Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)

  • 86 Replies
  • 5261 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« on: 17/02/2016 09:06:40 »
Just for fun......

You, science, are accused of misleading information and falsities in that information.   

The first accusation is the ''white light'' ,  white is a colour observed, the light is evidentially ''clear'' to observation, it is passive to sight. We observe the prism experiment through the ''clear'' of the light.

evidence 1 - we observe the white light through the clear.

[attachment=20967]



Do you plead guilty or not guilty?


P.s Your judge and  jury are your readers, let us see you try to lie your ways out of these accusations. In the UK a no comment is as good as a guilty plee.


« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 09:24:12 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #1 on: 17/02/2016 09:58:01 »
M'lud, my learned friend, counsel for the prosecution, seems to have imbibed, inhaled or injected a little too much lunch and is quoting faeces tauri in lieu of evidence.  In the interests of sanity, I respectfully suggest an adjournment sine die and that the court be cleared of those of a sensitive disposition.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 10:01:27 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #2 on: 17/02/2016 10:04:19 »
sine die
Adjournment accepted,

With no appointed date for resumption denied my learned friend, that is already an admittance of defeat, does the defence for science concede to defeat in the opening statements?



*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #3 on: 17/02/2016 10:19:55 »
I don't know why but this appropriate for the adjournment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9sFd3Ennhs


*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #4 on: 17/02/2016 14:09:18 »
In the UK a no comment is as good as a guilty plee.
Guilty as charged.........................
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #5 on: 17/02/2016 14:10:56 »
does the defence for science concede to defeat in the opening statements?
The assistant counsel for defence moves for dismissal on grounds of precedent. This matter of white light has been tried before, I refer unlearned counsel for the prosecution to the case of Mr Newton vs Miss Understanding. The jury found in favour of Mr Newton as case proven, and in subsequent trials in school laboratories the judgement has been confirmed.
I suggest M'lud that unlearned counsel should be censured for bringing this frivolous action. We appreciate you have a full spectrum of punishments available to you, however we do not seek a prism sentence, but feel a restraining order might be sufficient.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #6 on: 17/02/2016 15:37:22 »
does the defence for science concede to defeat in the opening statements?
The assistant counsel for defence moves for dismissal on grounds of precedent. This matter of white light has been tried before, I refer unlearned counsel for the prosecution to the case of Mr Newton vs Miss Understanding. The jury found in favour of Mr Newton as case proven, and in subsequent trials in school laboratories the judgement has been confirmed.
I suggest M'lud that unlearned counsel should be censured for bringing this frivolous action. We appreciate you have a full spectrum of punishments available to you, however we do not seek a prism sentence, but feel a restraining order might be sufficient.

May I remind you  precedence of science is subject to change.

The prosecution feels your frivolous argument is in avoidance to the actual accusation, the defence can not be the judge or juror, may I remind you of court proceedings.

Does the defence submit a defence claim that the observation of light in space is not of clarity but that of liking to the opaque of white paper?

Remember you are on oath thus obligated to the tell the truth of what you observe.

[attachment=20971]




I have marked exhibit (A) the opaque observation within the clarity of space with an A.  I present this to the Judge and juror's.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 15:45:31 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #7 on: 17/02/2016 15:44:38 »
If I may: "Science" does not assert that white light is opaque--rather that white paper, when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white. When white paper is illuminated with "red light" the paper appears to be red. Likewise for all of the colors observed in the rainbow (and combinations thereof). Furthermore "white light" can be separated by the action of a prism or diffraction grating into multiple constituent colors or light. Again, "Science" is not asserting that any of these forms of light are opaque.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #8 on: 17/02/2016 15:55:05 »
If I may: "Science" does not assert that white light is opaque--rather that white paper, when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white. When white paper is illuminated with "red light" the paper appears to be red. Likewise for all of the colors observed in the rainbow (and combinations thereof). Furthermore "white light" can be separated by the action of a prism or diffraction grating into multiple constituent colors or light. Again, "Science" is not asserting that any of these forms of light are opaque.

