0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I have drawn an artist impression of your cellar , however your cellar is really really big and the only light we have is a candle, your cellar is now lit but your cellar walls look like this. (followed by a black image)
Δ colour of substance with lights on = λΔ
Δ colour of space with lights on = 0Δ
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/07/2017 22:13:51Neither the gap between observable stars, nor my cellar reflect light in the direction of our eyes.So they are both dark and both look the same.That's why our "sketches" are so similar.It's still dark in my cellar, no matter how good you are at chess.You still seem to be trolling.STOP with the trolling , you know I am not a troll. I have been here for how many years now ? I want my name in WIKI that's all I want out of life. My picture is not dark, there is light between the stars, are you trying to say there is no light in space? I think you intentionally avoided the correct answer, are you sure that our pictures don't both look the same because there is no visible light in either picture? Visible light that is dependent to substance?added- I have drawn an artist impression of your cellar , however your cellar is really really big and the only light we have is a candle, your cellar is now lit but your cellar walls look like this. clear.jpg (8.36 kB . 985x507 - viewed 7628 times)
Neither the gap between observable stars, nor my cellar reflect light in the direction of our eyes.So they are both dark and both look the same.That's why our "sketches" are so similar.It's still dark in my cellar, no matter how good you are at chess.You still seem to be trolling.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/07/2017 22:19:42Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/07/2017 22:13:51Neither the gap between observable stars, nor my cellar reflect light in the direction of our eyes.So they are both dark and both look the same.That's why our "sketches" are so similar.It's still dark in my cellar, no matter how good you are at chess.You still seem to be trolling.STOP with the trolling , you know I am not a troll. I have been here for how many years now ? I want my name in WIKI that's all I want out of life. My picture is not dark, there is light between the stars, are you trying to say there is no light in space? I think you intentionally avoided the correct answer, are you sure that our pictures don't both look the same because there is no visible light in either picture? Visible light that is dependent to substance?added- I have drawn an artist impression of your cellar , however your cellar is really really big and the only light we have is a candle, your cellar is now lit but your cellar walls look like this. clear.jpg (8.36 kB . 985x507 - viewed 7628 times)ThanksI turned up the brightness and it looked something like the picture herehttp://dartplayers.net/what-to-do-with-a-cellar/unique-what-to-do-with-a-cellar-a-plan-for-insulating-our-draughty-old-victorian-cellar-ceiling/because it's no longer dark when there's a candleHowever, in my cellar at the moment, it is dark and so it is still observably wrong to say otherwise.For the record, it's not an issue of "things that seem contrary to established scientific principles.".It's a thing that's is contrary to observed fact.
Quote from: TheBoxI have drawn an artist impression of your cellar , however your cellar is really really big and the only light we have is a candle, your cellar is now lit but your cellar walls look like this. (followed by a black image)This black image is ok for an image of an unlit cellar.However, as soon as you introduce a candle, you should draw some bricks on the wall. And the bricks should be reddish, and the cement should be whitish.This is because the candle will illuminate the room to some extent. And the candle light is white to some extent.The appeal to a "really really big" cellar suggests that you are leaving out information - that there is minimum level of light to which human eyes are sensitive, just as there is a minimum frequency of light to which humans are sensitive.- But if you instead use a camera, and take a long exposure, the bricks in the wall will be quite visible.- And the color of the bricks will be visible.
Title changed, as requested. I didn't change it on the posts prior to this one, because the readers need to see what question was being addressed in the responses.As author, you can change it yourself by editing the original post.It's time to stop the discussion on trolling.- This section of the forum is for New Theories; things that seem contrary to established scientific principles.- This thread belongs in the New Theories section of the forum- People with scientific training may think it is far-fetched, and that's ok- That does not make the author of the New Theory a troll- nor does it make the person with scientific training a troll.... Moderator
So do you feel it is wrong to say otherwise than between the stars it is dark?
So how is it that when I look across the lake at night and the other side is relative dark although I have an illuminating device, the returning photons have no information of the wall?
Quote from: TheBoxSo how is it that when I look across the lake at night and the other side is relative dark although I have an illuminating device, the returning photons have no information of the wall? It is called the "Inverse square law". - It applies to photons, and it applies to gravitation.- But when you are dealing with reflection from diffuse surfaces, it becomes an "inverse fourth law"It says that the brightness decreases with distance, but it never really reaches zero.- The brightness gets so low that you can't see the faint wall when your sight is overloaded by the close light.- For example, if the lamp is 0.1m from your eye, and the wall is 100m from your eye and the lamp: - The wall is 1000 times the distance to your eye - The light reaching the wall is 10002 = 1,000,000 times fainter than the light reaching your eye - The light reaching your eye from the wall is (1,000,000)2 = 1012 times fainter than the light reaching your eye from the direct path.- The limitations of your eye prevent you from seeing what is really happening- At some point (probably when the wall exceeds 10x the distance of the lamp = 1 m away), you need to recognise your own blindness and start applying logic. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
A few photons will carry limited information about an object. With more light you can (quickly) see more about the object from which they are emitted or reflected.However, all this stuff about my cellar with a candle in it is beside the point.When I blow the candle out, it's dark down there.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2017 21:39:49A few photons will carry limited information about an object. With more light you can (quickly) see more about the object from which they are emitted or reflected.However, all this stuff about my cellar with a candle in it is beside the point.When I blow the candle out, it's dark down there.No, when you blow the candle out , the walls no longer produce visible light.
