreted by the rest of the optical pathway and brain.
Obviously light is "clear" in that a beam of light will not interact with another beam of light without some very special circumstances that are beyond the scope of this discussion (see: coherence, interference, sum frequency generation, pair generation...) Asserting that "science" claims anything otherwise is a terrible straw man argument.
''We can only see the light that enters your eyes'', is the defence denying the observation of distance? Is the defence denying that we see objects in the distance and the distance is provably there by motion? Is the defence claiming that from your eye to an object is opaque?
The "defense" is saying that we only see light. We do not see distance, which is merely extrapolated from our experience (which is why optical illusions like these are so effective: http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm#prettyPhoto[pp_gal]/5/ http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm#prettyPhoto[pp_gal]/6/) and by using parallax (from both eyes--it is much harder to judge distances with one eye closed). Obviously if you can see an object, the space between you and it is not opaque.
-
. Obviously if you can see an object, the space between you and it is not opaque.
Contradictory to saying we do not observe distance. Can the defense please describe there own observation and what colour you observe of this space between you and the object which the defense has stated is not opaque and acknowledges the space exists.
-
Space exists, and appears to be completely transparent and colorless...
I don't see how that means that we can observe distance.
-
Space exists, and appears to be completely transparent and colorless...
I don't see how that means that we can observe distance.
Distance is not the first argument, let us not get mixed up into multiple debate. Yes indeed space is transparent to light and allows light to propagate through space without obstruction. Indeed the space is colourless, the prosecution acknowledge an admittance from the defense, it is not observed as ''white light'', it is observed as ''clear light'' , does the defense admit this?
Does the defense also admit this perceived clarity is constant to all visual able healthy humans?
-
The defense accepts that light is "clear" and maintains that it has never claimed otherwise. The term "white light" refers to observed color of the image formed by the light.
The "white" in "white light" does not indicate opaqueness--rather that white paper, when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white. When white paper is illuminated with "red light" the paper appears to be red. Likewise for all of the colors observed in the rainbow (and combinations thereof). Furthermore "white light" can be separated by the action of a prism or diffraction grating into multiple constituent colors or light. Again, "Science" is not asserting that any of these forms of light are opaque.
-
The defense accepts that light is "clear" and maintains that it has never claimed otherwise.
I thank you for your admittance, (science forums said I was wrong for years).
Does the defense also agree that the visual ''clear light'' is constant in being clear to the observer while propagating through air or space?.
-
I'm really not sure what you mean. You can see the light if it goes in your eye. You don't see it if it does not, and barring any extreme conditions, the light will also not influence any of the other light entering your eye...
-
I'm really not sure what you mean. You can see the light if it goes in your eye. You don't see it if it does not, and barring any extreme conditions, the light will also not influence any of the other light entering your eye...
The defense accepts that light is "clear" and maintains that it has never claimed otherwis
The defense as already admitted to observing clear light in the space between an eye and object.
The prosecution notices your new statement is contradictory to your earlier admittance quoted above.
''You can see the light if it goes in your eye. You don't see it if it does not,''
Are you now contradictory claiming you do not observe clear light in the space?
Is the defense claiming not to observe clear light 1 ft away from themselves and their eyes?
-
I'm really not sure what you mean. You can see the light if it goes in your eye. You don't see it if it does not, and barring any extreme conditions, the light will also not influence any of the other light entering your eye...
Speaking as a witness, I can confirm that I saw no light exit the eye. Not from my own, nor anyone else's.
-
Speaking as a witness, I can confirm that I saw no light exit the eye. Not from my own, nor anyone else's.
The prosecution as not mentioned exit and acknowledges light has to enter your eyes to see, but the prosecution has strong evidence that we observe light as a whole , not observing single particle Photons, the defense clearly admitting observed clear light in space.
-
The prosecution as not mentioned exit and acknowledges light has to enter your eyes to see, but the prosecution has strong evidence that we observe light as a whole , not observing single particle Photons, the defense clearly admitting observed clear light in space.
Well, to say so, that is quite absurd. If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.
-
If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.
That's a good point, is that why it's dark outside?
I see it clear now, I finally see the light.
All else is dark.
-
The prosecution as not mentioned exit and acknowledges light has to enter your eyes to see, but the prosecution has strong evidence that we observe light as a whole , not observing single particle Photons, the defense clearly admitting observed clear light in space.
Well, to say so, that is quite absurd. If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.
The prosecution does not say that the whole of light enters your eyes , the prosecutor said we observe the light has a whole.
-
If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.
That's a good point, is that why it's dark outside?
I see it clear now, I finally see the light.
All else is dark.
Great lines lol
-
Can the prosecution put the first accusation to rest in agreement that we now agree about the clear light.?
Does the defense concur that the clear light is constantly observed to be clear?
Can I finally rest on the nature of light now you understand it?
-
I think this is suiting
-
Can the prosecution put the first accusation to rest in agreement that we now agree about the clear light.?
No.