The prosecution is not arguing the process of the white light and interaction with a prism resulting in spectral frequencies. The prosecution provided evidence shows that the frequencies including white are opaque compared to the clarity of the surrounding space, this observed clarity of the nature of light which science insists to as white light by poor definition , is by observation different to white light so should be distinguished in being that.
To say the white light of space or daytime is relatively a lie to the observation.

The prosecution notices in your defence (when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white.)

Why does the defence put white light in apostrophe? it this the admittance that the daylight in/of space is observably not white and misleading to say so?


Are you denying a rainbow is opaque to vision ,  visually hiding the sky behind it?
 



« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 16:13:12 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #9 on: 17/02/2016 16:13:05 »

The prosecution notices in your defence (when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white.)

Why does the defence put white light in apostrophe? it this the admittance that the daylight in/of space is observably not white and misleading to say so?

"white light" is is quotations because it is unscientific and unspecific terminology. Any real scientific discussion or description of light would refer to the spectrum of "white light." For instance, the spectrum of "white light" from your computer screen is very different from that of the sun, which is also different from that of an incandescent light bulb, which is different from the many different types of fluorescent lights, which are all different from "white" LEDs etc. etc. etc.

Ultimately, I think this boils down to yet another case of you making the false claim the "Science" has defined something outrageously. Your own misunderstanding of what "Science" says about color, time, space, probability, logic etc. is the source of this confusion.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #10 on: 17/02/2016 16:17:47 »

The prosecution notices in your defence (when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white.)

Why does the defence put white light in apostrophe? it this the admittance that the daylight in/of space is observably not white and misleading to say so?

"white light" is is quotations because it is unscientific and unspecific terminology. Any real scientific discussion or description of light would refer to the spectrum of "white light." For instance, the spectrum of "white light" from your computer screen is very different from that of the sun, which is also different from that of an incandescent light bulb, which is different from the many different types of fluorescent lights, which are all different from "white" LEDs etc. etc. etc.

Ultimately, I think this boils down to yet another case of you making the false claim the "Science" has defined something outrageously. Your own misunderstanding of what "Science" says about color, time, space, probability, logic etc. is the source of this confusion.


There is no confusion from the prosecution, your defence is lacking in answering  the prosecutors questions to a degree of satisfaction, you have in all attempted to avoid the actual question submitted before you, let me redefine the question for you .

In the space between your eyes and the computer screen what spectral frequency does your brain perceive?

May I remind you of your statement

''Any real scientific discussion or description of light would refer to the spectrum of "white light."

Where can I observe this white light you speak of? 





« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 16:29:04 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #11 on: 17/02/2016 18:01:22 »
The prosecution has failed to disclose in evidence where science has asserted anything at all.

It is the understanding of the man on the Clapham Omnibus, to whom the Court usually turns in matters of common knowledge, that science is a process, not a legal person, and therefore cannot be prosecuted for a deed or utterance.

Furthermore the prosecution's allegation that "white" and "clear" are synonymous, will alarm every blushing bride who, having spent a fortune on a voluminous white dress, will be told by my unlearned friend that it is in fact as transparent as the fatuity of his argument. I plead with the Court not to confer legitimacy on such ugly rumours by taking them seriously.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #12 on: 17/02/2016 18:30:47 »
synonymous


LOL,

The prosecutor gives that science is a process, however the prosecutor gives concern for false representation of science information deemed to be facts and holds the representation of this responsibility  liable for the calamity of errors in logic represented and published  worldly. 
The prosecution does not declare ''white'' and clear to be synonymous they are the words of the defence.  The prosecution declares the obvious axiom difference between white and clear, in that which white is opaque visually as in comparison to a piece of paper  where as clear is liking to glass and ''transparency'' a complete antonym to opaque. 

The prosecution also requests that you answer the question you are blatantly avoiding that proves the prosecution correct.

What spectral frequency do you observe in the space between your eyes and an object?









*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #13 on: 17/02/2016 18:45:04 »
What spectral frequency do you observe in the space between your eyes and an object?

Our eyes only observe the spectrum of light that enters them, and at that, they only show a low resolution of the spectrum, typically detecting at 3 wavelengths (red, green and blue).

