The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)  (Read 4949 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« 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.





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.


« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 09:24:12 by Thebox »


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #1 on: 17/02/2016 09:58:01 »
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.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 10:01:27 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #2 on: 17/02/2016 10:04:19 »
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?


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #3 on: 17/02/2016 10:19:55 »
I don't know why but this appropriate for the adjournment.


 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #4 on: 17/02/2016 14:09:18 »
In the UK a no comment is as good as a guilty plee.
Guilty as charged.........................
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #5 on: 17/02/2016 14:10:56 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #6 on: 17/02/2016 15:37:22 »
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.






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.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 15:45:31 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #7 on: 17/02/2016 15:44:38 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #8 on: 17/02/2016 15:55:05 »
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?
 



« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 16:13:12 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #9 on: 17/02/2016 16:13:05 »

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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #10 on: 17/02/2016 16:17:47 »

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? 





« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 16:29:04 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #11 on: 17/02/2016 18:01:22 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #12 on: 17/02/2016 18:30:47 »
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?








 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #13 on: 17/02/2016 18:45:04 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #14 on: 17/02/2016 19:00:35 »
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. 









 
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 19:16:03 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #15 on: 17/02/2016 19:41:24 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #16 on: 17/02/2016 19:49:27 »
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?



« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 19:55:47 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #17 on: 17/02/2016 19:56:28 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #18 on: 17/02/2016 20:02:05 »
. 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.

« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 20:09:40 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #19 on: 17/02/2016 20:08:18 »
Space exists, and appears to be completely transparent and colorless...

I don't see how that means that we can observe distance.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #20 on: 17/02/2016 20:19:52 »
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?



 

 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #21 on: 17/02/2016 20:25:56 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #22 on: 17/02/2016 20:35:06 »
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?.
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #23 on: 17/02/2016 20:49:55 »
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...
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #24 on: 17/02/2016 20:57:56 »
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?
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 21:01:04 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #24 on: 17/02/2016 20:57:56 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length