[PhysBang]

From your answer I conclude you admit to not directly seeing a Photon?

The history of the psychological study of vision has to lead one to the conclusion that photons are not directly seen. What we think we see is not extremely reliable.

And this answer needs no thought, it requires a straight forward visual explanation.

It seems obvious that you are opposed to thought, but that is not really helpful where science is involved.

[Ethos_]

From your answer I conclude you admit to not directly seeing a Photon?

The history of the psychological study of vision has to lead one to the conclusion that photons are not directly seen. What we think we see is not extremely reliable.

And this answer needs no thought, it requires a straight forward visual explanation.

It seems obvious that you are opposed to thought, but that is not really helpful where science is involved.

Astute observation PhysBang, Mr. Box is opposed to any and all thought except his own. And he is most certainly very confused even where those thoughts are concerned.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

The contemporary view is that it's weirdly complicated and photons themselves are waves of a sort, but not like we normally think of waves.
[/quote]

  OK I accept that, thank you again, but could be the case that the frequencies were the particles, and the waves were the photons leading the trajectory of the particle frequency on the background?

 I mean is not my intention o doubt many proves, but if the photon is not traveling at speed of light at all, could we consider "a photon" over a fabric made of what we consider photons, ad the particles belong to the energy wavelength?

Like in the double sit experiment, could be the case that the photons where already there flowing trough the openings like waves, and those waves where leading the electrons that didn't shock themselves with the wall, trough the openings?
 In this scenario part of the quantum mechanics would simple be "erased" as they say, and never where related with observation ad possibilities, but indeed a force of compression that where already there?

 I don't doubt the existence of a "created photon", but as soon as the frequencies cease, is possible that photon simple became inner and join the others on the fabric, waiting for another frequency to pass by?

Could the experiment have being miss interpreted back there and we working as Tesla predict on mathematics to fulfill our own theories, becoming more and more away from the reality?

 The question is, "hypothetically" speaking, what would happen to modern science and equations, if we "hypothetically" agree that the photon was not "a photon" but a fabric, and that they never traveled at all?
 Just wondering what would happen?

[guest39538]

The contemporary view is that it's weirdly complicated and photons themselves are waves of a sort, but not like we normally think of waves.

Waves are made, if light passes through a medium that is not dense it will turn ''red'' , if light passes through a medium that is more dense it will turn ''blue''.



If light has no medium to pass through it is ''stretched'' out to the max and a perfect linearity and ''gin-clear''.


If we was two make two splits we could determine a wave.

If we could make a single slit and narrow it we could determine a ''high pressure jet'' that would create a wider ''splatter'' on the wall.

Light is like elastic that is self ''stretching'' unless there is something in the way.

Also the darkness outside my window in it's exact location shows that what I am seeing is external of me.

[Ethos_]

Very slippery in your direct answer to the question!

Not sure exactly what you mean there Mr. Box? My answers were direct and "honest BTW", something we here at TNS always appreciate even though there have been occasions when honesty has been lacking, if you get my drift.

From your answer I conclude you admit to not directly seeing a Photon?

Anyone with eyesight sees the numberless cloud of reflected photons in every wave length of the rainbow, it's called electromagnetic radiation. Notice I did say "numberless cloud of reflected photons" but seeing "a Photon" with our physical vision would be impossible. However, we can detect them, remember the link I gave you were science has the technical ability to actually count them one by one? So contending that just because we can't see individual photons with our unaided eyes means they don't exist is really Very "Unscientific".

And this answer needs no thought,

This reply is also; "Very Unscientific" Science is all about thought and repeatable experiment. Without either thought or experiment, your spinning your wheels and producing nothing but Dribble!

 it requires a straight forward visual explanation.

Straight forward is nice when possible Mr. Box but not always a viable option. And about your hang-up with this "visual" thing of yours. Visual evidence is not always good evidence, take the eye witness issue in the criminal justice system for an example. It has been proven many times to be inaccurate and has sent several individuals wrongly to prison. This is why experiment is always necessary and is more reliable when it can be repeated by more than just one researcher or facility.