The space between an observing eye and a source of light could be filled with a large amount of unobserved light, if said light never enters the eye. For instance, one could hold 5 different laser pointers in their left hand, and shine the lasers laterally in front of one's eyes. If there is nothing in the way to scatter the light, then one would not observe the laser beams. However, if one were to introduce smoke or some other fine aerosol then the beams of light would be quite visible. One could also direct the lasers pointers into the eyes (not recommended), allowing (temporary) observation of these beams of light.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #14 on: 17/02/2016 19:00:35 »
What spectral frequency do you observe in the space between your eyes and an object?

Our eyes only observe the spectrum of light that enters them, and at that, they only show a low resolution of the spectrum, typically detecting at 3 wavelengths (red, green and blue).

The space between an observing eye and a source of light could be filled with a large amount of unobserved light, if said light never enters the eye. For instance, one could hold 5 different laser pointers in their left hand, and shine the lasers laterally in front of one's eyes. If there is nothing in the way to scatter the light, then one would not observe the laser beams. However, if one were to introduce smoke or some other fine aerosol then the beams of light would be quite visible. One could also direct the lasers pointers into the eyes (not recommended), allowing (temporary) observation of these beams of light.

''The space between an observing eye and a source of light could be filled with a large amount of unobserved light''

The prosecution requests a remittance and clarification of ''unobserved light''  before the continuation of the rest of your statement.

When it is relatively night time , the prosecution acknowledges the invisible part of the  spectrum that is  detectable light by device but unobservable by mankind. 









 
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 19:16:03 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #15 on: 17/02/2016 19:41:24 »
I don't mean unobservable. I mean the light does not enter the eye, and is therefore not observed by said eye. It could be quite visible to another observer nearby.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what this line of questioning is even about. We can only see the light that enters our eyes. The rods and cones within our eyes absorb the light and send signals to our optic nerve, indicating the intensity and spectrum of the light, which is then interpreted by the rest of the optical pathway and brain.

Obviously light is "clear" in that a beam of light will not interact with another beam of light without some very special circumstances that are beyond the scope of this discussion (see: coherence, interference, sum frequency generation, pair generation...) Asserting that "science" claims anything otherwise is a terrible straw man argument.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #16 on: 17/02/2016 19:49:27 »
I don't mean unobservable. I mean the light does not enter the eye, and is therefore not observed by said eye. It could be quite visible to another observer nearby.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what this line of questioning is even about. We can only see the light that enters our eyes. The rods and cones within our eyes absorb the light and send signals to our optic nerve, indicating the intensity and spectrum of the light, which is then interpreted by the rest of the optical pathway and brain.

Obviously light is "clear" in that a beam of light will not interact with another beam of light without some very special circumstances that are beyond the scope of this discussion (see: coherence, interference, sum frequency generation, pair generation...) Asserting that "science" claims anything otherwise is a terrible straw man argument.

''We can only see the light that enters your eyes'', is the defence denying the observation of distance?   Is the defence denying that we see objects in the distance and the distance is provably there by motion?  Is the defence claiming that from your eye to an object is opaque?

Does my learned friend not observe light between themselves and an object?



« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 19:55:47 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #17 on: 17/02/2016 19:56:28 »
I don't mean unobservable. I mean the light does not enter the eye, and is therefore not observed by said eye. It could be quite visible to another observer nearby.

Honestly, I'm not really sure what this line of questioning is even about. We can only see the light that enters our eyes. The rods and cones within our eyes absorb the light and send signals to our optic nerve, indicating the intensity and spectrum of the light, which is then interpreted by the rest of the optical pathway and brain.

Obviously light is "clear" in that a beam of light will not interact with another beam of light without some very special circumstances that are beyond the scope of this discussion (see: coherence, interference, sum frequency generation, pair generation...) Asserting that "science" claims anything otherwise is a terrible straw man argument.

''We can only see the light that enters your eyes'', is the defence denying the observation of distance?   Is the defence denying that we see objects in the distance and the distance is provably there by motion?  Is the defence claiming that from your eye to an object is opaque?

The "defense" is saying that we only see light. We do not see distance, which is merely extrapolated from our experience (which is why optical illusions like these are so effective: http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm#prettyPhoto[pp_gal]/5/ http://brainden.com/visual-illusions.htm#prettyPhoto[pp_gal]/6/) and by using parallax (from both eyes--it is much harder to judge distances with one eye closed). Obviously if you can see an object, the space between you and it is not opaque.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #18 on: 17/02/2016 20:02:05 »
. Obviously if you can see an object, the space between you and it is not opaque.

