The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)  (Read 4890 times)

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #50 on: 18/02/2016 22:51:00 »
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:



 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #51 on: 18/02/2016 22:59:15 »
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:





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. 

 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #52 on: 18/02/2016 23:03:26 »
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
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #53 on: 18/02/2016 23:07:10 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #54 on: 18/02/2016 23:10:14 »
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.


 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1872
  • Thanked: 143 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #55 on: 18/02/2016 23:12:31 »
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.
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #56 on: 18/02/2016 23:25:07 »


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.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 02:11:52 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #57 on: 18/02/2016 23:27:13 »
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.

« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 23:34:46 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #58 on: 18/02/2016 23:30:04 »


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.


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #59 on: 18/02/2016 23:32:41 »
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?
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #60 on: 18/02/2016 23:40:30 »

 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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #61 on: 18/02/2016 23:42:00 »
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




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.



« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 00:00:14 by Thebox »
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #62 on: 18/02/2016 23:43:33 »


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............................
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #63 on: 18/02/2016 23:50:05 »

 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?
 

Online Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #64 on: 18/02/2016 23:51:00 »
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.
 
The following users thanked this post: Thebox

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #65 on: 18/02/2016 23:52:50 »


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.


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #66 on: 18/02/2016 23:54:21 »
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.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #67 on: 19/02/2016 00:08:10 »
I have added some white to the clear light picture so you can distinguish length from yourself.



You can observe the clear light extends much further than the white point sources.

adjournment for me , good night.
« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 00:12:11 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #68 on: 19/02/2016 09:14:58 »
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!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #69 on: 19/02/2016 09:38:06 »
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.



« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 10:01:39 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #70 on: 19/02/2016 10:13:45 »
Let the prosecution enter to evidence, evidence 3, a photographic imagine of space of the clear light which the prosecution as highlighted for you.





Let the  prosecution enter evidence 4, the perspective view of observing individual particles.




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.



« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 14:35:27 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #71 on: 19/02/2016 16:30:05 »
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.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #72 on: 19/02/2016 17:43:25 »
.


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.
Quote

Can the defense confirm the defense observed the pink, white , etc was observed of the screen point source and not of the space?


Quote
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.







Quote
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.


Quote
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.

« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 20:10:17 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #73 on: 19/02/2016 17:50:46 »
''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.




« Last Edit: 19/02/2016 20:17:12 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #74 on: 19/02/2016 22:36:02 »

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
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #74 on: 19/02/2016 22:36:02 »

 

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