Give us a break Mr. Box, your ideas are sometimes entertaining and it's always fun to discuss these issues with you but give us here at TNS a little credit at the very least. Many of our members are very well educated and for the most part, are interested in helping folks like yourself when they have serious questions about the sciences.

Some of us are more patience than others and I must admit, I'm not always as patient as I should be. But if I believe a member is serious and truly interested in finding some help, I will offer it if I have the answer. What is truly frustrating however, is when someone like yourself asks a question and continually rejects the help that's offered.

If you're convinced that you know better, and it sounds many times as though you do, there should then be no need to even ask the question in the first place............right?

In any case, just be thankful that this help is offered free of charge. 

 

[guest39538]

Anyone with eyesight sees the numberless cloud of reflected photons in every wave length of the rainbow, it's called electromagnetic radiation. Notice I did say "numberless cloud of reflected photons" but seeing "a Photon" with our physical vision would be impossible. However, we can detect them, remember the link I gave you were science has the technical ability to actually count them one by one? So contending that just because we can't see individual photons with our unaided eyes means they don't exist is really Very "Unscientific".

I will gladly temporarily accept your Photon cloud because I like your wording of it, however I still hold judgement and wait for 100% proof.


Yes I remember your counting device for Photons, and in an experiment you can continue and repeat , I will use this repeat of experiment to  prove we see darkness like the title asks.

I can objectively repeat the measurement of distance between my eyes and the darkness location, showing darkness is in it's exact geometrical position seen.

So how is my counting any different to your counting of the photon device that you accept has evidence?


I have provided proof in measurement yet I am wrong?



proof

[Ethos_]

I will gladly temporarily accept your Photon cloud because I like your wording of it, however I still hold judgement and wait for 100% proof.

I appreciate your compliment Mr. Box but there's one issue I suspect you're unaware of. Proving anything to be true within the scientific method is a misleading characterization of how the scientific method works. What we seek to do is illuminate the competing theories through experiment and thereby reach a majority consensus as to what the reality is most likely to be. Absolute proof is a rare thing indeed. For one thing, if someone is unwilling to accept the data, no amount of arguing will ever "prove" anything to them.

Yes I remember your counting device for Photons, and in an experiment you can continue and repeat , I will use this repeat of experiment to  prove we see darkness like the title asks.

I think the impediment to our agreement is basically in how you and I define and use different words. As an example: When I use the word; "see", I interpret the word "see" to mean; "the physical function that light produces upon the eye". The word can also be used many other ways. Example: "I see you've been promoted". This example is really just an observation and has little to do with "vision"

My point here is that when one uses the word "see" when speaking about vision, I submit that they are talking about light. So when you say that you can "see" darkness, I have to disagree. What you're observing is the absence of light and not really "seeing darkness", you're observing the absence of light.
I agree that this is a bit technical but when individuals become interested in science, it becomes critical to view reality in the most technical ways possible.

I can objectively repeat the measurement of distance between my eyes and the darkness location, showing darkness is in it's exact geometrical position seen.

What this experiment is "showing" is; an area of lesser illumination. Lesser light means it's darker but you're not seeing darkness. You're seeing an area less illuminated.

So how is my counting any different to your counting of the photon device that you accept has evidence?

You're counting of distance has nothing to do with the question. You're only measuring a distance from an area more lightly lite to an area less illuminated.

We see because light, the photon, carries information from objects to our eyes. When light is not present, we see nothing. Darkness is not something we see. It is something we understand to be the absence of light.

[guest39538]

I will gladly temporarily accept your Photon cloud because I like your wording of it, however I still hold judgement and wait for 100% proof.