Contradictory to saying we do not observe distance. Can the defense please describe there own observation and what  colour you observe   of this space between you and the object which the defense has stated is not opaque and acknowledges the space exists.

« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 20:09:40 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #19 on: 17/02/2016 20:08:18 »
Space exists, and appears to be completely transparent and colorless...

I don't see how that means that we can observe distance.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #20 on: 17/02/2016 20:19:52 »
Space exists, and appears to be completely transparent and colorless...

I don't see how that means that we can observe distance.

Distance is not the first argument, let us not get mixed up into multiple debate.  Yes indeed space is transparent to light and allows light to propagate through space without obstruction.  Indeed the space is colourless,  the prosecution acknowledge an admittance from the defense, it is not observed as ''white light'', it is observed as ''clear light'' , does the defense admit this?

Does the defense also admit this perceived clarity is constant to all visual able healthy humans?



 


*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #21 on: 17/02/2016 20:25:56 »
The defense accepts that light is "clear" and maintains that it has never claimed otherwise. The term "white light" refers to observed color of the image formed by the light.

The "white" in "white light" does not indicate opaqueness--rather that white paper, when illuminated with "white light" appears to be white. When white paper is illuminated with "red light" the paper appears to be red. Likewise for all of the colors observed in the rainbow (and combinations thereof). Furthermore "white light" can be separated by the action of a prism or diffraction grating into multiple constituent colors or light. Again, "Science" is not asserting that any of these forms of light are opaque.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #22 on: 17/02/2016 20:35:06 »
The defense accepts that light is "clear" and maintains that it has never claimed otherwise.

I thank you for your admittance, (science forums said I was wrong for years).


Does the defense also agree that the visual ''clear light'' is constant in being clear to the observer while  propagating through air or space?.

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #23 on: 17/02/2016 20:49:55 »
I'm really not sure what you mean. You can see the light if it goes in your eye. You don't see it if it does not, and barring any extreme conditions, the light will also not influence any of the other light entering your eye...

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #24 on: 17/02/2016 20:57:56 »
I'm really not sure what you mean. You can see the light if it goes in your eye. You don't see it if it does not, and barring any extreme conditions, the light will also not influence any of the other light entering your eye...

The defense accepts that light is "clear" and maintains that it has never claimed otherwis
The defense as already admitted to observing clear light in the space between an eye and object.

The prosecution notices your new statement is contradictory to your earlier admittance quoted above.

''You can see the light if it goes in your eye. You don't see it if it does not,''

Are you now contradictory claiming you do not observe clear light in the space?
  Is the defense claiming not to observe clear  light 1 ft away from themselves and their eyes?
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 21:01:04 by Thebox »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #25 on: 17/02/2016 21:35:12 »
I'm really not sure what you mean. You can see the light if it goes in your eye. You don't see it if it does not, and barring any extreme conditions, the light will also not influence any of the other light entering your eye...

Speaking as a witness, I can confirm that I saw no light exit the eye.  Not from my own, nor anyone else's.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #26 on: 17/02/2016 21:47:23 »


Speaking as a witness, I can confirm that I saw no light exit the eye.  Not from my own, nor anyone else's.

The prosecution as not mentioned exit and acknowledges light has to enter your eyes to see, but the prosecution has strong evidence that we observe light as a whole , not observing single particle Photons,  the defense clearly admitting observed clear light in space.
« Last Edit: 17/02/2016 21:53:00 by Thebox »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #27 on: 17/02/2016 22:51:59 »
The prosecution as not mentioned exit and acknowledges light has to enter your eyes to see, but the prosecution has strong evidence that we observe light as a whole , not observing single particle Photons,  the defense clearly admitting observed clear light in space.

Well, to say so, that is quite absurd.  If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #28 on: 18/02/2016 00:20:54 »
If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.
That's a good point, is that why it's dark outside?
I see it clear now, I finally see the light.
All else is dark.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #29 on: 18/02/2016 07:32:28 »
The prosecution as not mentioned exit and acknowledges light has to enter your eyes to see, but the prosecution has strong evidence that we observe light as a whole , not observing single particle Photons,  the defense clearly admitting observed clear light in space.

