Post by: guest39538 on 25/06/2017 15:11:38
As humans we only observe ''light'' 400-700nm, without substance, 400nm-700nm does not exist. Do we only really see substance that is glowing in the dark when there is enough magnitude of EMR present?
There is no evidence the Sun emits light.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/06/2017 15:29:29
My apologies
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2017 15:54:44
Post by: guest39538 on 25/06/2017 17:20:25
Is there a forum where that's a worthwhile post?I see it as a valued question, I do not see it to be a theory or a speculation. I posted it on the wrong forum to be honest.
Without substance there can be no light as far as the human mind experiment is concerned. Also objectively there can be no observable light without substance.
The Sun emits EMR, but does it really emit light?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2017 17:30:11
Looking out of the window, I can verify that the answer to the question is "Yes".Is there a forum where that's a worthwhile post?I see it as a valued question, I do not see it to be a theory or a speculation. I posted it on the wrong forum to be honest.
Without substance there can be no light as far as the human mind experiment is concerned. Also objectively there can be no observable light without substance.
The Sun emits EMR, but does it really emit light?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/06/2017 17:33:08
That is not true, you are looking out of the window and can see objects (substance), the only light you can see is the objects, you can not see light between your eyes and object, if we remove the objects around you it would be relative dark, you would not see it to be light.Looking out of the window, I can verify that the answer to the question is "Yes".Is there a forum where that's a worthwhile post?I see it as a valued question, I do not see it to be a theory or a speculation. I posted it on the wrong forum to be honest.
Without substance there can be no light as far as the human mind experiment is concerned. Also objectively there can be no observable light without substance.
The Sun emits EMR, but does it really emit light?
Science says the same thing, you can only see light between 400-700nm, i.e colour
added- So it is not stupid of me to presume that if there were no substance to produce 400-700nm we would not be able to see anything and it would be relative dark.
added- It is neither stupid to think that without substance there is no observable light. (human experience perspective).
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/06/2017 19:32:15
There's nothing(relevant) between me and it.
I saw the light it emitted.
So, strictly, I saw that it was emitting light about 8 minutes before I observed it.
If I was in the unfortunate position of being in space with no helmet and lookig in the direction of the sun I would see light from it- not for long...
This thing's job is to be in space looking at the light from the sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory
Post by: guest39538 on 27/06/2017 03:39:56
I looked at the sun.You sore the light emitted by the Sun? When and how did you see this ? The EMR emitted from the Sun is not observable, you can only see the colour of substance, you admit you observe nothing relevant between you and the Sun, then contradictory say you sore the emitted light, which we both know you do not.
There's nothing(relevant) between me and it.
I saw the light it emitted.
So, strictly, I saw that it was emitting light about 8 minutes before I observed it.
If I was in the unfortunate position of being in space with no helmet and lookig in the direction of the sun I would see light from it- not for long...
This thing's job is to be in space looking at the light from the sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory
You have also changed the ''question'' and for some reason avoiding looking away from the Sun and replying relative to that. Yes you can turn around and observe the Sun, but the only light you are seeing is that of the sun at the sun, ,in the exact position of the sun. There is no light between you and the Sun, if you turn around and look out into space you will observe there is still EMR but no light! Why do you think this is?
p.s I have no idea of what your link was meant to show?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/06/2017 20:47:14
I did this by looking at it- as any normal person would understand from what I said.
"I looked at the sun."
"The EMR emitted from the Sun is not observable"
It very plainly is observable.
"You have also changed the ''question'' "
No
You did that.
I pointed out that I could look out of the window and verify that the sun emits light. I could only do that by looking at the sun.
You talking about other stuff was you "changing the question".
However, that sort of change is called argument by analogy. It's perfectly legitimate to do so.
"but the only light you are seeing is that of the sun at the sun"
Obviously nonsense, it's the light at my eye that I see.
" you can only see the colour of substance, "
I's not clear that is true, but it's not important.