I appreciate your compliment Mr. Box but there's one issue I suspect you're unaware of. Proving anything to be true within the scientific method is a misleading characterization of how the scientific method works. What we seek to do is illuminate the competing theories through experiment and thereby reach a majority consensus as to what the reality is most likely to be. Absolute proof is a rare thing indeed. For one thing, if someone is unwilling to accept the data, no amount of arguing will ever "prove" anything to them.

Yes I remember your counting device for Photons, and in an experiment you can continue and repeat , I will use this repeat of experiment to  prove we see darkness like the title asks.

I think the impediment to our agreement is basically in how you and I define and use different words. As an example: When I use the word; "see", I interpret the word "see" to mean; "the physical function that light produces upon the eye". The word can also be used many other ways. Example: "I see you've been promoted". This example is really just an observation and has little to do with "vision"

My point here is that when one uses the word "see" when speaking about vision, I submit that they are talking about light. So when you say that you can "see" darkness, I have to disagree. What you're observing is the absence of light and not really "seeing darkness", you're observing the absence of light.
I agree that this is a bit technical but when individuals become interested in science, it becomes critical to view reality in the most technical ways possible.

I can objectively repeat the measurement of distance between my eyes and the darkness location, showing darkness is in it's exact geometrical position seen.

What this experiment is "showing" is; an area of lesser illumination. Lesser light means it's darker but you're not seeing darkness. You're seeing an area less illuminated.

So how is my counting any different to your counting of the photon device that you accept has evidence?

You're counting of distance has nothing to do with the question. You're only measuring a distance from an area more lightly lite to an area less illuminated.

We see because light, the photon, carries information from objects to our eyes. When light is not present, we see nothing. Darkness is not something we see. It is something we understand to be the absence of light.

Yes I agree you see areas that are less illuminated, but these areas are quite clearly and measurable to be in their exact geometrical position. These areas are not inside our brain, to see and to ''see'' is not what you are seeing.

Take any sealed box, you know inside that box it is dark, even though you cant see inside that box, you know it is dark, inside the box you know there still exists space, you know this particular space is not illuminated space, you know this dark space exists outside of you mind, the space proves it exists , the space that is not illuminated.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

We see because light, the photon, carries information from objects to our eyes. When light is not present, we see nothing. Darkness is not something we see. It is something we understand to be the absence of light.

 Ethos you seems to have understood well the "Darkness entering the eye", of course the mistaken here between you both is the gramatic as you figure out, both talking the same language now, I would like to ask you...

 Light has a wave duality, wave and particle, considering one hypotetical scenariowhere photons do not travel but they are already everywhere, when Einstein increased the frequencies to set the electrons free generating current, could it be that the waves where the photons already there and the particle was the wavelenght of energy, light, itself?
 I mean the wave being the self compressed inert photons that are everywhere since the creation, photons without momentum or charge accumulating on the background, like the space within the planets, and the space within the nucleos of the atoms and the particles, all that being photons that lost their momentum, and consequently spread their area to join the background...
 Obviously one can still createand isolate a photon conserving its momentum on a colisor for example, but talkingabout Einstein experiment that set the existence of the photon and also the possibilitie of the photon be destroyed... I'm not questioning that you can create a photon coliding waves and particles with the right charge using electromagnetism and radiation, I'm questioning the possibility of a photon have ever traveled with the speed of light byquestioning if the creation of photons is trully necessary for the speed of the frequencies be the speed of light....

 What I mean maybe the speed of the wave lenght frequencies, including light, never where the speed of light, the whole observation could have being mis intepreted by the speed of light as beng the maximum speed with a fabric made of photons would alowed any frequency to travel? It hard to be specific with my limited english, could be the speed of light the maximum speed of the frequency, becouse, the "photon fabric" density or compression, determinates so?

 In one simple version what happens to a photon before its created?

