The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)  (Read 4884 times)

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #25 on: 17/02/2016 21:35:12 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #26 on: 17/02/2016 21:47:23 »


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.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 21:53:00 by Thebox »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #27 on: 17/02/2016 22:51:59 »
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.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 122 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #28 on: 18/02/2016 00:20:54 »
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 following users thanked this post: Thebox

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #29 on: 18/02/2016 07:32:28 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #30 on: 18/02/2016 07:33:11 »
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
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #31 on: 18/02/2016 07:35:27 »
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?
« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 08:02:07 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #32 on: 18/02/2016 09:24:55 »
I think this is suiting



ebc=ANyPxKo4NGf-TplYKhbFZCCLuZ9iD-pyzCkJS8LsxQFWnJN8VjmR-LaGhtocRN47AHSF3cEQfs2TrGbptHz4206jnOP3ZYfmDg
« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 09:33:39 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 122 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #33 on: 18/02/2016 09:26:31 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #34 on: 18/02/2016 09:46:44 »


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.



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.




« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 10:28:25 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Thanked: 122 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #35 on: 18/02/2016 11:12:32 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #36 on: 18/02/2016 12:52:05 »
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









« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 13:55:33 by Thebox »
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #37 on: 18/02/2016 17:36:49 »
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)
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #38 on: 18/02/2016 17:45:15 »
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.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #39 on: 18/02/2016 18:21:42 »
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.



« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 19:09:15 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #40 on: 18/02/2016 19:17:56 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #41 on: 18/02/2016 19:33:02 »
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.
« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 19:40:24 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #42 on: 18/02/2016 19:55:00 »


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.................
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #43 on: 18/02/2016 20:54:36 »
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.

« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 20:56:43 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #44 on: 18/02/2016 21:09:21 »
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?




« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 21:24:58 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #45 on: 18/02/2016 21:25:51 »


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.




 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #46 on: 18/02/2016 21:38:28 »


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.





« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 21:47:31 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #47 on: 18/02/2016 21:47:02 »


 ''You ignore the evidence we present you with. '' 
You have presented no evidence Mr. Prosecutor.
Quote from: Thebox
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
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #48 on: 18/02/2016 21:52:45 »


 ''You ignore the evidence we present you with. '' 
You have presented no evidence Mr. Prosecutor.
Quote from: Thebox
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?


« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 21:56:41 by Thebox »
 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1867
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #49 on: 18/02/2016 22:33:07 »
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.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #49 on: 18/02/2016 22:33:07 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums