# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)  (Read 4502 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #75 on: 20/02/2016 00:19:18 »

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''.

« Last Edit: 20/02/2016 09:53:27 by Thebox »

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #76 on: 20/02/2016 14:01:21 »

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....................

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #77 on: 20/02/2016 14:51:49 »

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?

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #78 on: 20/02/2016 15:06:14 »

You claim axioms are nonsense,
Nope, the only nonsense being distributed around here is coming from the Prosecutor.

Quote from: Thebox
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.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #79 on: 20/02/2016 15:08:18 »

You claim axioms are nonsense,
Nope, the only nonsense being distributed around here is coming from the Prosecutor.

Quote from: Thebox
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?

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #80 on: 20/02/2016 16:05:14 »

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.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #81 on: 20/02/2016 16:10:45 »
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!

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #82 on: 20/02/2016 17:08:08 »
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.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4492
• Thanked: 137 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #83 on: 20/02/2016 17:51:51 »
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.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #84 on: 20/02/2016 21:52:50 »
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 ,

« Last Edit: 20/02/2016 23:00:22 by Thebox »

#### Space Flow

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 400
• Thanked: 31 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #85 on: 21/02/2016 13:14:04 »

#### Jolly

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 155
• Thanked: 6 times
##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #86 on: 14/03/2016 16:47:14 »
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.

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

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #86 on: 14/03/2016 16:47:14 »