As far as vision is concerned, all we need to know is that we only see (detect) light coming into our eyes either directly from a source or indirectly reflected from an object.
Light which passes across our field of vision cannot enter our eyes and so is not detected.
Science says that normal, everyday light (that is uncorrelated light) does not interfere with, or obstruct another light beam it crosses. This is true for all frequencies and mixtures of frequencies. It adds nothing to talk of clear light.
For some reason you seem to think there is a relationship or distinction between what is called white light and what you call clear light, there isn't.
-
Light which passes across our field of vision cannot enter our eyes and so is not detected.
Thus leading the prosecution to produce evidence 2.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The perceived perspective of the defense is that the observation of the object is of the objects past, a claim made by Einstein that a single Photon travels a linear path and takes an amount of time to be received by the observers eyes. Science also perceives that all bodies are in motion relative to each other and that relatively there is no stationary objects, more Einstein thoughts of relativity.
However this is contradictory to vector and the motion of bodies analysis which can be observed in the above diagram. This is also contradictory to observation of the clear light which the defense as already admitted to.
Is the defense claiming that they can observe a single photon travelling from A to B?
Is the defense laughably suggesting that a Photon is in comparison to a heat seeking missile and can change course of direction?
May I remind the defence of your own admittance and contradictory to your earlier admission of clear light observed in the space between your eyes and an object.
''Light which passes across our field of vision cannot enter our eyes and so is not detected.''
Is the defense now claiming they do not observe light which passes across our field of vision in the space they observe between their eyes and an object which the defense earlier admitted to ?
The prosecution accuses the defence are imagining a Photon single particle travelling through the clear light. An imagination that is contradictory to the actual observation of clear and whole. The prosecution does not imagine single particles, the prosecution observes the facts that we do not observe single photons.
-
Judging by your response, you have either not read my post or you have misunderstood it.
Just to help you on your way.
Why do you refer to a single photon when talking about the sun?
Let's expand on your bullet analogy. As someone said, think machine gun. I once spoke to a gunner who had experience of shooting down aircraft, he said the best technique was to fire the machine gun ahead of the target and hold that position until the aircraft ran through the burst. Remember also the sun fires out photons in all direction, it doesn't need to aim at anything!
Bullets and photons.
Yes, the bullet follows a curved path, but from which point of view? Shooter, bullet or target.
It isn't due to spacetime curvature, and the curve (purple) you've draw is wrong way round, it goes ahead of the redirect line at first.
Don't reply to this in your usual knee jerk reaction. Take some time to really think through the situation and try to think how it all works.
Also, forget 'clear light', it isn't helping you understand any of this, it's just adding to your confusion.
-
Judging by your response, you have either not read my post or you have misunderstood it.
Just to help you on your way.
Why do you refer to a single photon when talking about the sun?
Let's expand on your bullet analogy. As someone said, think machine gun. I once spoke to a gunner who had experience of shooting down aircraft, he said the best technique was to fire the machine gun ahead of the target and hold that position until the aircraft ran through the burst. Remember also the sun fires out photons in all direction, it doesn't need to aim at anything!
Bullets and photons.
Yes, the bullet follows a curved path, but from which point of view? Shooter, bullet or target.
It isn't due to spacetime curvature, and the curve (purple) you've draw is wrong way round, it goes ahead of the redirect line at first.
Don't reply to this in your usual knee jerk reaction. Take some time to really think through the situation and try to think how it all works.
Also, forget 'clear light', it isn't helping you understand any of this, it's just adding to your confusion.
The prosecutor did not mention the sun, the prosecutor mentioned observation and asked the defense a direct question.
Does the defense observe a single photon travelling from A to B, a simple yes or no answer the defence yet again avoided with distraction tactics.
The velocity of a bullet would be a linearity if it was not for the earth's gravitation pull in acknowledgement of Newtons laws of motion.
The velocity of the bullet does not however shear left or right unless there is wind-shift of the bullet. The diagram does not show a curved path of the object travelling the x-axis, it shows the ''falling'' object curving away from the x-axis. If I was representing the Earth's path, the prosecution acknowledges the invert curve to the diagram.
Your statement of the gunner is accepted to be accurately of truth. The prosecution acknowledges a bullet fired directly ''up'' a vertical axis relative to a horizontal plane has no curved path. The Earth curving away from the bullet in this example of vector use.
P.s the best way to intercept a moving target is to manually steer the ''bullet'' and direct ''yourself'' at it.
May the defence offer exhibit (B) in discussion
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.
That's a good point, is that why it's dark outside?
I see it clear now, I finally see the light.
All else is dark.
Great lines lol
Blinding... literally (chuckle)
-
May it please the court;
The defense accuses the prosecution of being culpable in a conflict of interest. As said prosecutor has demonstrated his ignorance of, and instigated attacks on "The Standard Model". His agenda has proved to have displayed no allegiance regarding the interests of the state, but rather his own personal ego. And submitting precious little more than his personal point of view, he has supplied us with absolutely no forensic evidence whatsoever. The defense calls for a mistrial and recommends:
Taking these facts into deliberation, I ask for a show of hands. What say the court?
