[guest39538]

You however still do not understand why it is not dark in your cellar.

However when it is dark...

Hang on; you just said it can't be dark down there.
Make up your mind.
Perhaps the problem is that you can't understand that it is, in fact, dark down there.
Shall we set up a poll?

Yes we can set up a poll if you like, but perhaps I should write a short paper on the matter to clarify understanding what is meant.  You obviously do not understand me exactly or I am sure you would admit it is not dark in your cellar.

The objects are dark in your cellar but the space is not.   Can you not understand this?

[Bored chemist]

I should write a short paper on the matter to clarify understanding what is meant. 

I keep asking you to explain what you mean.
Please, even at this late stage, do so.

The objects are dark in your cellar but the space is not.   Can you not understand this?

The white things in my cellar are light, the black things are dark.
The space- as you refer to it, is transparent or colourless.
However all the stuff down there is unilluminated.
It's dark down there, and it's you who needs to understand that.

What do you think the outcome would be if I posed a poll that said this ?
"My cellar is underground. There are no windows. The door is shut. There are no light sources and there's no way for light to get down there.
For the purposes of this poll we set aside things like a trace of bioluminescence from bacteria or fungi, and the scintillation from radioactive decay and/ or cosmic rays,
 It's about 10C so the emission of visible light from black body radiation is practically zero.
We are only considering visible light (rather than the rest of the EM spectrum), To summarise, if you tried to walk across it, you would bump into stuff, because you wouldn't be able to see it.

Is it dark in my cellar"

[guest39538]

The white things in my cellar are light, the black things are dark.
The space- as you refer to it, is transparent or colourless.
However all the stuff down there is unilluminated.
It's dark down there, and it's you who needs to understand that.

You agree with me but do not even realise it.   Exactly, think about the space , it is colourless, it is not illuminated or unilluminated. The space is not dark in your cellar.

I will write it up later when my visitors have gone home.

[alancalverd]

I tried the experiment today using the tail camera on an Airbus A380.

Have a gold star for the best throwaway line of the week!  As I was saying to the Queen only yesterday.....

[Bored chemist]

The white things in my cellar are light, the black things are dark.
The space- as you refer to it, is transparent or colourless.
However all the stuff down there is unilluminated.
It's dark down there, and it's you who needs to understand that.

You agree with me but do not even realise it.   Exactly, think about the space , it is colourless, it is not illuminated or unilluminated. The space is not dark in your cellar.

I will write it up later when my visitors have gone home.

You seem not to understand; whether it is illuminated or not (i e light or dark,) depends on whether I have switched the lights on.
(and, of course, strictly speaking, it's not clear- it scatters light slightly.)
What do you think the poll I suggested would say?

Here's a hint; it's dark in the cellar.

[guest39538]

The white things in my cellar are light, the black things are dark.
The space- as you refer to it, is transparent or colourless.
However all the stuff down there is unilluminated.
It's dark down there, and it's you who needs to understand that.

You agree with me but do not even realise it.   Exactly, think about the space , it is colourless, it is not illuminated or unilluminated. The space is not dark in your cellar.

I will write it up later when my visitors have gone home.

You seem not to understand; whether it is illuminated or not (i e light or dark,) depends on whether I have switched the lights on.
(and, of course, strictly speaking, it's not clear- it scatters light slightly.)
What do you think the poll I suggested would say?

Here's a hint; it's dark in the cellar.

It is quite clear to me that you have some sort of mental block.  I know what the poll will say if I wrote a paper on the matter and if you asked the general public on the matter.   I am not sure this forum would not be biased just because it is me, rather than objectively considering the notion.

[guest39538]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

[Bored chemist]

Keep going, but...
when you finish, it will still be dark in the cellar.

Also you need to read what you have written. Constructions like "objectivity of observation and logical conclusions" and " natural state of appearance of any object" don't mean anything unless you explain them.
An object doesn't really have a  "natural" appearance since the appearance depends on circumstances- notable the illumination.

[guest39538]

An object doesn't really have a  "natural" appearance since the appearance depends on circumstances- notable the illumination.

Without illumination the object is black. In your cellar when you think it it is dark, it is not dark, you are just seeing black everywhere around you.  The space does not turn black, it remains transparent to not just light but transparent to sight because of the CMB.  Because even in your optical illusion of a dark cellar, electromagnetic radiation still enters your eyes and that is why you can see a laser dot in the ''dark''.
Anyway I will have a re-think about my abstract, I know it is not very good.

[Bored chemist]

Without illumination the object is black.

No, in the dark it looks black- a tomato doesn't change colour when you turn the light off. How would it "know" to do so?

[guest39538]

Without illumination the object is black.

No, in the dark it looks black- a tomato doesn't change colour when you turn the light off. How would it "know" to do so?

I asked the question before about the red apple in the ''dark'' . It knows because the apple stops reacting when there is not enough intensity and magnitude to react to. No  interaction equates to no wavelength.

[guest39538]

I am sorry I just need leave this here before I forget the thought.

An anti-racism ''thing'' :   The only difference between you and me is the wave-length.

[The Spoon]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?

[guest39538]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?

I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind.   I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc.  It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word.  Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.

[guest39538]

Re-written the abstract but I am still not happy with it....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by  observation,logic and present information that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the visual property of any object that is not illuminated.   This paper is also intended to show by observation, logic and present information. that light and darkness do not exist of space.

[Bored chemist]

. It knows because the apple stops reacting when there is not enough intensity and magnitude to react to. No  interaction equates to no wavelength.

So, if an owl and I are both looking at a tomato as the sun sets and the owl- which has better night vision that me- can tel it's red, but I can't, what colour is the tomato?
If I look away, does it change colour?

This whole idea is daft. The thing is red, it stays red.

[The Spoon]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?

I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind.   I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc.  It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word.  Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.

You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.

[Bored chemist]

Did you know that some plants won't germinate if their seeds are in the dark?
Your definition doesn't seem to take account of that.

You seem to be writing an essay plan, but calling it an abstract.
That's no going to help.

[guest39538]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?

I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind.   I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc.  It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word.  Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.

You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.

I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.

I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.

[The Spoon]

Darn it, seem to  have writers block and not know where to begin. so far.....

Abstract - This paper is intended to show by objectivity of observation and logical conclusions, that darkness (The absence of light),   is actually the property and natural state of appearance of any object.  Thus leading to a conclusion(s) that darkness is the visible darkness of objects and light is the visible illumination of objects.

You also have to write a paper before you right an abstract. An abstract is a summary of the paper and the data contained therein. How can you summarise something you have not written?

I already have all the physics involved and the observations in my mind.   I already know my own notion so it is easy to write the abstract firstly . Then I have to make sure in the paper I cover what the abstract says.
However my abstract seems rather boring and is not very elegant. It does not explain the space being transparent etc.  It is not easy to just write a paper, I have to be int he right frame of mind which I will be sooner than later.
It just comes to me... I was thinking of starting with clarifying what we mean by light and explaining the various ambiguities of the word.  Directing the reader to the intended version to remove ambiguity.

You have never read an academic paper have you. You really dont have a clue.

I read relativity , of course I don't know how to do a paper correctly. I haven't a clue how to present it.

I could present it in demonstration but explaining it in words as in a paper is not easy.

You read relativity? Where? General or special relativity?