Well, to say so, that is quite absurd.  If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.

The prosecution does not say that the whole of light enters your eyes , the prosecutor said we observe the light has a whole.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #30 on: 18/02/2016 07:33:11 »
If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.
That's a good point, is that why it's dark outside?
I see it clear now, I finally see the light.
All else is dark.

Great lines lol

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #31 on: 18/02/2016 07:35:27 »
Can the prosecution put the first accusation to rest in agreement that we now agree about the clear light.?

Does the defense concur that the clear light is constantly observed to be clear?

Can I finally rest on the nature of light now you understand it?
« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 08:02:07 by Thebox »


*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #33 on: 18/02/2016 09:26:31 »
Can the prosecution put the first accusation to rest in agreement that we now agree about the clear light.?
No.
As far as vision is concerned, all we need to know is that we only see (detect) light coming into our eyes either directly from a source or indirectly reflected from an object.
Light which passes across our field of vision cannot enter our eyes and so is not detected.

Science says that normal, everyday light (that is uncorrelated light) does not interfere with, or obstruct another light beam it crosses. This is true for all frequencies and mixtures of frequencies. It adds nothing to talk of clear light.

For some reason you seem to think there is a relationship or distinction between what is called white light and what you call clear light, there isn't.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #34 on: 18/02/2016 09:46:44 »


Light which passes across our field of vision cannot enter our eyes and so is not detected.



Thus leading the prosecution to produce evidence 2.

[attachment=20977]

The perceived perspective of the defense is that the observation of the object is of the objects past, a claim made  by Einstein that a single Photon travels a linear path and takes an amount of time to be received by the observers eyes.   Science also perceives that all bodies are in motion relative to each other and that relatively there is no stationary objects, more Einstein thoughts of relativity.


However this is contradictory to vector and the motion of bodies analysis which can be observed in the above diagram. This is also contradictory to observation of the clear light  which the defense as already admitted to.

Is the defense claiming that they can observe a single photon travelling from A to B?


Is the defense laughably suggesting that a Photon is in comparison to a heat seeking missile and can change course of direction?

May I remind the defence of your own admittance and contradictory to your earlier admission of clear light observed in the space between your eyes and an object.

''Light which passes across our field of vision cannot enter our eyes and so is not detected.''




Is the defense now claiming they do not observe light which passes across our field of vision in the space they observe between their eyes and an object which the defense earlier admitted to ?

The prosecution accuses the defence are imagining a Photon single particle travelling through the clear light.  An imagination that is contradictory to the actual observation of clear and whole.   The prosecution does not imagine single particles, the prosecution observes the facts that we do  not observe single photons.




« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 10:28:25 by Thebox »

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2029
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #35 on: 18/02/2016 11:12:32 »
Judging by your response, you have either not read my post or you have misunderstood it.

Just to help you on your way.

Why do you refer to a single photon when talking about the sun?
Let's expand on your bullet analogy. As someone said, think machine gun. I once spoke to a gunner who had experience of shooting down aircraft, he said the best technique was to fire the machine gun ahead of the target and hold that position until the aircraft ran through the burst.  Remember also the sun fires out photons in all direction, it doesn't need to aim at anything!

Bullets and photons.
Yes, the bullet follows a curved path, but from which point of view? Shooter, bullet or target.
It isn't due to spacetime curvature, and the curve (purple) you've draw is wrong way round, it goes ahead of the redirect line at first.

Don't reply to this in your usual knee jerk reaction. Take some time to really think through the situation and try to think how it all works.
Also, forget 'clear light', it isn't helping you understand any of this, it's just adding to your confusion.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #36 on: 18/02/2016 12:52:05 »
Judging by your response, you have either not read my post or you have misunderstood it.

Just to help you on your way.

Why do you refer to a single photon when talking about the sun?
Let's expand on your bullet analogy. As someone said, think machine gun. I once spoke to a gunner who had experience of shooting down aircraft, he said the best technique was to fire the machine gun ahead of the target and hold that position until the aircraft ran through the burst.  Remember also the sun fires out photons in all direction, it doesn't need to aim at anything!