1. Should we reprimand the prosecutor for this conflict of interest?
2. Should he be brought up for charges, before a board of inquiry by peer review, for a possible disbarment?
3. Or should we expedite matters and drag him from the court room and toss him in jail?
If it please the court, grant our twelve jurors this decision.
A recess is declared until deliberations have concluded.
-
May it please the court;
The defense accuses the prosecution of being culpable in a conflict of interest. As said prosecutor has demonstrated his ignorance of, and instigated attacks on "The Standard Model". His agenda has proved to have displayed no allegiance regarding the interests of the state, but rather his own personal ego. And submitting precious little more than his personal point of view, he has supplied us with absolutely no forensic evidence whatsoever. The defense calls for a mistrial and recommends:
Taking these facts into deliberation, I ask for a show of hands. What say the court?
1. Should we reprimand the prosecutor for this conflict of interest?
2. Should he be brought up for charges, before a board of inquiry by peer review, for a possible disbarment?
3. Or should we expedite matters and drag him from the court room and toss him in jail?
If it please the court, grant our twelve jurors this decision.
A recess is declared until deliberations have concluded.
And likewise could be said of the defense in the failure to answer direct questions or provide any evidence of their own, and for the clear intent of disrupting the proceedings. I ask the judge to find Ethos in contempt of court and withholding evidence when asked simple questions of observation.
The prosecution has no conflict of interest , motive or personal gain by this case , the prosecution is simply acting in the capacitance of providing the evidence of observation, in this specific case, free of charge
Clearly the defense council is already struggling to disprove the accusations and is in fear of losing the case. Their answers already being contradictory, where the prosecution has solely presented the 'truth'of observation without contradiction.
The defense can't handle the truth (lol got that one in )
Adjournment accepted while the defence deliberate their strategy to disprove the prosecution case.
-
Are you denying a rainbow is opaque to vision , visually hiding the sky behind it?
By observation, this is nonsense. But so isthe rest of the prosecution.
The human eye can indeed detect a single photon, as can many electronic devices. The fact that a good photograph or television picture looks pretty much like the original, despite having been processed by artificial optics, electronics and chemistry, suggests that the commonly accepted scientific view of the nature and working of light and vision is correct since the cameras are designed and constructed on those principles.
-
Are you denying a rainbow is opaque to vision , visually hiding the sky behind it?
By observation, this is nonsense. But so isthe rest of the prosecution.
The human eye can indeed detect a single photon, as can many electronic devices. The fact that a good photograph or television picture looks pretty much like the original, despite having been processed by artificial optics, electronics and chemistry, suggests that the commonly accepted scientific view of the nature and working of light and vision is correct since the cameras are designed and constructed on those principles.
Is the defence suggesting that a rainbow in the sky does not obstruct the view of the sky hiding behind the rainbow?
The defense again replies there after with distraction and avoidance to the questions being asked by the prosecutor,
You claim the Human eye can detect a single Photon, the question did not ask about detection of photons by the eye, it asked about observation, the defense is not blind I presume?
So do you insist that you can observe a single photon or do you submit you observe the ''whole'' of light between your eyes and an object?
To purge is contempt, may I remind the defense of their earlier admittance that they observe clear light in the space between eye and object.
-
You claim the Human eye can detect a single Photon, the question did not ask about detection of photons by the eye, it asked about observation, the defense is not blind I presume?
Define for the court the difference between; "detection and observation".
Webster's defines detection as: "to discover something hidden"
Webster's defines observation as: "the act or power of noticing"
If I notice something hidden, I've detected through observation.
Not a lot of difference there my friend..........................
I might add; There is a lot of difference between "Reflection and Deflection". We are all aware of the choice you're making when speaking about reflection and deflection Mr. Box. You always choose the later.................
-
On a personal note, I'm delighted you chose the position of prosecutor in this little game of yours. In America, the defendant has the right to counsel and is deemed innocent until, proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. Hence, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and it is incumbent upon him to present evidence on behalf of the state.
To which the defense declares; No such evidence has been presented that would deem the defendant guilty. Until such evidence is forthcoming, "The Standard Model" is confident and secure in resting it's case.
-
On a personal note, I'm delighted you chose the position of prosecutor in this little game of yours. In America, the defendant has the right to counsel and is deemed innocent until, proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. Hence, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and it is incumbent upon him to present evidence on behalf of the state.
To which the defense declares; No such evidence has been presented that would deem the defendant guilty. Until such evidence is forthcoming, "The Standard Model" is confident and secure in resting it's case.
I think you forget , the defence has already admitted to guilt after they admitted observing the clear light. It is not an if the prosecution has provided evidence, the prosecutor as presented axiom observation evidence of the human recording of time.
Does the defence deny that if it observed a live camera feed and observed a murder, that this camera feed would not be adequate evidence to support the claim of murder?