And about quantum mechanics, could be that our observation interacts with the electron? And a spca fabric consisted by iner photons transfering frequencies one to the other instantaneusly, like a neo letter, or maybe even a whole photon fabric made from absorsion of inert photons, generating waves and disturbance caused by anything that has mass and exists within its whole?

Likealice and bob experiment, maybe the meassurement, affected only the electrons that have charge and this can be influencied, the only alteration we could cause on the experiment to change the waves, would be reated with the whole, the simple readings or movement, would generate a constant changing on the Aliece and Bob results, simple because this whole fabric made of photon, photonic fabric, would response with different densities to charges during the measurements, and also would resond physicaly to acceleration of any dense atomic structure on the experiment, this including us and the machines...

I just curious, was Einstein photonic experiment more than correct, also well interpreted?

[PhysBang]

Yes I agree you see areas that are less illuminated, but these areas are quite clearly and measurable to be in their exact geometrical position. These areas are not inside our brain, to see and to ''see'' is not what you are seeing.

Everything that you see is inside your brain. Your visual field is a construction of your brain. Many, many times, our brains do not properly represent the world around us.

[Ethos_]

 Ethos you seems to have understood well the "Darkness entering the eye", of course the mistaken here between you both is the gramatic as you figure out, both talking the same language now,

Good communication depends upon every party privy to the conversation having a proper understanding of the technical correctness of the words used. It is especially critical when the subject being discussed is in the field of the sciences. Careless use of simple words we use every day can complicate comprehension of the facts.

I would like to ask you...

 What I mean maybe the speed of the wave lenght frequencies, including light, never where the speed of light, the whole observation could have being mis intepreted by the speed of light as beng the maximum speed with a fabric made of photons would alowed any frequency to travel? It hard to be specific with my limited english, could be the speed of light the maximum speed of the frequency, becouse, the "photon fabric" density or compression, determinates so?

BTW, welcome to the forum Alex. And about the difficulty communicating when it's not your native tongue, I completely understand. And I applaud you for the effort it must take, especially when trying to communicate complicated ideas.

Regarding what I believe to be the crux of your inquiry: It sounds like you are proposing what is commonly called an "Aether" theory. That space is not empty but is composed of what the early scientists referred to as "Luminescence Aether". This concept has lost favor over the years and was shown to be invalid by the "Mickelson Morley Experiment". However, it has gained some traction lately with a few inquiring minds but has yet to produce any verifiable evidence. The problem with this theory centers around the inability to find evidence for this supposed medium and until such evidence is discovered, I'm afraid it will remain only speculative in nature.

Early on, I was drawn to this idea myself but have drifted away from it owing to current research and discoveries regarding the nature of space/time and how it is viewed by a majority of the scientific community.

Nevertheless, I have not given up my interest in this possibility nor have I discounted it entirely. But until evidence is found to be otherwise, I prefer to stick with the current and most popular theory.

[guest39538]

I think I will just give up, it is like talking to a bunch of subjective programmed drones, repeat answer, repeat answer, repeat answer, not even your own answers, answers you were taught, can't anyone think for themselves. 

I can measure darkness in it exact location, which part of that simple physics does people not comprehend?


I am not seeing the darkness in my head, I am seeing the darkness in its exact geometrical position,


ok , black holes are make believe, it is the absent of light and all in your head?

[Ethos_]

I think I will just give up,

I don't think any of us want you to give up, at least I don't.

If I can be quite honest Mr.Box, I think I know what your problems are. You once told me that your desire was to make your children proud of your accomplishments. And I told you at the time that I considered such a goal very admirable. And I'm on your side and have wished you much success regarding that noble aspiration of yours.

But you're not going to have much success in reaching that goal by trying to shoot down every well known theory created by minds much greater than any one here at TNS. To qualify that remark, we have a splendid group of excellent individuals here and a few are extraordinarily gifted and very intelligent. Nevertheless, are any of us on par with the likes of Newton, Einstein, or Galileo? And I'm not saying that possibility is totally remote, only that is may be highly unlikely.