Bullets and photons.
Yes, the bullet follows a curved path, but from which point of view? Shooter, bullet or target.
It isn't due to spacetime curvature, and the curve (purple) you've draw is wrong way round, it goes ahead of the redirect line at first.

Don't reply to this in your usual knee jerk reaction. Take some time to really think through the situation and try to think how it all works.
Also, forget 'clear light', it isn't helping you understand any of this, it's just adding to your confusion.

The prosecutor did not mention the sun, the prosecutor mentioned observation and asked the defense a direct question.

Does the defense observe a single photon travelling from A to B, a simple yes or no answer the defence yet again avoided with distraction tactics.

The velocity of a  bullet would be a linearity if it was not for the earth's  gravitation pull in acknowledgement of Newtons laws of motion.
The velocity of the bullet does not however shear left or right unless there is wind-shift of the bullet. The diagram does not show a curved path of the object travelling the x-axis, it shows the ''falling'' object curving away from the x-axis. If I was representing the Earth's path, the prosecution acknowledges the invert curve to the diagram.

Your statement of the gunner is accepted to be accurately of truth. The prosecution acknowledges a bullet fired directly ''up'' a vertical axis relative to a horizontal plane has no curved path. The Earth curving away from the bullet in this example of vector use.

P.s the best way to intercept a moving target is to manually steer the ''bullet'' and direct ''yourself'' at it.

May the defence offer exhibit  (B) in discussion

[attachment=20981]







« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 13:55:33 by Thebox »

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #37 on: 18/02/2016 17:36:49 »
If light went into your eye as a whole, there would be no light left outside.
That's a good point, is that why it's dark outside?
I see it clear now, I finally see the light.
All else is dark.

Great lines lol

Blinding... literally (chuckle)

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #38 on: 18/02/2016 17:45:15 »
May it please the court;

The defense accuses the prosecution of being culpable in a conflict of interest. As said prosecutor has demonstrated his ignorance of, and instigated attacks on "The Standard Model". His agenda has proved to have displayed no allegiance regarding the interests of the state, but rather his own personal ego. And submitting precious little more than his personal point of view, he has supplied us with absolutely no forensic evidence whatsoever. The defense calls for a mistrial and recommends:

Taking these facts into deliberation, I ask for a show of hands. What say the court?

1. Should we reprimand the prosecutor for this conflict of interest?
2. Should he be brought up for charges, before a board of inquiry by peer review, for a possible disbarment?
3. Or should we expedite matters and drag him from the court room and toss him in jail?

If it please the court, grant our twelve jurors this decision.

A recess is declared until deliberations have concluded.

"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #39 on: 18/02/2016 18:21:42 »
May it please the court;

The defense accuses the prosecution of being culpable in a conflict of interest. As said prosecutor has demonstrated his ignorance of, and instigated attacks on "The Standard Model". His agenda has proved to have displayed no allegiance regarding the interests of the state, but rather his own personal ego. And submitting precious little more than his personal point of view, he has supplied us with absolutely no forensic evidence whatsoever. The defense calls for a mistrial and recommends:

Taking these facts into deliberation, I ask for a show of hands. What say the court?

1. Should we reprimand the prosecutor for this conflict of interest?
2. Should he be brought up for charges, before a board of inquiry by peer review, for a possible disbarment?
3. Or should we expedite matters and drag him from the court room and toss him in jail?

If it please the court, grant our twelve jurors this decision.

A recess is declared until deliberations have concluded.

And likewise could be said of the defense in the failure to answer direct questions or provide any evidence of their own, and for the  clear  intent of disrupting the proceedings.  I ask the judge to find Ethos in contempt of court and withholding evidence when asked simple questions of observation.

The prosecution has no conflict of interest , motive or personal gain by this  case , the prosecution is simply acting in the capacitance of providing the evidence of observation, in this specific case, free of charge

Clearly the defense council is already struggling to disprove the accusations and is in fear of losing the case. Their answers already being contradictory, where the prosecution has solely presented the 'truth'of observation without contradiction.