Is the defense claiming that the human mind observation of the surroundings is not adequate evidence?
''Define for the court the difference between; "detection and observation".''
Detection means several things,
Observation is the process of seeing things.
The prosecution declares your defence to be frivolous litigation, you could never hope to win against a live feed of observation from every jury member, they also can quite clearly , observe clear. Does anyone of the jury observe single photons in the space between eyes and object?
-
I think you forget , the defence has already admitted to guilt after they admitted observing the clear light.
Acknowledging "clear light" does not prove the defendants guilt. You have, in fact, proven nothing as yet Mr. Prosecutor. And we might as well claim the 5th anyway. You ignore the evidence we present you with. Examine this word a bit closer Mr. Prosecutor; "Ignore", if you study it closely, you'll understand where the word; "Ignorant" comes from. Someone that ignores evidence, whether purposefully or mistakenly falls into that category.
We've been patient with "Your Theory" Mr. Prosecutor and have found it lacking. Simple as that, maybe you've bitten off more than you can chew but even so, the ball remains on your side of the "Court".
If your persistence is fueled by the hopeful anticipation that you will win this verdict, you are in for a rude awakening.
-
I think you forget , the defence has already admitted to guilt after they admitted observing the clear light.
Acknowledging "clear light" does not prove the defendants guilt. You have, in fact, proven nothing as yet Mr. Prosecutor. And we might as well claim the 5th anyway. You ignore the evidence we present you with. Examine this word a bit closer Mr. Prosecutor; "Ignore", if you study it closely, you'll understand where the word; "Ignorant" comes from. (of a substance) transparent; unclouded., whether purposefully or mistakenly falls into that category.
We've been patient with "Your Theory" Mr. Prosecutor and have found it lacking. Simple as that, maybe you've bitten off more than you can chew but even so, the ball remains on your side of the "Court".
If your persistence is fueled by the hopeful anticipation that you will win this verdict, you are in for a rude awakening.
Again the defence replies in gibberish ignoring the questions . If you are aware of the term frivolous litigation that means the prosecution is very aware of every answer you give and know it is an argument you could never hope to win.
''You ignore the evidence we present you with. '' The defence as offered no evidence other than a few words, words avoiding the questions completely.
You have presented no evidence, can the defense provide evidence that we see single photons ?
Can the defense provide evidence that we do not see clear light?
I am observing space now, I see the clear space but I do not observe single Photons , do you sir?
The defense is obvious arrogant and ignorant in the answering of questions presented.
-
''You ignore the evidence we present you with. ''
You have presented no evidence Mr. Prosecutor.
You have presented no evidence, can the defence provide evidence that we see single photons ?
It's the Prosecutions responsibility to provide evidence of guilt, and the Defense denies such evidence exists, at least from this Prosecutor!
Remember?................. innocent until proven guilty
-
''You ignore the evidence we present you with. ''
You have presented no evidence Mr. Prosecutor.
You have presented no evidence, can the defence provide evidence that we see single photons ?
It's the Prosecutions responsibility to provide evidence of guilt, and the Defense denies such evidence exists, at least from this Prosecutor!
Remember?................. innocent until proven guilty
We have already had one admittance of guilt that clear is obviously not white, the second accusation of that we do not see individual Photons of the clear, is self evidently true by the first admittance of the defense. I call to evidence , exhibit 3 , your own eyes.
I ask again, do you see individual photons that make up the clear light between your eyes and an object, or do you see the clear as if whole?
Do you see an individual photon travelling from your screen to your eye?
-
Box, you are confusing the matter when talking about seeing light.
Typically, when we think about seeing objects we mean that we directly observe light that has either been emitted or reflected from said object. It would be impossible to "see" light in the same way that we "see" an object.
By analogy let us talk about sound and hearing. In common parlance, we talk about hearing a person or a trumpet, or some other loud thing. In fact, our ears are "feeling" the compression waves generated and projected by the trumpet. These waves travel through the air and are eventually received by our ears. Do you think that sound waves don't exist because we can't hear them? I claim to hear, and therefore observe, a sound wave, and you might argue, "no, you hear a trumpet." It is ridiculous.
I should also point out that my statements about "clear" and "white" are in no way an admission of guilt. Only you would think that somehow agreeing on any point means I agree and concede to all of your points.
-
Is the defence suggesting that a rainbow in the sky does not obstruct the view of the sky hiding behind the rainbow?
Worth doing some research:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Is the defence suggesting that a rainbow in the sky does not obstruct the view of the sky hiding behind the rainbow?
Worth doing some research:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The rainbows are apparently opaque compared to the clear as the prosecution suggested, of course the prosecution recognises that magnitude plays a part in the translucency of a rainbow.
-
That's funny. The rainbows shown in these pictures are obviously transparent! You can *ahem* clearly make out the clouds, hills and rocks behind them
-
Box, you are confusing the matter when talking about seeing light.
Typically, when we think about seeing objects we mean that we directly observe light that has either been emitted or reflected from said object. It would be impossible to "see" light in the same way that we "see" an object.