You're not going to acquire a position of great stature by trying to shoot done accepted theory without extraordinary evidence. And to say this as politely as I know how, we have not seen such evidence coming from you. You would have much more success if you would start by building upon accepted theory and adding something remarkable to those ideas or possibly subtracting something without abandoning the basis for the theory all together.

Great minds have built a remarkably sound scientific structure for us over the last century and you're in for a rude awakening if you think you're going to have much success tearing it down with a totally new fabrication that only exists within your imagination.

Nevertheless Mr. Box, I do wish you success. And especially for those children of yours. But please take this simple advise. First become very familiar with current thinking and understand the evidence for those scientific positions. Maybe someday you'll stumble on to something new and those children will be able to read about your discovery in a scientific journal.

Good luck............................Ethos

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

 Ethos you seems to have understood well the "Darkness entering the eye", of course the mistaken here between you both is the gramatic as you figure out, both talking the same language now,

Good communication depends upon every party privy to the conversation having a proper understanding of the technical correctness of the words used. It is especially critical when the subject being discussed is in the field of the sciences. Careless use of simple words we use every day can complicate comprehension of the facts.

I would like to ask you...

 What I mean maybe the speed of the wave lenght frequencies, including light, never where the speed of light, the whole observation could have being mis intepreted by the speed of light as beng the maximum speed with a fabric made of photons would alowed any frequency to travel? It hard to be specific with my limited english, could be the speed of light the maximum speed of the frequency, becouse, the "photon fabric" density or compression, determinates so?

BTW, welcome to the forum Alex. And about the difficulty communicating when it's not your native tongue, I completely understand. And I applaud you for the effort it must take, especially when trying to communicate complicated ideas.

Regarding what I believe to be the crux of your inquiry: It sounds like you are proposing what is commonly called an "Aether" theory. That space is not empty but is composed of what the early scientists referred to as "Luminescence Aether". This concept has lost favor over the years and was shown to be invalid by the "Mickelson Morley Experiment". However, it has gained some traction lately with a few inquiring minds but has yet to produce any verifiable evidence. The problem with this theory centers around the inability to find evidence for this supposed medium and until such evidence is discovered, I'm afraid it will remain only speculative in nature.

Early on, I was drawn to this idea myself but have drifted away from it owing to current research and discoveries regarding the nature of space/time and how it is viewed by a majority of the scientific community.

Nevertheless, I have not given up my interest in this possibility nor have I discounted it entirely. But until evidence is found to be otherwise, I prefer to stick with the current and most popular theory.

Ok, now I have time to write it properly, I understood both of you, in a pitch black cave is not that your can't see the wall, or the windows showing darkness on its exact location, its just that there is no light being reflected by the wall, the windows is the same thing happening in a enviroment with a little bit more of light occuring, such as night, what youre seen is the walls of the pitch black cave not reflecting any light, and in the case of windows showing darkness o its exact location the same thing...

 I'm questioning the photon like I'll describle on this exemple...
 Let's consider that dark energy are photons, and the source of mass production are the blackholes irradiating particles with electromagnetism and radiation..
 Now the example, water.
 Lets assume that the creation of a photon is similar as the creation of a drop of water, you combined hydrogen with oxygen and you just created a drop of water, lets assume that the drop of water that you created has charge and acceleration provinient from the frequency that is passing trought it, and as long as the frequency is present the drop of water, due its charge, is happening, traveling trough the fabric that in this scenario is made of water, and this water is also made of a infinity amoungt of drops of water that were accumulating since the production started, as soon as the drop of water looses its aceleration and charge as the frequencies have passed by, it became inert and by doing so it simple joins the other water, the one that is not being irradiated by frequencies...