The defense can't handle the truth (lol got that one in )


Adjournment accepted while the defence deliberate their strategy to disprove the prosecution case.



« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 19:09:15 by Thebox »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4815
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #40 on: 18/02/2016 19:17:56 »
Are you denying a rainbow is opaque to vision ,  visually hiding the sky behind it?
 
By observation, this is nonsense. But so isthe rest of the prosecution.

The human eye can indeed detect a single photon, as can many electronic devices. The fact that a good photograph or television picture looks pretty much like the original, despite having been processed by artificial optics, electronics and chemistry,  suggests that the commonly accepted scientific view of the nature and working of light and vision is correct since the cameras are designed and constructed on those principles.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #41 on: 18/02/2016 19:33:02 »
Are you denying a rainbow is opaque to vision ,  visually hiding the sky behind it?
 
By observation, this is nonsense. But so isthe rest of the prosecution.

The human eye can indeed detect a single photon, as can many electronic devices. The fact that a good photograph or television picture looks pretty much like the original, despite having been processed by artificial optics, electronics and chemistry,  suggests that the commonly accepted scientific view of the nature and working of light and vision is correct since the cameras are designed and constructed on those principles.

Is the defence suggesting that a rainbow in the sky does not obstruct the view of the sky hiding behind the rainbow?

The defense again replies there after with distraction and avoidance to the questions being asked by the prosecutor,

You claim the Human eye can detect a single Photon, the question did not ask about detection of photons by the eye, it asked about observation, the defense is not blind I presume?

So do you insist that you can observe a single photon or do you submit you observe the ''whole'' of light between your eyes and an object?

To purge is contempt, may I remind the defense of their earlier admittance that they observe clear light in the space between eye and object.
« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 19:40:24 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #42 on: 18/02/2016 19:55:00 »


You claim the Human eye can detect a single Photon, the question did not ask about detection of photons by the eye, it asked about observation, the defense is not blind I presume?


Define for the court the difference between; "detection and observation".

Webster's defines detection as: "to discover something hidden"
Webster's defines observation as: "the act or power of noticing"

If I notice something hidden, I've detected through observation.

Not a lot of difference there my friend..........................

I might add; There is a lot of difference between "Reflection and Deflection". We are all aware of the choice you're making when speaking about reflection and deflection Mr. Box. You always choose the later.................
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #43 on: 18/02/2016 20:54:36 »
On a personal note, I'm delighted you chose the position of prosecutor in this little game of yours. In America, the defendant has the right to counsel and is deemed innocent until, proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. Hence, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and it is incumbent upon him to present evidence on behalf of the state.

To which the defense declares; No such evidence has been presented that would deem the defendant guilty. Until such evidence is forthcoming, "The Standard Model" is confident and secure in resting it's case.

« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 20:56:43 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #44 on: 18/02/2016 21:09:21 »
On a personal note, I'm delighted you chose the position of prosecutor in this little game of yours. In America, the defendant has the right to counsel and is deemed innocent until, proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. Hence, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution and it is incumbent upon him to present evidence on behalf of the state.

To which the defense declares; No such evidence has been presented that would deem the defendant guilty. Until such evidence is forthcoming, "The Standard Model" is confident and secure in resting it's case.

I think you forget , the defence has already admitted to guilt after they admitted observing the clear light.  It is not an if the prosecution has provided evidence, the prosecutor as presented axiom observation evidence of the human recording of time.


Does the defence deny that if it observed a live camera feed and observed a murder, that this camera feed would not be adequate evidence to support the claim of murder?


Is the defense claiming that the human mind observation of the surroundings is not adequate evidence?


''Define for the court the difference between; "detection and observation".''

Detection means several things,

Observation is the process of seeing things.


The prosecution declares your defence to be frivolous litigation, you could never hope to win against a live feed of observation from every jury member, they also can quite clearly , observe clear.   Does anyone of the jury observe single photons in the space between eyes and object?




« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 21:24:58 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #45 on: 18/02/2016 21:25:51 »


I think you forget , the defence has already admitted to guilt after they admitted observing the clear light. 