The sun is made of substance. I can see light emitted by that substance. (About 8 min later and 93 million miles distant)
"p.s I have no idea of what your link was meant to show?"
It's a link to a page about a satellite.
The purpose of that satellite is to observe the light from the sun.
There really is nothing between the sun and the satellite.
And the satellite measures light.
"there is still EMR but no light! Why do you think this is? "
For the same reason that all German Shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German Shepherds.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/06/2017 20:57:14
Yes, I saw the light emitted by the sun.You can not verify the sun emits light, visible light between 400nm-700nm does not exist without substance, do you deny this?
I did this by looking at it- as any normal person would understand from what I said.
"I looked at the sun."
"The EMR emitted from the Sun is not observable"
It very plainly is observable.
"You have also changed the ''question'' "
No
You did that.
I pointed out that I could look out of the window and verify that the sun emits light. I could only do that by looking at the sun.
You talking about other stuff was you "changing the question".
However, that sort of change is called argument by analogy. It's perfectly legitimate to do so.
"but the only light you are seeing is that of the sun at the sun"
Obviously nonsense, it's the light at my eye that I see.
" you can only see the colour of substance, "
I's not clear that is true, but it's not important.
The sun is made of substance. I can see light emitted by that substance. (About 8 min later and 93 million miles distant)
"p.s I have no idea of what your link was meant to show?"
It's a link to a page about a satellite.
The purpose of that satellite is to observe the light from the sun.
There really is nothing between the sun and the satellite.
And the satellite measures light.
"there is still EMR but no light! Why do you think this is? "
For the same reason that all German Shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German Shepherds.
The forum that banned me agreed with this , so how can you think you are correct?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/06/2017 21:20:49
So here it is in baby language.
clear.jpg (8.36 kB . 985x507 - viewed 5561 times) clear.jpg (8.36 kB . 985x507 - viewed 5561 times)The two above diagrams are different , one is black in colour and one has no colour and is clear.
ok you got it now?
I am starting to get proper Peed off with science, I have had patience for years, I might just go and leave them in this false reality they have created for themselves and tell them nothing from now on.
One of these diagrams, you can see visible light , one of these diagrams, you do not see any visible light.
One of these diagrams is 2d
One of these diagrams is 3d
p.s open up your ''stupid'' minds, and think .;.........
Stop replying with a defence of present theory, think why I might be right.......then you will see I am right.
Post by: kazbert on 28/09/2017 01:53:48
Calling people stupid is not very persuasive.
I am a mechanical engineer and years ago I worked for General Electric Lighting designing light sources (incandescent, halogen, fluorescent, arc discharge). I am fairly knowledgeable about the many ways available to produce (and reflect) EM radiation in the visible range, and know a few things about how the human eye and brain perceive that visible radiation.
Stars are nearly perfect black-body radiators. By virtue of being a black-body radiator, our sun radiates a nearly full EM spectrum. Our sun’s surface temperature is about 5800 Kelvin, so it is an incandescent light source and its black-body radiation curve peaks at 555 nanometers (yellow-green light). It so happens that our eyes evolved to match this perfectly. Our eyes have their greatest sensitivity at 555 nm. Our eyes do not produce that light. Our eyes are merely passive photoreceptors. The presence of all the frequencies of EM radiation produced by our sun can be verified by various devices that are tuned to various frequency ranges.
The fact that surfaces reflect visible radiation coming from the sun is proof that the sun is emitting visible radiation. Those surfaces are not glowing. Those surfaces are not emitting that visible radiation on their own. They are too cold to incandesce. There are materials (phosphors) that will convert invisible UV light into visible light even at room temperature. That is how fluorescent light sources work. But most surfaces are just reflecting incident visible light, not producing visible light.
Granted, if you are observing from a POV that is perpendicular to the light rays then you won’t detect them, but they are there. Being at a disadvantageous POV to observe them doesn’t mean they are not there. If you look directly at the sun, you see its visible light, do you not?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/09/2017 05:15:57
>Assures us that the image is not the same as itself.