 Imagine now a few spherical rocks inside the sphere made of water, imagine now a black hole that is decomposing matter into particles using its acceleration sproducing electromagnetism and radiation on the process, converting the molectular structure of that rock into "drops of water", and those drops of water are joining the fabric, the sphere made of water where the rocks exists within it...
  The rocks are constantly being compressed by the very production of the drops of water being created as the rocks are being converted into it, this production would generate one force, that at the end are indeed two forces, "from the rocks point of view", this mass production of drops of water are exclusive generating a expansive force, by converitng the rocks into drops of water, expanding the water sphere, this is the reality from the water sphere perspective, but there is another interpretation happenign at the same time, from the rocks point of view, they will be recieving compression, just by being existing within the water sphere...
 The dense atomic structure of the rocks does not let the water flow trough them, at this very moment the rocks would observating a empty space around them, and the rocks will consider that themselves are being compressed and the source is coming, somehow, from they mass, weight,electromagnetism, doesn't matter, the rocks will try to find a explanation from their points of view for the "compression" they are feeling over them... But as we assume there was never compression as a force, but expanssion of the water sphere by production of drops of water, and the compression noticed by the rocks, it's simple a "reaction" provenient of nothing more than their dense atomic structure, existing within the water sphere...
 As bigger the rock, if it keep being dense, as bigger it gets more dirruption it causes and more water expansion it is able to disturb, and from the rocks point of view more compression it is recieving...
 At the same time from the water sphere point of view as bigger the rock gets more expansion it is able to recieve...

 Both would be correct, expansion for the water sphere, and compression for the rocks within it, but form what matters to us, there was never, atraction by two rocks, only a predetermined path for expansion...

 They orbits can stay out of this, simple cause the "expansion" of the water sphere over the rocks within it, is also generating a inverted scenarion at the inner core of the rocks, a upside down universe...
 In there the traped water is heating up, inside, a rock sphere... See? One the opposite of the other...
 All this generating heat, generating electromagnetism, an the electromagnetism alone, at least for me is the responsably for the locals, orbits...

 So I'm not questioning the photon creation, I just considering the posibility of the photon behave as a drop of water, at the moment it is created it have accelration and the force that created it give it charge so it wont join the water shpere imediatly, but as soon it colides agains a more dense atomic structure, as the rocks, it will be deflected and became inert, like a drop of water hiting the surface of a lake, it is a drop, but as soon as it hits the surface of the lake, its density, it spreads its acceleration forming waves, and sequently it joins the water that forms the lake, considering if the photon hiting the dense atomic structure, as the window, is not doing the same, is not that one is seen darkness on its exact location, is only that a barrier where added on the middle of the fabric, disturbing and reflecting any kind of light, but in the case of the window is not blocking the frequencies, only the waves of the water sphere, simpe because the box, exists inside of it, and the closed window disrupts the waves, not the particles traveling trought the waves, one is not seing darkness, one is seing the deflection of the waves form outside the room against the window....

 in the scenario of the pitch black cave, your eyes are indeed seeing the wall, not the darkness, the facric made of drops of water is constantly pressing the water against your eyes, you're eyes are "phisicly" seeing the wall, you can't see the wall, not becouse of your eyes, it is right there in front of view, and your eyes are phisicly seeing it, the problem is tha "the wall is not reflecting any light", also the water between your eyes and the wall, there is no light "frequency" traveling or being deflected anywhere, "but" if you turn a flash light on, there will be wavelenght frequencies, traveling isntantaneusly trought the "water fabric" that your eyes were already "seeing", you where seen the absence of light, but not the absence of photons, you simple couldn't see cause there where no frequencies...
  One would need to determined that the mass of the photon is zero, only to explain how it is able to travel at the speed of light.... one requisite that wouldn't be necessary if the photons where already there, and the speed of light in this scenario, is not even the "limit speed of the wave length frequencies, their speed could be infinity, the speed of light "would be the limit speed of the photonic fabric", limitating the inifinity speed of the wave lenght frequencies, determining them...
 And this alone, this delimitation of a mesurable speed of light, would confirm that the photonic fabric, and the photon do have mass, maybe not one photon but as a whole fabric made of them... Otherwise the speed of light of the wave lenght frequencies would be instantaneously... They are not cause of thedensity of the photonic fabric...