Acknowledging "clear light" does not prove the defendants guilt. You have, in fact, proven nothing as yet Mr. Prosecutor. And we might as well claim the 5th anyway. You ignore the evidence we present you with. Examine this word a bit closer Mr. Prosecutor; "Ignore", if you study it closely, you'll understand where the word; "Ignorant" comes from. Someone that ignores evidence, whether purposefully or mistakenly falls into that category.

We've been patient with "Your Theory" Mr. Prosecutor and have found it lacking. Simple as that, maybe you've bitten off more than you can chew but even so, the ball remains on your side of the "Court".

If your persistence is fueled by the hopeful anticipation that you will win this verdict, you are in for a rude awakening.




"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #46 on: 18/02/2016 21:38:28 »


I think you forget , the defence has already admitted to guilt after they admitted observing the clear light. 


Acknowledging "clear light" does not prove the defendants guilt. You have, in fact, proven nothing as yet Mr. Prosecutor. And we might as well claim the 5th anyway. You ignore the evidence we present you with. Examine this word a bit closer Mr. Prosecutor; "Ignore", if you study it closely, you'll understand where the word; "Ignorant" comes from. (of a substance) transparent; unclouded., whether purposefully or mistakenly falls into that category.

We've been patient with "Your Theory" Mr. Prosecutor and have found it lacking. Simple as that, maybe you've bitten off more than you can chew but even so, the ball remains on your side of the "Court".

If your persistence is fueled by the hopeful anticipation that you will win this verdict, you are in for a rude awakening.

Again the defence replies in gibberish ignoring the questions . If you are aware of the term frivolous litigation that means the prosecution is very aware of every answer you give and know it is an argument you could never hope to win.

 ''You ignore the evidence we present you with. ''  The defence as offered no evidence other than a few words, words avoiding the questions completely.

You have presented no evidence, can the defense provide evidence that we see single photons ? 

Can the defense provide evidence that we do not see clear light?


I am observing space now, I see the clear space but I do not observe single Photons , do you sir?

The defense is obvious arrogant and ignorant in the answering of questions presented.





« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 21:47:31 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #47 on: 18/02/2016 21:47:02 »


 ''You ignore the evidence we present you with. '' 
You have presented no evidence Mr. Prosecutor.
Quote from: Thebox
You have presented no evidence, can the defence provide evidence that we see single photons ? 


It's the Prosecutions responsibility to provide evidence of guilt, and the Defense denies such evidence exists, at least from this Prosecutor!

Remember?................. innocent until proven guilty
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #48 on: 18/02/2016 21:52:45 »


 ''You ignore the evidence we present you with. '' 
You have presented no evidence Mr. Prosecutor.
Quote from: Thebox
You have presented no evidence, can the defence provide evidence that we see single photons ? 


It's the Prosecutions responsibility to provide evidence of guilt, and the Defense denies such evidence exists, at least from this Prosecutor!

Remember?................. innocent until proven guilty


We have already had one admittance of guilt that clear is obviously not white, the second accusation of that we do not see individual Photons of the clear, is self evidently true by the first admittance of the defense.   I call to evidence , exhibit 3 , your own eyes.

I ask again, do you see individual photons that make up the clear light between your eyes and an object, or do you see the clear as if whole?


Do you see an individual photon travelling from your screen to your eye?


« Last Edit: 18/02/2016 21:56:41 by Thebox »

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1914
    • View Profile
Re: Court in process! shhhhhh(just for fun)
« Reply #49 on: 18/02/2016 22:33:07 »
Box, you are confusing the matter when talking about seeing light.

Typically, when we think about seeing objects we mean that we directly observe light that has either been emitted or reflected from said object. It would be impossible to "see" light in the same way that we "see" an object.

By analogy let us talk about sound and hearing. In common parlance, we talk about hearing a person or a trumpet, or some other loud thing. In fact, our ears are "feeling" the compression waves generated and projected by the trumpet. These waves travel through the air and are eventually received by our ears. Do you think that sound waves don't exist because we can't hear them? I claim to hear, and therefore observe, a sound wave, and you might argue, "no, you hear a trumpet." It is ridiculous.

I should also point out that my statements about "clear" and "white" are in no way an admission of guilt. Only you would think that somehow agreeing on any point means I agree and concede to all of your points.