0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Are you denying a rainbow is opaque to vision , visually hiding the sky behind it?
Quote from: Thebox on 17/02/2016 15:55:05Are 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.
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?
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 21:09:21I 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.
''You ignore the evidence we present you with. ''
You have presented no evidence, can the defence provide evidence that we see single photons ?
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 21:38:28 ''You ignore the evidence we present you with. '' You have presented no evidence Mr. Prosecutor.Quote from: TheboxYou 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
Is the defence suggesting that a rainbow in the sky does not obstruct the view of the sky hiding behind the rainbow?
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 19:33:02Is 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: [ Invalid Attachment ] [ Invalid Attachment ]
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.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 22:59:15The 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.
Does the defense concur that the clear light is constantly observed to be clear?