I reall toguht that the water example as being the photonic space fabric, and the drop of water being a photon, would help to picture it... Any of this make sense now?

 The only real compression, as "force", is the one of inside out the iner core of the rocks, because situation in there is inverted, a space made of dense atomic structure, and in the middle the photonic fabric recieving the outer space expansion, a complete twisted version of the space outside of the rocks, "planets"...

 i already supported this expansion, but could be the photons as drops of water, forming a whole and this whole simple being "already everywhere" allowing the frequencies to pass trought them? Like light and rocks does inside water? In this scenario the seepd of light would be the one as we know, and the speed of the photon would be zero again, because it wouldn't have to be mass less, cause it isn't traveling at the speed of the frequencies, but the frequencies trough them...

When I refer to the photon being zero and at the sime time instantaneous, I mean thing about infinity as a speed? No, right, there is no such thing as infinity acceleration, but it can be real in an alternative consideration "the existence", the being at point B and at point A at the same time, as whole...
  The being at both locations, and all locations at the same time already, could be interpreted as instantaneously or infinity, not by acceleration, but simple by already being here and there, wherever there or here is, independently...
 So the speed of the photon being zero, and also considering the possibilitie of the photons forming a space fabric, dark energy, that is everywhere since the creation, would somehow alowed the speed of the photon as being zero, but the speed of its photonic fabric, the whole, as being instantaneusly, infinity jst by being everywhere before any acceleration have ever happened...
 The speed of the wave lenght frequencies being than the speed of light, constant and determined by the density of the photonic fabric they are traveling trough, but the photonic fabric by being everywhere is infinity...

is it slightly possible, a photon joing the whole, as a drop of water when looses its acceleration spreading it as waves?

[PhysBang]

I can measure darkness in it exact location, which part of that simple physics does people not comprehend?

Look, you are lying, either to us or to yourself. You are not "measuring" anything.

I am not seeing the darkness in my head, I am seeing the darkness in its exact geometrical position,

Then you are a truly unique individual different from every human being in the history of human beings.

[guest39538]

I can measure darkness in it exact location, which part of that simple physics does people not comprehend?

Look, you are lying, either to us or to yourself. You are not "measuring" anything.

I am not seeing the darkness in my head, I am seeing the darkness in its exact geometrical position,

Then you are a truly unique individual different from every human being in the history of human beings.

I am lying really, how tall are you?

[guest39538]

I think I will just give up,

I don't think any of us want you to give up, at least I don't.

If I can be quite honest Mr.Box, I think I know what your problems are. You once told me that your desire was to make your children proud of your accomplishments. And I told you at the time that I considered such a goal very admirable. And I'm on your side and have wished you much success regarding that noble aspiration of yours.

But you're not going to have much success in reaching that goal by trying to shoot down every well known theory created by minds much greater than any one here at TNS. To qualify that remark, we have a splendid group of excellent individuals here and a few are extraordinarily gifted and very intelligent. Nevertheless, are any of us on par with the likes of Newton, Einstein, or Galileo? And I'm not saying that possibility is totally remote, only that is may be highly unlikely.

You're not going to acquire a position of great stature by trying to shoot done accepted theory without extraordinary evidence. And to say this as politely as I know how, we have not seen such evidence coming from you. You would have much more success if you would start by building upon accepted theory and adding something remarkable to those ideas or possibly subtracting something without abandoning the basis for the theory all together.

Great minds have built a remarkably sound scientific structure for us over the last century and you're in for a rude awakening if you think you're going to have much success tearing it down with a totally new fabrication that only exists within your imagination.

