0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the prosecution as only described the observation compared to the clear light observed in the space between eye and rainbow.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 07:35:27Does the defense concur that the clear light is constantly observed to be clear?Defence requests that the prosecution present whatever he calls "clear light" and explains its physical properties to the court. Since nobody else knows what he is talking about, at least a photograph and preferably the testmony of an expert witness wopud, we feel, be of value to the proceedings. And whilst I am on my feet, may I ask that the judge make himself known?
Does the defense concur that the clear light is constantly observed to be clear?
And whilst I am on my feet, may I ask that the judge make himself known?
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 23:30:04 the prosecution as only described the observation compared to the clear light observed in the space between eye and rainbow.This "clear light" you want us to continually reference is distributed from rainbow to eye at different wave lengths. This combination of different wave length are interpreted by our eye as different colors. What in Heaven's name is so difficult about understanding that?? You're trying to invent some peculiar phenomenon that doesn't exist. Alice in Wonderland inventions.
Quote from: alancalverd on 18/02/2016 23:32:41And whilst I am on my feet, may I ask that the judge make himself known?The Prosecutor would certainly object unless he could fulfill that post himself............................
I'm finished for tonight, NASCAR is calling my name. Suddenly makes more sense to me than this free-for-all and it's Prosecutorial instigator.
But to explain and provide a picture of it, here it is You can quite clearly observe between your eye and the picture the clear light,
Quote from: Thebox on 18/02/2016 23:42:00But to explain and provide a picture of it, here it is You can quite clearly observe between your eye and the picture the clear light, No, can't see it.Looked at the screen with a magnifying glass and saw lots of little light dots, red, green and blue. All different mixtures of these dots giving what we see as colour. So I see a lot of pink colour, white edges and a black rectangle where the little dots aren't emitting anything.No clear light, never saw it, never observed it, box imagines it.PS opaque means you can't see through it.I did see some white though!
The defense is being intentionally obtuse, the prosecution declares the defense is looking to closely at the screen. The prosecution suggests standing two feet back from the screen. no magnifier needed, and observe the clear light in the space between your eye and screen.The picture surely shows clear light , there is just no objects reflecting its presence.
a photographic imagine of space of the clear light which the prosecution as highlighted for you.
. I have repeated the experiment with additional views:I moved my eyes from 1m towards the screen, at each point toward the screen the light was still there, pink, white and where no light from the source then black. QuoteCan the defense confirm the defense observed the pink, white , etc was observed of the screen point source and not of the space?QuoteI then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there, Note for the record the defense admitting to observing the clear, evidence of my claim the clear is there. Quoteall I saw was the light reflected from the walls and furniture in the room. All colours, red, blue, yellow, white – in all its Dulux shades – and where no light is reflected then dark. Again I moved my eyes forward and found in all places the same light. I even set up a video camera to record this while I viewed from the front. The same light was consistently there.Note for the record, the defense admits observing a constant consistency of of the observation. QuoteI conclude that the whole of the space in front of the screen, indeed the whole room, is filled with ordinary light (including white) and there is no need to construct an additional theory of clear light.Objection, this statement is contradictory to the admittance of the clarity observed of the constant clear space and the difference of the spectral colours of objects being observed by the defense. The clear nature of light having affect on special relativity. May I remind the defense of the admittance that the visual spectral content observed in the space between eye and object is zero. p,s Just to be clear, darkness is not clear.
Can the defense confirm the defense observed the pink, white , etc was observed of the screen point source and not of the space?QuoteI then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there, Note for the record the defense admitting to observing the clear, evidence of my claim the clear is there. Quoteall I saw was the light reflected from the walls and furniture in the room. All colours, red, blue, yellow, white – in all its Dulux shades – and where no light is reflected then dark. Again I moved my eyes forward and found in all places the same light. I even set up a video camera to record this while I viewed from the front. The same light was consistently there.Note for the record, the defense admits observing a constant consistency of of the observation. QuoteI conclude that the whole of the space in front of the screen, indeed the whole room, is filled with ordinary light (including white) and there is no need to construct an additional theory of clear light.Objection, this statement is contradictory to the admittance of the clarity observed of the constant clear space and the difference of the spectral colours of objects being observed by the defense. The clear nature of light having affect on special relativity. May I remind the defense of the admittance that the visual spectral content observed in the space between eye and object is zero. p,s Just to be clear, darkness is not clear.
