0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I will start with the nature of light, I see a slight discrepancy in the present information explanation where it explains white light is a mixture of frequencies, I do not believe this to be the case, I do not believe it is a mixture or ''white'' light .
My first point to apply to Physics, is ''white'' light more dense than the natural daylight propagating through space?
The natural daylight propagating through space is ''clear'' light is it not?
Are all the frequencies not made by bringing together various conceptual elements made from a single frequency incident ray? Do all the frequencies not merge as one frequency whilst being in its ''space state''?
Is white light not misleading and causes confusion when considering natural daylight?
Would it not be better to say , clear light or natural daylight propagating through space is the unification of several frequencies and is observed as a clarity equal to sight?
Because clear light is not like snow, is not like milk and is certainly not observable as ''white''
Observation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space. Observation evidence 2-Observation evidence 1 is constant to all visual able observers from any initial reference frame when ''light'' is present. Would anyone argue this observation evidence is not an axiom and in anyway invalid and falsifiable?
Quote from: Thebox on 11/10/2015 12:30:09I will start with the nature of light, I see a slight discrepancy in the present information explanation where it explains white light is a mixture of frequencies, I do not believe this to be the case, I do not believe it is a mixture or ''white'' light . Belief is irrelevant. Get a couple of prisms, or ask any stage lighting engineer.QuoteMy first point to apply to Physics, is ''white'' light more dense than the natural daylight propagating through space? NoQuoteThe natural daylight propagating through space is ''clear'' light is it not? NoQuoteAre all the frequencies not made by bringing together various conceptual elements made from a single frequency incident ray? Do all the frequencies not merge as one frequency whilst being in its ''space state''? Nothing "conceptual" about it. No.QuoteIs white light not misleading and causes confusion when considering natural daylight?NoQuoteWould it not be better to say , clear light or natural daylight propagating through space is the unification of several frequencies and is observed as a clarity equal to sight? NoQuoteBecause clear light is not like snow, is not like milk and is certainly not observable as ''white'' The term "clear light", so far, is without meaning.QuoteObservation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space. Observation evidence 2-Observation evidence 1 is constant to all visual able observers from any initial reference frame when ''light'' is present. Would anyone argue this observation evidence is not an axiom and in anyway invalid and falsifiable? Yes. Your concept of color depends on a number of things and even if your observations were meaningful (they aren't) the actual reflected color of snow depends on the time of day.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. A basket case indeed.
An interesting collection of scientific terms, and utterly without meaning.
Are you really suggesting that the light before your eyes between your eyes and an object has visual colour?
Quote from: Thebox on 12/10/2015 02:41:34Are you really suggesting that the light before your eyes between your eyes and an object has visual colour?What do you mean by visual colour?Do you mean that percieved by eye/brain?The light between your eyes and an object has a frequency which we perceive as colour, hence we say the light has that colour.This frequency is consistently associated with colour, in fact it will affect the colour of an object. For example, early morning light has a frequency we would describe as blue, when it shines on white snow the snow takes on a blue cast, in the evening the light is much redder and the snow can look reddish. This effect is noticable in photographs and I carry a set of filters to adjust for it.If you go to choose carpets or fabric, you will find that the frequency of the light affects your perception of the colour, hence why shops use daylight bulbs.
what colour do we perceive light to be propagating through an ''empty'' space?
Quote from: Thebox on 12/10/2015 13:37:38what colour do we perceive light to be propagating through an ''empty'' space?The way I look at it is that light is directional. I know we think of it as omnidirectional, like from the sun or a light bulb, but the rays travel in one direction such that we only see them when they interact with a sensor - eyes, photocell, thermometer, fluorescent patch. This means we can't see light travelling across our field of vision - you might say it is transparent, but I reserve that term for the medium it is travelling through. I believe the light still exists even though I can't see it, and that it retains the property of colour defined by its frequency.This situation has parallels. Think of a train, it has various properties - weight, a number of wheels, some carriages, colour. If I stand at the side of the track with my back to the train my interaction with the train will be very different from if I stand on the track. But in both cases the train still exists and has the same weight, number of wheels, carriages and colour (well, maybe the colour of the front has changed slightly). Basically, it is the same train.I don't agree with your views that:"Auroras are temporal distortion of light by angle and the propagation of light being obstructed by an electrical medium. Compression and decompression giving spectral content different to the constant of clear.The blue sky is a constant temporal distortion by an electrical medium compressing the propagation to a blue spectral level by the gravity constant of earth always being attracted to the sun.Red sky, is light ''skipping'' the magnetic field and less compressing by angle of incident ray of the sun reducing the invert pressure by angular of the incident ray being indirect."because your physics doesn't work for me. I would ask how your theory explains the green flash at sunset, but I don't think I would agree with that either.But Hey Ho, it's your theory, thanks for sharing.
.....but i do know if you stare at a lcd agricultural lamp, then turn it off, you see everything as green.
I will obviously have to convince someone of science importance who would back the ideas and could probably explain better.
You have an uphill struggle to convince anyone who knows a little science, let alone someone of importance.
Observation evidence - light propagating through a space that has no medium or a medium with a low to zero refractive index, will be perceived by all visual observers to be constantly clear whilst unaltered in its constant velocity. Do you agree with this axiom?
No
Then you are visually impaired and see some sort of haze?
No, I see clearly. I just happen to disagree with your axiom.However, very happy not to comment.
If you see clearly you agree with my axiom ,
On what premise could you possibly disagree?
A low refractive index means some refractive index therefore not velocity of c (although what that has to do with being clear I don't know)
Everyone I ask in real life agrees it is clear.