The defence as admitted to the clear light in the space between you eyes receivership and the reflective object. The prosecution is not confused in the nature of seeing, the prosecution has not mentioned waves or the relevance of existence of light, the prosecution is asking what you observe and see, not by use of device or gimmicks or theory,
I ask the judge to order the defense to submit an answer to the questions I have asked which they choice to ignore knowing it proves my case.
-
That's funny. The rainbows shown in these pictures are obviously transparent! You can *ahem* clearly make out the clouds, hills and rocks behind them
That is funny my learned friend, the top one is more translucent than the bottom one which is much more opaque relative to the clear light. You can clearly see that the red in the bottom one blocks the observation of the sky it hides.
The magnitude of the rainbow in the bottom picture is greater than the top picture.
-
If I shine a light in your eye, it might be the only thing you can see. This is not because it is blocking any images from behind it. Rather it is overpowering your eye.
-
The rainbows are apparently opaque compared to the clear as the prosecution suggested, of course the prosecution recognises that magnitude plays a part in the translucency of a rainbow.
Good grief!! The rainbow you're observing, "detecting" are water droplets that light has passed through. The reason for the different colors comes from refraction, same phenomenon that we see by passing light through a prism. If we observe any opaqueness, it's because we're viewing the light passing through water vapor. You're confusing many things Mr. Prosecutor, many things indeed.
-
If I shine a light in your eye, it might be the only thing you can see. This is not because it is blocking any images from behind it. Rather it is overpowering your eye.
The prosecution as not said anything regarding shining bright lights into eyes and does not contest your statement of the intensity over load entering your eyes impairing the clear you would normally observe . The prosecution would like to add to the record that the clear light is apparently an equilibrium constant to the brain that couples the brain to objects.
-
The rainbows are apparently opaque compared to the clear as the prosecution suggested, of course the prosecution recognises that magnitude plays a part in the translucency of a rainbow.
Good grief!! The rainbow you're observing, "detecting" are water droplets that light has passes through. The reason for the different colors comes from refraction, same phenomenon that we see by passing light through a prism. If we observe any opaqueness, it's because we're viewing the light passing through water vapor. You're confusing many things Mr. Prosecutor, many things indeed.
The defence is seemingly confused and accuses the prosecution of being confused, not once does the prosecutor mention the process of how rainbows occur , the prosecution as only described the observation compared to the clear light observed in the space between eye and rainbow.
-
Does the defense concur that the clear light is constantly observed to be clear?
Defence requests that the prosecution present whatever he calls "clear light" and explains its physical properties to the court. Since nobody else knows what he is talking about, at least a photograph and preferably the testmony of an expert witness wopud, we feel, be of value to the proceedings.
And whilst I am on my feet, may I ask that the judge make himself known?
-
the prosecution as only described the observation compared to the clear light observed in the space between eye and rainbow.
This "clear light" you want us to continually reference is distributed from rainbow to eye at different wave lengths. This combination of different wave length are interpreted by our eye as different colors. What in Heaven's name is so difficult about understanding that?? You're trying to invent some peculiar phenomenon that doesn't exist. Alice in Wonderland inventions.
-
Does the defense concur that the clear light is constantly observed to be clear?
Defence requests that the prosecution present whatever he calls "clear light" and explains its physical properties to the court. Since nobody else knows what he is talking about, at least a photograph and preferably the testmony of an expert witness wopud, we feel, be of value to the proceedings.
And whilst I am on my feet, may I ask that the judge make himself known?
The prosecution as explained ''clear light'' several times, some of the defence acknowledged clear light so it is a lie to say nobody understands .
But to explain and provide a picture of it, here it is
[ Invalid Attachment ]
You can quite clearly observe between your eye and the picture the clear light,
Close your eyes, open your eyes, you can still observe the clear light coming from the picture.
added - p.s turn the light off and stare a while , then you can see the ''fuzz'' in the picture.
-
And whilst I am on my feet, may I ask that the judge make himself known?
The Prosecutor would certainly object unless he could fulfill that post himself............................
-
the prosecution as only described the observation compared to the clear light observed in the space between eye and rainbow.
This "clear light" you want us to continually reference is distributed from rainbow to eye at different wave lengths. This combination of different wave length are interpreted by our eye as different colors. What in Heaven's name is so difficult about understanding that?? You're trying to invent some peculiar phenomenon that doesn't exist. Alice in Wonderland inventions.
You accuse the prosecution of Alice in Wonderland, yet the prosecution has not mentioned spectral frequencies or waves, it is the defense mentioning this.
The prosecution asks the defence to provide proof that in the space between the eye and the rainbow there is different wavelengths observed seems how the defense wish to mention spectral content.
Can the defence please again confirm the colour of light propagating through space?
-
I'm finished for tonight, NASCAR is calling my name. Suddenly makes more sense to me than this free-for-all and it's Prosecutorial instigator.