I then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there,
all I saw was the light reflected from the walls and furniture in the room. All colours, red, blue, yellow, white – in all its Dulux shades – and where no light is reflected then dark. Again I moved my eyes forward and found in all places the same light. I even set up a video camera to record this while I viewed from the front. The same light was consistently there.
I conclude that the whole of the space in front of the screen, indeed the whole room, is filled with ordinary light (including white) and there is no need to construct an additional theory of clear light.
Note for the record the defense admitting to observing the clear, evidence of my claim the clear is there.
I am not going to take part in any discussion where you deliberately misquote me by taking words out of context.I'm out
Your honour the defense is clearly being contradictory, there is no misquoting, ''I then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there,''Not attempting to see, not trying to see, but to see the clear light. The defense clearly admitted to seeing the clear light. Does the defence now claim that they did not observe clear space? If not is the defence stuck inside a box.The defense quite clearly lost, avoiding most of the prosecution questions. Does anyone in the world observe a single photon travelling from an object to their eye? NODoes anyone not observe clear light in the space?NOadded - Now, it is your choice science whether or not you listen. There is three axioms, the starting premise of science. 1. All visual observers ,observe space when light is present, as ''transparent'' to sight. (light allows sight to pass through dark ''visually-opaque''space)2. All visual observers observe the whole of the visual universe simultaneously, relative to themselves.3. All visual observers , observe objects move relative to each other, relative to the stationary reference frame of the constant visual clarity of space. ( this is not saying light has no speed, it says we do not observe space moving, we observe things moving through space).And very simply, anything that does not comply with these 3 axioms is simply wrong, i.e curved space, seeing things in the past etcP.s make that 4 axioms4. All visual observers have a radius limit/boundary of sight.sorry another one 5. The visual radius limit/boundary of a visual observer can expand or contract relative to source points geometrical spacial positions, relative to light. All 5 axioms. Now Einstein would say, ''let us imagine what ze light is made of, let us imagine tiny particles. ''The box would reply , '' let us imagine bugger all, let us consider only the facts we observe''.
Quote from: Thebox on 20/02/2016 00:19:18Your honour the defense is clearly being contradictory, there is no misquoting, ''I then moved to the side (viewing parallel to the screen) to see the clear light you claim is there,''Not attempting to see, not trying to see, but to see the clear light. The defense clearly admitted to seeing the clear light. Does the defence now claim that they did not observe clear space? If not is the defence stuck inside a box.The defense quite clearly lost, avoiding most of the prosecution questions. Does anyone in the world observe a single photon travelling from an object to their eye? NODoes anyone not observe clear light in the space?NOadded - Now, it is your choice science whether or not you listen. There is three axioms, the starting premise of science. 1. All visual observers ,observe space when light is present, as ''transparent'' to sight. (light allows sight to pass through dark ''visually-opaque''space)2. All visual observers observe the whole of the visual universe simultaneously, relative to themselves.3. All visual observers , observe objects move relative to each other, relative to the stationary reference frame of the constant visual clarity of space. ( this is not saying light has no speed, it says we do not observe space moving, we observe things moving through space).And very simply, anything that does not comply with these 3 axioms is simply wrong, i.e curved space, seeing things in the past etcP.s make that 4 axioms4. All visual observers have a radius limit/boundary of sight.sorry another one 5. The visual radius limit/boundary of a visual observer can expand or contract relative to source points geometrical spacial positions, relative to light. All 5 axioms. Now Einstein would say, ''let us imagine what ze light is made of, let us imagine tiny particles. ''The box would reply , '' let us imagine bugger all, let us consider only the facts we observe''.Bunkum....................
You claim axioms are nonsense,
I ask the Judge to request a mental evaluation of the defense.
Quote from: Thebox on 20/02/2016 14:51:49You claim axioms are nonsense, Nope, the only nonsense being distributed around here is coming from the Prosecutor.Quote from: Thebox I ask the Judge to request a mental evaluation of the defense. Getting a little personal are we? If we are to evaluate the mental state of anyone here, I suggest it be the one that finds themselves in total opposition with the rational view taken by the majority. When it seems that everyone else is insane, and you are the only one in their right mind, it would be reasonable to consider the alternative my friend. I suggest you make yourself an appointment, and do so without delay.