Quote from: Thebox on 04/07/2017 21:55:47Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2017 21:39:49A few photons will carry limited information about an object. With more light you can (quickly) see more about the object from which they are emitted or reflected.However, all this stuff about my cellar with a candle in it is beside the point.When I blow the candle out, it's dark down there.No, when you blow the candle out , the walls no longer produce visible light. They never did- that was the candle's job.It seems to have missed your notice that we can't see IR or the CBMR, so it has no relevance to a discussion about dark and light
The darkness you perceive is ostensibly.
Quote from: Thebox on 05/07/2017 20:53:29The darkness you perceive is ostensibly.That sentence might make more sense if you remembered the final verb- or, then a gain, it might not.Whatever.It's still dark in my cellar.Darkness still exists.You are still wrong to have claimed it didn't.Come back when one of those facts changes.
Light and other wavelengths of energy result when the electromagnetic or the EM force lowers potential. Since matter contains the negative and positive charges responsible for the EM force, matter is responsible for most energy output. Matter can also absorb energy and increase its EM potential. Sometimes this energy is reflected back to lower the EM potential. Others times, some of the energy is absorbed and some reflected. For example, plants are green because they absorb other colors, but will reflect green. In case of photosynthesis, energy can be absorbed and stored as the EM force in new chemicals; simple sugars. Once light is emitted, light is self sufficient. It can also act as a finger print of an EM force situation, from which we can infer the atomic makeup. For example, the emission spectrum of hydrogen is very distinct. If we see all those wavelengths spread a certain way, we know hydrogen was once involved. If the hydrogen spectrum appears shifted we may infer hydrogen is in motion near the speed of light. Photons are interesting in that they move at the speed of light, yet they show finite expressions we call wavelength and frequency. If matter could move at the speed of light, it would alway have a point instant reference. All the variety we expect would merge into the point-instant. Yet light moves at the speed of light and can show all the variety expected of things moving slower than the speed of light. Light lives in two worlds. One leg moves at C, while the other leg stays connected to the inertial references associated with matter. Since energy is an output product of matter as the EM force lowered potential, energy is at lower potential than matter. Energy is a bridge between higher potential matter and the speed light ground state, which all of energy shares no matter the wavelength. The wavelength reflects the position on the bridge, with gamma closet to matter; can form matter and anti-matter pairs, and infinite wavelength closest to C side of the bridge to the ground state.
EMR of various wavelengths is pretty well understood. Not only that, but there are plenty of experiments you can do yourself to help you learn more about it. Some materials have an interesting property whereby interacting with photons generates current. These materials can be used to generate power (as in solar panels) directly from light or even used as sensors/detectors that are sensitive to specific frequencies of emr. Another cool thing we can do is create light of a specific wavelength. For example, you could take a red led (which emits only wavelengths corresponding to red) and go into a completely dark room. You'd see that everything appears to take on various hues of red, while things that have a lot of red pigment would appear relatively unchanged. If you're confused about how pigments interact with light, that's also a well-understood and well-documented topic. You can look it up or experiment for yourself.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2017 21:55:21Quote from: Thebox on 05/07/2017 20:53:29The darkness you perceive is ostensibly.That sentence might make more sense if you remembered the final verb- or, then a gain, it might not.Whatever.It's still dark in my cellar.Darkness still exists.You are still wrong to have claimed it didn't.Come back when one of those facts changes.Do you know what the word ostensibly means? It means something may appear to be true but it is not necessarily true.So when you turn the ''light'' off and it appears to be dark, darkness seemingly being true, that does not make it necessarily true. Of course you are so unreasonable you can't even try to contemplate this, you are not being objective and actually considering this. Defending something with a defence that is that something is not objective or a viable defence.
Quote from: Thebox on 06/07/2017 23:17:18Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2017 21:55:21Quote from: Thebox on 05/07/2017 20:53:29The darkness you perceive is ostensibly.That sentence might make more sense if you remembered the final verb- or, then a gain, it might not.Whatever.It's still dark in my cellar.Darkness still exists.You are still wrong to have claimed it didn't.Come back when one of those facts changes.Do you know what the word ostensibly means? It means something may appear to be true but it is not necessarily true.So when you turn the ''light'' off and it appears to be dark, darkness seemingly being true, that does not make it necessarily true. Of course you are so unreasonable you can't even try to contemplate this, you are not being objective and actually considering this. Defending something with a defence that is that something is not objective or a viable defence. Do you know that the word "ostensibly" is an adverb and, without a verb to apply to, it's a bit short of any meaning?Anyway,It's still dark in my cellar.Darkness still exists.You are still wrong to have claimed it didn't.Come back when one of those facts changes.
What you can't do is produce visible light in ''free'' space ,