These threads have a reached a new low in logic...
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 14:35:01
>Posts the exact same image (clear.jpg) twice.I thought your mind would be a bit more open.
>Assures us that the image is not the same as itself.
These threads have a reached a new low in logic...
I assure you the pictures are different, Try looking at it this way.
One is a piece of coal close up and one is between the stars.
Do you still think they look the same now?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/09/2017 17:00:10
Do you still think they look the same now?
Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 17:19:32
Huh/ Other people understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere so why do you seem to be having difficulty understanding something so simple as two observations that look the same but are indeed very different?Do you still think they look the same now?
Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 17:36:33
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I have zoomed out on both drawings just for you.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 17:41:40
coal.jpg (77.91 kB . 450x300 - viewed 5188 times) space.jpg (115.79 kB . 1600x900 - viewed 5185 times)Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 17:51:25
Post by: The Spoon on 28/09/2017 18:34:41
Huh/ Other people understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere so why do you seem to be having difficulty understanding something so simple as two observations that look the same but are indeed very different?Do you still think they look the same now?
Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.
Liar - they are not the same pictures as you posted above.
I have zoomed out on both drawings just for you.
Also who 'understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere'.
Kryptid's point about you trolling forums is valid - you have admitted this elsewhere.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 20:36:06
Arrr got ye now, this is nothing to do with science really and there is now a few of you on here who have the aim to try and get me banned by accusing me of being a troll. So first you come on here pretending to listen and discuss to gain some sort of credibility , then this is now the part that you try to get me banned.Huh/ Other people understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere so why do you seem to be having difficulty understanding something so simple as two observations that look the same but are indeed very different?Do you still think they look the same now?
Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.Liar - they are not the same pictures as you posted above.
I have zoomed out on both drawings just for you.
Also who 'understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere'.
Kryptid's point about you trolling forums is valid - you have admitted this elsewhere.
You are now even calling me a liar which is rather rude when I have spent the time thinking how to explain something so simple. I can't believe I let you troll me and will not bother discussing with you anymore. I will await somebody who is genuine.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/09/2017 21:04:13
If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.
It's not a picture of a piece of coal up close or a picture of the space between stars. It's a picture of a black rectangle that you created either in MS Paint or some similar program that you uploaded twice.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 21:09:06
Omg, it is not rocket science to 'see' what they represent. What do you see if you observed coal close up? What do you see if you zoom in between the stars ?If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.
It's not a picture of a piece of coal up close or a picture of the space between stars. It's a picture of a black rectangle that you created either in MS Paint or some similar program that you uploaded twice.
I can tell you the same thing I do as in my pictures. Just because it is bitmap it doesn't mean its not the same as a photo.
Zoom in on the coal or the ''darkness'' between the stars is the same picture. Pffffff......
Post by: Kryptid on 28/09/2017 21:15:20
Omg, it is not rocket science to 'see' what they represent. What do you see if you observed coal close up? What do you see if you zoom in between the stars ?
You said explicitly that your two diagrams were different, not that they represented different things. Look:
Quote
The two above diagrams are different , one is black in colour and one has no colour and is clear.
Quote
I can tell you the same thing I do as in my pictures. Just because it is bitmap it doesn't mean its not the same as a photo.
First of all, it's a .jpg, not a .bmp. Secondly, if you didn't take it with a camera of some kind then it can't be a photograph.
Quote
Zoom in on the coal or the ''darkness'' between the stars is the same picture. Pffffff......
Neither of which is a black rectangle created in a computer program.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 21:31:04
Are you being intentionally obtuse or what?Omg, it is not rocket science to 'see' what they represent. What do you see if you observed coal close up? What do you see if you zoom in between the stars ?
You said explicitly that your two diagrams were different, not that they represented different things. Look:QuoteThe two above diagrams are different , one is black in colour and one has no colour and is clear.QuoteI can tell you the same thing I do as in my pictures. Just because it is bitmap it doesn't mean its not the same as a photo.