-
And whilst I am on my feet, may I ask that the judge make himself known?
The Prosecutor would certainly object unless he could fulfill that post himself............................
LOl , but no, I would have some complete random to be the judge and random jury members, but the judge and the jury would have to know little of science to see who's version sounds more true.
-
I'm finished for tonight, NASCAR is calling my name. Suddenly makes more sense to me than this free-for-all and it's Prosecutorial instigator.
Thanks it has been fun, I am sure anyone who reads this who knows little science will learn a lot about light from both views.
-
I have added some white to the clear light picture so you can distinguish length from yourself.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
You can observe the clear light extends much further than the white point sources.
adjournment for me , good night.
-
But to explain and provide a picture of it, here it is
You can quite clearly observe between your eye and the picture the clear light,
No, can't see it.
Looked at the screen with a magnifying glass and saw lots of little light dots, red, green and blue. All different mixtures of these dots giving what we see as colour. So I see a lot of pink colour, white edges and a black rectangle where the little dots aren't emitting anything.
No clear light, never saw it, never observed it, box imagines it.
PS opaque means you can't see through it.
I did see some white though!
-
But to explain and provide a picture of it, here it is
You can quite clearly observe between your eye and the picture the clear light,
No, can't see it.
Looked at the screen with a magnifying glass and saw lots of little light dots, red, green and blue. All different mixtures of these dots giving what we see as colour. So I see a lot of pink colour, white edges and a black rectangle where the little dots aren't emitting anything.
No clear light, never saw it, never observed it, box imagines it.
PS opaque means you can't see through it.
I did see some white though!
The defense is being intentionally obtuse, the prosecution declares the defense is looking to closely at the screen. The prosecution suggests standing two feet back from the screen. no magnifier needed, and observe the clear light in the space between your eye and screen.
The picture surely shows clear light , there is just no objects reflecting its presence.
p.s I know what opaque means. Darkness is ''opaque''
p.s the prosecution asked the defense to stop playing stupid when the prosecution already knows the defense is far from stupid.
-
Let the prosecution enter to evidence, evidence 3, a photographic imagine of space of the clear light which the prosecution as highlighted for you.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Let the prosecution enter evidence 4, the perspective view of observing individual particles.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The prosecution asks again does the defence see individual photons between their eyes and an object?
The prosecution again accuses the defense of invention and observer effect in the imagination of a single Photon.
-
The defense is being intentionally obtuse, the prosecution declares the defense is looking to closely at the screen. The prosecution suggests standing two feet back from the screen. no magnifier needed, and observe the clear light in the space between your eye and screen.
The picture surely shows clear light , there is just no objects reflecting its presence.
I think you misunderstood the experiment I did.
Although I did look closely at the screen this was only to confirm the source of the light, which as I said consists of small source of red, blue and green.
I then stood back at 1m to observe the screen.
I have repeated the experiment with additional views:
I moved my eyes from 1m towards the screen, at each point toward the screen the light was still there, pink, white and where no light from the source then black.
I then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there, all I saw was the light reflected from the walls and furniture in the room. All colours, red, blue, yellow, white – in all its Dulux shades – and where no light is reflected then dark. Again I moved my eyes forward and found in all places the same light. I even set up a video camera to record this while I viewed from the front. The same light was consistently there.
I conclude that the whole of the space in front of the screen, indeed the whole room, is filled with ordinary light (including white) and there is no need to construct an additional theory of clear light.
Just to be clear, darkness is not opaque
a photographic imagine of space of the clear light which the prosecution as highlighted for you.
What you have highlighted is not clear light but low light. Not at all the same.
What you have highlighted as opaque light is just light of varying intensities, some brighter some darker.
-
.
I have repeated the experiment with additional views:
I moved my eyes from 1m towards the screen, at each point toward the screen the light was still there, pink, white and where no light from the source then black.
Can the defense confirm the defense observed the pink, white , etc was observed of the screen point source and not of the space?
I then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there,
Note for the record the defense admitting to observing the clear, evidence of my claim the clear is there.
all I saw was the light reflected from the walls and furniture in the room. All colours, red, blue, yellow, white – in all its Dulux shades – and where no light is reflected then dark. Again I moved my eyes forward and found in all places the same light. I even set up a video camera to record this while I viewed from the front. The same light was consistently there.
Note for the record, the defense admits observing a constant consistency of of the observation.
I conclude that the whole of the space in front of the screen, indeed the whole room, is filled with ordinary light (including white) and there is no need to construct an additional theory of clear light.
Objection, this statement is contradictory to the admittance of the clarity observed of the constant clear space and the difference of the spectral colours of objects being observed by the defense. The clear nature of light having affect on special relativity.
May I remind the defense of the admittance that the visual spectral content observed in the space between eye and object is zero.
p,s Just to be clear, darkness is not clear.
-
''What you have highlighted is not clear light but low light. Not at all the same.''
Are you suggesting that low light surrounds the Sun?
