0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 29/06/2017 13:51:43added- You are incorrect , it is not dark down the cellar, but there is no way you would be willing to listen to any reason why you are wrong, you would not listen to the evidence, you are stuck in your ways and unwilling to discuss."Listening" to evidence isn't going to change reality.It is dark down there.I went ans saw the evidence.
added- You are incorrect , it is not dark down the cellar, but there is no way you would be willing to listen to any reason why you are wrong, you would not listen to the evidence, you are stuck in your ways and unwilling to discuss.
Consider two stars A and B. They are close enough together that you can view them both while still facing the same direction. Since they are stars they emit photons in all directions. The photons we are concerned with are those with a frequency that our eyes can detect (the visible part of the EM spectrum). We (the observer) will receive a steady stream of photons from both stars and because those photons interacted with matter (specifically our eyes in this case, but it could be an electronic detector or whatever) you call that light. Now these stars (both A and B) are also sending photons into the void between them in a direction that is completely orthogonal to the direction that points toward Earth. So, we know there are visible spectrum photons in the void between A and B and yet that void still appears dark to us because those photons are not interacting with matter and thus we cannot see them. But, we KNOW they're there. That's the situation you are describing right?
You are just pointlessly redefining the words dark and light.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/07/2017 12:03:26You are just pointlessly redefining the words dark and light.No I am not, I have looked at all the information in a dialectic approach to obtain a conclusion that is fact. You are obviously not thinking or understanding this correctly. What ''colour'' is space? What colour is the substance with light? What ''colour'' is the substance without emr interaction?Those 3 questions gives you the answer to why it is perceived to be dark in the cellar, it is an illusion.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/07/2017 12:09:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/07/2017 12:03:26You are just pointlessly redefining the words dark and light.No I am not, I have looked at all the information in a dialectic approach to obtain a conclusion that is fact. You are obviously not thinking or understanding this correctly. What ''colour'' is space? What colour is the substance with light? What ''colour'' is the substance without emr interaction?Those 3 questions gives you the answer to why it is perceived to be dark in the cellar, it is an illusion. Those three questions are meaningless.Colour is a property of an object or material which refers to the ability to selectively absorb or reflect some visible wavelengths more than others.But space neither absorbs, nor reflects light so it has no colour.It's as daft as asking "what colour is sound?" or "what colour is slow?""What colour is the substance with light? " also makes no sense- what substance are you talking about and what do you mean by "with light" in this context.and "What ''colour'' is the substance without emr interaction?" is just gibberish.It looks like you are trolling.
You conclude it looks like I am trolling because you can not understand what I am on about? please tell me how on Earth you can come up with that conclusion? You can not say I am correct or incorrect if you think my questions make no sense, it is quite clear to me that the problem is you read my question ambiguous to how I mean the question.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/07/2017 13:52:31You conclude it looks like I am trolling because you can not understand what I am on about? please tell me how on Earth you can come up with that conclusion? You can not say I am correct or incorrect if you think my questions make no sense, it is quite clear to me that the problem is you read my question ambiguous to how I mean the question.I conclude that you are trolling because you are repeatedly posting nonsense.It's still dark down in the cellar.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/07/2017 15:52:30Quote from: Thebox on 01/07/2017 13:52:31You conclude it looks like I am trolling because you can not understand what I am on about? please tell me how on Earth you can come up with that conclusion? You can not say I am correct or incorrect if you think my questions make no sense, it is quite clear to me that the problem is you read my question ambiguous to how I mean the question.I conclude that you are trolling because you are repeatedly posting nonsense.It's still dark down in the cellar.Having lurked here for a while, I think that is pretty evident. This is after all the same person who has claimed elsewhere that he is 'the king of the trolls'
Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/07/2017 15:52:30Quote from: Thebox on 01/07/2017 13:52:31You conclude it looks like I am trolling because you can not understand what I am on about? please tell me how on Earth you can come up with that conclusion? You can not say I am correct or incorrect if you think my questions make no sense, it is quite clear to me that the problem is you read my question ambiguous to how I mean the question.I conclude that you are trolling because you are repeatedly posting nonsense.It's still dark down in the cellar.That did not even answer the question. You call it nonsense because you do not have the intellect to understand it, you are calling me a troll when you do not even understand what I am saying. Your inability to think is not my fault, so STOP trying to persuade the mods that I am a troll when the trolling is from you. You are attacking me not the notion.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/07/2017 21:41:05Quote from: Bored chemist on 01/07/2017 15:52:30Quote from: Thebox on 01/07/2017 13:52:31You conclude it looks like I am trolling because you can not understand what I am on about? please tell me how on Earth you can come up with that conclusion? You can not say I am correct or incorrect if you think my questions make no sense, it is quite clear to me that the problem is you read my question ambiguous to how I mean the question.I conclude that you are trolling because you are repeatedly posting nonsense.It's still dark down in the cellar.That did not even answer the question. You call it nonsense because you do not have the intellect to understand it, you are calling me a troll when you do not even understand what I am saying. Your inability to think is not my fault, so STOP trying to persuade the mods that I am a troll when the trolling is from you. You are attacking me not the notion. It is still dark in the cellar.In pointing that out Is clearly attacking your strange idea that darkness doesn't exist, rather than attacking you. A quick search for a definition of a troll gives me this"a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post."You keep saying something which is obviously not true- i.e. "Let us stick to this very important simple fact, darkness does not exist at all. "Such a statement is provocative.You are a troll or incompetent.
Artist's impression of my cellar. dark.png (0.59 kB . 395x409 - viewed 5092 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.
p.s I am very skilled at ''chess'', your move.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/07/2017 22:09:50p.s I am very skilled at ''chess'', your move.Would that be 'pigeon chess'? I find it interesting that you so quickly refer to those who call you out as 'trolls' when you claimed to be the king of that species.