First of all, it's a .jpg, not a .bmp. Secondly, if you didn't take it with a camera of some kind then it can't be a photograph.QuoteZoom in on the coal or the ''darkness'' between the stars is the same picture. Pffffff......
Neither of which is a black rectangle created in a computer program.
The pictures are different because I already said they were different. The black rectangles are the exact same picture as if I had took a photo. It would not look any different in photo form.
It is not me, it is you that is not being imaginative, creative and even thinking. My explanations explained it without the pictures.
Either way do you get it now? Do you understand the difference in the ''pictures''?
Can you comprehend visible light and visible darkness ?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/09/2017 21:33:16
Are you being intentionally obtuse or what?
The pictures are different because I already said they were different. The black rectangles are the exact same picture as if I had took a photo. It would not look any different in photo form.
It is not me, it is you that is not being imaginative, creative and even thinking. My explanations explained it without the pictures.
Either way do you get it now? Do you understand the difference in the ''pictures''?
If you say so...
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 21:39:06
I only say so because what I am discussing is really simple stuff. I have concluded that darkness is not just the absence of light but instead objects become visibly dark in appearance when there is an absence of magnitude and intensity of light.Are you being intentionally obtuse or what?
The pictures are different because I already said they were different. The black rectangles are the exact same picture as if I had took a photo. It would not look any different in photo form.
It is not me, it is you that is not being imaginative, creative and even thinking. My explanations explained it without the pictures.
Either way do you get it now? Do you understand the difference in the ''pictures''?
If you say so...
Post by: kazbert on 28/09/2017 21:49:51
Let's say that one image is a photo of a piece of Vantablack. The other is a photo of a cosmic void. Yes, they look exactly the same. In both instances, there is no discernible visible radiation striking the camera's CCD. What does that prove?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 21:54:25
Okay. I'll play along with your thought experiment.It proves that space itself is neither dark or light , it proves we see visible light of objects and visible dark of objects. Basically turning darkness into a property of an object.
Let's say that one image is a photo of a piece of Vantablack. The other is a photo of a cosmic void. Yes, they look exactly the same. In both instances, there is no discernible visible radiation striking the camera's CCD. What does that prove?
Post by: The Spoon on 28/09/2017 21:55:35
But you lied about the pictures didnt you? Those two black squares are not 'zoomed in ' parts of the coal jpeg and the space jpeg, so my accusation stands.Arrr got ye now, this is nothing to do with science really and there is now a few of you on here who have the aim to try and get me banned by accusing me of being a troll. So first you come on here pretending to listen and discuss to gain some sort of credibility , then this is now the part that you try to get me banned.Huh/ Other people understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere so why do you seem to be having difficulty understanding something so simple as two observations that look the same but are indeed very different?Do you still think they look the same now?
Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.Liar - they are not the same pictures as you posted above.
I have zoomed out on both drawings just for you.
Also who 'understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere'.
Kryptid's point about you trolling forums is valid - you have admitted this elsewhere.
You are now even calling me a liar which is rather rude when I have spent the time thinking how to explain something so simple. I can't believe I let you troll me and will not bother discussing with you anymore. I will await somebody who is genuine.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 22:00:50
No I didn't lie because that's what they represented, I put the coal in and the space picture in to help Kryptid understand. They could well be a zoomed in picture of the coal and the space. That was the representation so no i did not lie.But you lied about the pictures didnt you? Those two black squares are not 'zoomed in ' parts of the coal jpeg and the space jpeg, so my accusation stands.Arrr got ye now, this is nothing to do with science really and there is now a few of you on here who have the aim to try and get me banned by accusing me of being a troll. So first you come on here pretending to listen and discuss to gain some sort of credibility , then this is now the part that you try to get me banned.Huh/ Other people understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere so why do you seem to be having difficulty understanding something so simple as two observations that look the same but are indeed very different?Do you still think they look the same now?
Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.Liar - they are not the same pictures as you posted above.