''What you have highlighted as opaque light is just light of varying intensities, some brighter some darker. ''
Yes exactly, visually-opaque relative to the clear light. The defense observes the constant clear, light of varying frequencies is not clear. May I remind the defence that intensity is the brightness, the frequency between 400-700nm is the spectral content.
-
Note for the record the defense admitting to observing the clear, evidence of my claim the clear is there.
I am not going to take part in any discussion where you deliberately misquote me by taking words out of context.
I'm out
-
I am not going to take part in any discussion where you deliberately misquote me by taking words out of context.
I'm out
Your honour the defense is clearly being contradictory, there is no misquoting,
''I then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there,''
Not attempting to see, not trying to see, but to see the clear light.
The defense clearly admitted to seeing the clear light. Does the defence now claim that they did not observe clear space? If not is the defence stuck inside a box.
The defense quite clearly lost, avoiding most of the prosecution questions.
Does anyone in the world observe a single photon travelling from an object to their eye?
NO
Does anyone not observe clear light in the space?
NO
added - Now, it is your choice science whether or not you listen.
There is three axioms, the starting premise of science.
1. All visual observers ,observe space when light is present, as ''transparent'' to sight. (light allows sight to pass through dark ''visually-opaque''space)
2. All visual observers observe the whole of the visual universe simultaneously, relative to themselves.
3. All visual observers , observe objects move relative to each other, relative to the stationary reference frame of the constant visual clarity of space. ( this is not saying light has no speed, it says we do not observe space moving, we observe things moving through space).
And very simply, anything that does not comply with these 3 axioms is simply wrong, i.e curved space, seeing things in the past etc
P.s make that 4 axioms
4. All visual observers have a radius limit/boundary of sight.
sorry another one
5. The visual radius limit/boundary of a visual observer can expand or contract relative to source points geometrical spacial positions, relative to light.
All 5 axioms.
Now Einstein would say, ''let us imagine what ze light is made of, let us imagine tiny particles. ''
The box would reply , '' let us imagine bugger all, let us consider only the facts we observe''.
-
Your honour the defense is clearly being contradictory, there is no misquoting,
''I then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there,''
Not attempting to see, not trying to see, but to see the clear light.
The defense clearly admitted to seeing the clear light. Does the defence now claim that they did not observe clear space? If not is the defence stuck inside a box.
The defense quite clearly lost, avoiding most of the prosecution questions.
Does anyone in the world observe a single photon travelling from an object to their eye?
NO
Does anyone not observe clear light in the space?
NO
added - Now, it is your choice science whether or not you listen.
There is three axioms, the starting premise of science.
1. All visual observers ,observe space when light is present, as ''transparent'' to sight. (light allows sight to pass through dark ''visually-opaque''space)
2. All visual observers observe the whole of the visual universe simultaneously, relative to themselves.
3. All visual observers , observe objects move relative to each other, relative to the stationary reference frame of the constant visual clarity of space. ( this is not saying light has no speed, it says we do not observe space moving, we observe things moving through space).
And very simply, anything that does not comply with these 3 axioms is simply wrong, i.e curved space, seeing things in the past etc
P.s make that 4 axioms
4. All visual observers have a radius limit/boundary of sight.
sorry another one
5. The visual radius limit/boundary of a visual observer can expand or contract relative to source points geometrical spacial positions, relative to light.
All 5 axioms.
Now Einstein would say, ''let us imagine what ze light is made of, let us imagine tiny particles. ''
The box would reply , '' let us imagine bugger all, let us consider only the facts we observe''.
Bunkum....................
-
Your honour the defense is clearly being contradictory, there is no misquoting,
''I then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there,''
Not attempting to see, not trying to see, but to see the clear light.
The defense clearly admitted to seeing the clear light. Does the defence now claim that they did not observe clear space? If not is the defence stuck inside a box.
The defense quite clearly lost, avoiding most of the prosecution questions.
Does anyone in the world observe a single photon travelling from an object to their eye?
NO
Does anyone not observe clear light in the space?
NO
added - Now, it is your choice science whether or not you listen.
There is three axioms, the starting premise of science.
1. All visual observers ,observe space when light is present, as ''transparent'' to sight. (light allows sight to pass through dark ''visually-opaque''space)
2. All visual observers observe the whole of the visual universe simultaneously, relative to themselves.
3. All visual observers , observe objects move relative to each other, relative to the stationary reference frame of the constant visual clarity of space. ( this is not saying light has no speed, it says we do not observe space moving, we observe things moving through space).
And very simply, anything that does not comply with these 3 axioms is simply wrong, i.e curved space, seeing things in the past etc
P.s make that 4 axioms
4. All visual observers have a radius limit/boundary of sight.
sorry another one
5. The visual radius limit/boundary of a visual observer can expand or contract relative to source points geometrical spacial positions, relative to light.
All 5 axioms.
Now Einstein would say, ''let us imagine what ze light is made of, let us imagine tiny particles. ''
The box would reply , '' let us imagine bugger all, let us consider only the facts we observe''.
