0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sine die
In the UK a no comment is as good as a guilty plee.
does the defence for science concede to defeat in the opening statements?
Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2016 10:04:19does 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.
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 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?
Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2016 15:55:05The 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.
synonymous
What spectral frequency do you observe in the space between your eyes and an object?
Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2016 18:30:47What 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.
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.
Quote from: chiralSPO on 17/02/2016 19:41:24I 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?
. Obviously if you can see an object, the space between you and it is not opaque.