I have zoomed out on both drawings just for you.
Also who 'understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere'.
Kryptid's point about you trolling forums is valid - you have admitted this elsewhere.
You are now even calling me a liar which is rather rude when I have spent the time thinking how to explain something so simple. I can't believe I let you troll me and will not bother discussing with you anymore. I will await somebody who is genuine.
Post by: The Spoon on 28/09/2017 22:04:12
They could well be? So what you did was put a couple of pictures up that were completely black because 'they could well be a zoomed pciture of space and coal'? You kind of thought 'oh, well that will do' ? Sloppy thinking - that is you all over.No I didn't lie because that's what they represented, I put the coal in and the space picture in to help Kryptid understand. They could well be a zoomed in picture of the coal and the space. That was the representation so no i did not lie.But you lied about the pictures didnt you? Those two black squares are not 'zoomed in ' parts of the coal jpeg and the space jpeg, so my accusation stands.Arrr got ye now, this is nothing to do with science really and there is now a few of you on here who have the aim to try and get me banned by accusing me of being a troll. So first you come on here pretending to listen and discuss to gain some sort of credibility , then this is now the part that you try to get me banned.Huh/ Other people understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere so why do you seem to be having difficulty understanding something so simple as two observations that look the same but are indeed very different?Do you still think they look the same now?
Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.Liar - they are not the same pictures as you posted above.
I have zoomed out on both drawings just for you.
Also who 'understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere'.
Kryptid's point about you trolling forums is valid - you have admitted this elsewhere.
You are now even calling me a liar which is rather rude when I have spent the time thinking how to explain something so simple. I can't believe I let you troll me and will not bother discussing with you anymore. I will await somebody who is genuine.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 22:27:55
I thought people would be smart enough to understand .. It seems simple to me to understand but I guess not.They could well be? So what you did was put a couple of pictures up that were completely black because 'they could well be a zoomed pciture of space and coal'? You kind of thought 'oh, well that will do' ? Sloppy thinking - that is you all over.No I didn't lie because that's what they represented, I put the coal in and the space picture in to help Kryptid understand. They could well be a zoomed in picture of the coal and the space. That was the representation so no i did not lie.But you lied about the pictures didnt you? Those two black squares are not 'zoomed in ' parts of the coal jpeg and the space jpeg, so my accusation stands.Arrr got ye now, this is nothing to do with science really and there is now a few of you on here who have the aim to try and get me banned by accusing me of being a troll. So first you come on here pretending to listen and discuss to gain some sort of credibility , then this is now the part that you try to get me banned.Huh/ Other people understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere so why do you seem to be having difficulty understanding something so simple as two observations that look the same but are indeed very different?Do you still think they look the same now?
Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.Liar - they are not the same pictures as you posted above.
I have zoomed out on both drawings just for you.
Also who 'understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere'.
Kryptid's point about you trolling forums is valid - you have admitted this elsewhere.
You are now even calling me a liar which is rather rude when I have spent the time thinking how to explain something so simple. I can't believe I let you troll me and will not bother discussing with you anymore. I will await somebody who is genuine.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2017 19:19:37
I am sick of science telling me I am wrong,Start being right instead.
Post by: guest4091 on 29/09/2017 19:42:29
How long will that take?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/09/2017 21:57:12
To prove one wrong would prove one right, so prove me wrong to prove you are right.I am sick of science telling me I am wrong,Start being right instead.
Post by: kazbert on 29/09/2017 22:06:39
It proves that space itself is neither dark or light , it proves we see visible light of objects and visible dark of objects. Basically turning darkness into a property of an object.
If by "light" you are referring to the visible portion of the EM spectrum, then by definition "dark" is the absence of light. Dark is not a something, it is a lack of a specific something. To use Vantablack as an example, the property it possesses is that it absorbs nearly all visible light that strikes its surface. It has converted the visible light energy into heat energy.