Nevertheless Mr. Box, I do wish you success. And especially for those children of yours. But please take this simple advise. First become very familiar with current thinking and understand the evidence for those scientific positions. Maybe someday you'll stumble on to something new and those children will be able to read about your discovery in a scientific journal.

Good luck............................Ethos

I could say the same of science, science provides little real evidence.

To me science seems to totally overlook the objective unbiased visual of what we see and the observation of what we see.

To say I do not see my hand and the sun at the exact same time in the same time frame would be an out and out lie.   I have give many models and explanation to show this.   A person can not agree we see ''gin-clear'' then argue the space is full of little tiny ''dots'' that we do not observe without having some solid proof such as an observation, otherwise it is no more than pure speculation.

My rocket question in the main forum shows I am correct.


If a Rocket travelled to the sun at c , it would take 8 minutes to arrive from Earth.  As you on Earth recorded the rocket ships time to get there, it also took 8 minute. so this shows you that you see the rocket ship in real time and not fake time.


departure 12am

arrival 12:08pm

seen to arrive 12:08pm


NOT 12:16pm

[Colin2B]

My rocket question in the main forum shows I am correct.

No it doesn't.

If a Rocket travelled to the sun at c , it would take 8 minutes to arrive from Earth.  As you on Earth recorded the rocket ships time to get there, it also took 8 minute. so this shows you that you see the rocket ship in real time and not fake time.

departure 12am

arrival 12:08pm

seen to arrive 12:08pm

NOT 12:16pm

If the rocket arrives at the sun at 1208 it still takes the light of that arrival 8 mins to travel back to earth. So we see the arrival of the rocket at 1216. When we see that event it is also 1216 on the sun. We are not seeing back into the past, only what happened in the past.

This thread and the one in main forum don't deserve title of new theory, they are just confusions over basic timekeeping. A view is forming that you are just trolling with these questions as it is unlikely anyone of reasonable intelligence could get so confused.

[guest39538]

My rocket question in the main forum shows I am correct.

No it doesn't.

If a Rocket travelled to the sun at c , it would take 8 minutes to arrive from Earth.  As you on Earth recorded the rocket ships time to get there, it also took 8 minute. so this shows you that you see the rocket ship in real time and not fake time.

departure 12am

arrival 12:08pm

seen to arrive 12:08pm

NOT 12:16pm

If the rocket arrives at the sun at 1208 it still takes the light of that arrival 8 mins to travel back to earth. So we see the arrival of the rocket at 1216. When we see that event it is also 1216 on the sun. We are not seeing back into the past, only what happened in the past.

This thread and the one in main forum don't deserve title of new theory, they are just confusions over basic timekeeping. A view is forming that you are just trolling with these questions as it is unlikely anyone of reasonable intelligence could get so confused.

Colin!  you are clearly not looking at this correctly, let me run you through it really slow and you should understand.


Just please answer these with a straight forward answer.


You are standing on a train platform at 8am (B), the train you are waiting for has a 15 minute journey from A to B  at a constant speed, it leaves the station at precisely 7.45am to make its way to your station, what time do you see the train arrive?

[jerrygg38]

Staring at the bedroom window at night in an illuminated room I can ''see'' a distance between my eyes and window that is illuminated and not dark but rather ''gin-clear''.

Outside of my window I can ''see'' darkness, the darkness does not reflect light or emit light but I ''see'' the image of darkness in my brain that is a distance away from me, so how does darkness enter my eyes so I can ''see'' the darkness?

You see what your eyes detect. Photons entering your eyes are picked up by your visual cells. The stars are picked up. the moon is picked up. These signals are sent to your brain that converts the images to your mind. Areas if darkness produce no signals. Thus you brain gets no signals. The brain then converts all these signals into a picture. It is quite amazing and quite complex how we see. Sometimes the brain will add things. At a distance a brick wall missing one brick may show up as a perfect brick wall without the missing brick. thus what our eyes pick up is often modified by our brains. And of course if we pick up nothing then everything is dark.