Bunkum....................
You claim axioms are nonsense, I ask the Judge to request a mental evaluation of the defense.
The prosecution requests the defence to produce observation evidence of a single particle known as the Photon , travelling from the Sun to Earth, the prosecution would also like to know, why the observation of the defense is different to the observation of the majority who observe clear light as a whole and the entire universe as simultaneous whole.
The prosecution accuses the defence of vivid imagination and lying about axioms of their own observation.
They admitted to observing the clear light, then refused to answer any other question , knowing the answer incriminates themselves.
I ask the defense for one final time, the court requests a direct yes or no answer, does anyone observe single Photons propagating in the space between objects?
-
You claim axioms are nonsense,
Nope, the only nonsense being distributed around here is coming from the Prosecutor.
I ask the Judge to request a mental evaluation of the defense.
Getting a little personal are we?
If we are to evaluate the mental state of anyone here, I suggest it be the one that finds themselves in total opposition with the rational view taken by the majority.
When it seems that everyone else is insane, and you are the only one in their right mind, it would be reasonable to consider the alternative my friend. I suggest you make yourself an appointment, and do so without delay.
-
You claim axioms are nonsense,
Nope, the only nonsense being distributed around here is coming from the Prosecutor.
I ask the Judge to request a mental evaluation of the defense.
Getting a little personal are we?
If we are to evaluate the mental state of anyone here, I suggest it be the one that finds themselves in total opposition with the rational view taken by the majority.
When it seems that everyone else is insane, and you are the only one in their right mind, it would be reasonable to consider the alternative my friend. I suggest you make yourself an appointment, and do so without delay.
Don't forget is just for fun, I am not getting personal the defense is real and imaginary at the same time.
Again the defense avoids a direct question, answer the question.
I ask the defense for one final time, the court requests a direct yes or no answer, does anyone observe single Photons propagating in the space between objects?
-
I ask the defense for one final time, the court requests a direct yes or no answer, does anyone observe single Photons propagating in the space between objects?
Mr. Box, that question has been answered many times during the extent of this discussion. Do you remember me asking you whether you were familiar with the "Visible-Light photon counter", evidently not. Even though you have ignored this information before, I'll present it one more time for your benefit. Quoting from Wikipedia:
"This device is being used extensively in the central tracking detector of the DO experiment, and for muon cooling studies for a muon collider (MICE).
If you would take the time and effort to look it up, this experiment details how science is able to count photons. Consider once what the word; "count" means. To count, one must be able to detect each photon individually. So my friend......................YES, we can detect photons individually.
If you won't accept my detailed answer, look it up for yourself. But remembering your comments about how you distrust anything Wiki has to offer, none of us will be holding our breaths waiting for you to learn anything any time soon.
-
Mr. Box, I'm done fooling with you. You evidently have no interest in learning anything, so like so many others, I'm out as well.
I have no time left for your obstinate attitude.
Over and OUT...........................Welcome to my ignore list Mr. Box!
-
Again the defense replies in gibberish in deflection, the prosecution as not once asked the defense what they detect or how the eyes work. The council as asked simple questions the defense ignore , I accuse the defense of not wanting to learn anything and arrogance.
p.s You lost Ethos and you know it, seeing objects in the past my backside, the space is clear I can see my hand the same time I can see a star, it is simultaneous.
-
You can quite clearly observe between your eye and the picture the clear light,
No, there's nothing there that I can see. There is some air, but it doesn't emit visible light.
-
You can quite clearly observe between your eye and the picture the clear light,
No, there's nothing there that I can see. There is some air, but it doesn't emit visible light.
So the defense claims to see nothing , and adds air to the space between eyes and object. The defense claims to see nothing in the space between eyes and object yet the defense claims that a photon takes takes 8 minutes to arrive from the sun to earth, yet the defense as just admitted they see nothing in the space, so how is it possible then that the defense claims to observing single photons in the space, when they just said they observe nothing. It is sounding more contradictory by the minute.
The prosecution acknowledge air exists in the space, the prosecution also acknowledges that light propagates through the transparent air and the air as no meaningful refractive index and is not observed directly by sight. Air is clear like the light passing through it, does the defense suggest there is no electromagnetic radiation passing through air in the space between eye and object?
added - exhibit 4 ,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Just for fun......
You, science, are accused of misleading information and falsities in that information.
The first accusation is the ''white light'' , white is a colour observed, the light is evidentially ''clear'' to observation, it is passive to sight. We observe the prism experiment through the ''clear'' of the light.
evidence 1 - we observe the white light through the clear.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Do you plead guilty or not guilty?
P.s Your judge and jury are your readers, let us see you try to lie your ways out of these accusations. In the UK a no comment is as good as a guilty plee.
Not sure I entirly understand the question still, I do see a band of white in the picture. But do ponder that as humanity has evolved on a planet that blocks certain specturms of light if our eyes have evolved to see light differently or something: red, yellow, and blue are primary paint colours yet it's red, green, and blue, for light. anyway