And I must clarify something I posted earlier. I said that objects illuminated by visible light are not glowing but are merely reflecting the incident photons. I have since learned that the incident photons are indeed being absorbed and then re-emitted. I will stand by my assertion though that a light source and a reflector as not the same thing. Semantics and definitions are important. We cannot arbitrarily alter the definitions of words to suit our own philosophy and then expect others to adopt our new definitions without a compelling reason.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/09/2017 22:11:11
Dark is not a something
In the present version dark is not something, but in my version dark is something. In future science dark will be something. I am not wrong.
Post by: kazbert on 30/09/2017 02:46:11
In the present version dark is not something, but in my version dark is something. In future science dark will be something. I am not wrong.
Until that future day arrives, your argument in the present is anything but compelling. How about I agree that you might be right but I am content to wait until there is more of a consensus and just let "dark" mean what it is supposed to in the meantime?
Look, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here and walk with you through the explanation, but you have to present a better argument than "I'm not wrong." Just claiming that dark is a something, not a lack of something, is inadequate.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/09/2017 05:19:34
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 11:41:08
This thread reads more like philosophy than science.That's probably not fair to most philosophy.
At least it doesn't usually make claims that are obviously wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 11:43:08
You can read this.To prove one wrong would prove one right, so prove me wrong to prove you are right.I am sick of science telling me I am wrong,Start being right instead.
Something must have got from the screen to your eyes to convey the message.
We call that something, "light".
If light did not exist, you wouldn't be able to read this, but you can, so light exists so your claim that it doesn't, is wrong.
QED.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 11:47:16
How about I agree that you might be right but I am content to wait
Well if you agree I might be right then that is a good starting point for discussion. I would appreciate if anyway you could help me with my notion.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 11:49:12
Trying to change the conversation hey. You can stare at these words which are visible darkness.You can read this.To prove one wrong would prove one right, so prove me wrong to prove you are right.I am sick of science telling me I am wrong,Start being right instead.
Something must have got from the screen to your eyes to convey the message.
We call that something, "light".
If light did not exist, you wouldn't be able to read this, but you can, so light exists so your claim that it doesn't, is wrong.
QED.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 11:49:59
This thread reads more like philosophy than science.Huh? nothing like philosophy. Evidence already provided.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 13:37:20
...You can stare at these words which are visible darkness.
Let us stick to this very important simple fact, darkness does not exist at all.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 13:45:30
Do you suffer from bi-polar?...You can stare at these words which are visible darkness.Let us stick to this very important simple fact, darkness does not exist at all.
One minute you are willing to discuss and the next minute you back to the cut and paste trolling.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 15:00:34
I can't discuss something with you until you make up your mind what you believe.Do you suffer from bi-polar?...You can stare at these words which are visible darkness.Let us stick to this very important simple fact, darkness does not exist at all.
One minute you are willing to discuss and the next minute you back to the cut and paste trolling.
Do you realise that other people will look at those two quotes and realise that they prove you don't know what you are on about?
Post by: guest4091 on 30/09/2017 17:03:46
Remember, scientists graduate with a PH.D
.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 19:15:06
You know I meant darkness does not exist in the sense of an appearance of space. You are trying to twist things.I can't discuss something with you until you make up your mind what you believe.Do you suffer from bi-polar?...You can stare at these words which are visible darkness.Let us stick to this very important simple fact, darkness does not exist at all.
One minute you are willing to discuss and the next minute you back to the cut and paste trolling.
Do you realise that other people will look at those two quotes and realise that they prove you don't know what you are on about?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 20:27:09
You know I meant darkness does not exist in the sense of an appearance of space. You are trying to twist things.Space doesn't really have a appearance.
Your posts often have lots of words, but mean little.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 20:35:14
Nice try, you can read.You know I meant darkness does not exist in the sense of an appearance of space. You are trying to twist things.Space doesn't really have a appearance.
Your posts often have lots of words, but mean little.
Exactly, space does not have an appearance. It is neither visible dark or visible light of space. FYI (You can't say that then disagree with me).