[guest39538]

There is the invisible spectrum when observing sky at night, and there is shadows, different things, there is invisible and there is shadow, a shadow is not limited to outside a glass, it also happens at the atomic level, meaning that show effect happens even inside dense atomic structure, not only outside of it, at least when we talking at something like glass, the atomic structure of the glass will cause shadows even if its a transparent substance, very different from a invisible one... The precense of any sort of atomic structure will disrupt the field where you're observing, event the oxigen around you will...
  Watch the invisible with your eyes will seems to be dark, watch the same invisible from inside a room, trought a window, will only disrupt the spectrum, causing shadows, and shadow is indeed black as any black picture, or tree leaves during day, seems that your experiment is refering and measuring the length of the shadows of the room over the invisible...
 Not sure anymore if your experiment is refering to shadows or to invisible, our eyes would interpreted both as almost the same dark thing, but one is colour other is invisible, and of course there is also the shadow around your own eyes, to be able to see the spectrum your eyes should be able to adapt, probably your eyes would have to be black, the sciera, to compensate for the shadows generated from the atomic structure of your own eye...
 Want to test the windows shadow effect, close your eyes, look straig to a withe light bulb, wait a few secunds, pass your fingers opened in front of your own closed eyes, and you will be able to see the shadow of your own hand passing in front of your closed eyes...
 Put the light bulb otside the window, close your eyes, close and open the window without open your eyes, if the light is strong outside you will be able to noticed the shadow, if the light is weak, as during night, you wont be able to noticed but it will be there anyway...

 And I agree with you about silence, a very good one, but it's a hole different question...

The visible spectrum is colour, I am not sure you or anybody will understand this,

In the daytime the ''gin-clear'' of light  visual  you perceive between your eye and object in the space is dark and not light.

However dark is not dark either, if you are in a pitch black cave the space you perceive to be dark between your eye and cave wall is also ''gin-clear'' and see through.


You only see objects that are not gin clear that are illuminated.



Scrap dark and light, change to invisible space and the Illuminati of matter.  We see things that are illuminated in invisible space.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

The visible spectrum is colour, I am not sure you or anybody will understand this,

  I'm trying to, I also share with you the concept of blank state of mind, and also the way you described you can clear your mind, I also like to wonder in that same line, rarely I need to do a physical experiment cause I trained myself to do it using my thoughts, this helps to expurge almost all emotions and with this the positive and negative thoughts over my observations are put aside the whole mental experiment, for me someone that mastered this blank mind practice would always be correct, and one would only be incorrect because of lack of information that wasn't available, so I do share the possibilities of the abstract darken particle concept, as long as the answer is not revealed, I don't agree, but most important I fell nothing for both concepts... I can see the reason why you see visible spectrum is color, I think if is not the shadows, in the pitch black cave there would be no shadows cause there is no light, and you're correct...
  I think than that the thing, the particles that are entering your eyes so you're able to see, is wherever forms the space fabric, dark energy in my concepts, but give it the name that suit you the most, photons travel trough space fabric, your eyes work capturing the light, for this the muscle of an ocular globe do not have a very dense atomic structure, not one that "gravity", and by that I mean gravity A, at the quantum level, compression of space fabric is able to pass trough the interior of your eyes, is acceptable once that the photon does, and the atomic structure of your eyes is less dense that one of a wall that it can't, not the photons but the fabric it is traveling trough...

  So I accept that the "Dark particle" could be the invisible particle of wherever form the space fabric, assuming that the photon reached your eyes traveling trough space, these also is explained as why our eyes hurt when looking to a strong light but our skin does not, so its hard to put in words but I thing that I comprehend your point of view, and get to the conclusion that your question cannot be answered yet, but its not incorrect, and probable is correct...
  The way darkness penetrates your eye "compression"
 compression of what?
 Space fabric from outside in being compressed against the atomic structure of your eye, as it is doing with any other matter out there.
 The darken particle could be represented, by wherever gin-clear particle or substance that forms this fabric.
 Why does it seems to be black, its black because of the absence of photons moving around, but this absence of photons wouldn't change the fact that space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, and it is transparent, in the absence of exited photons, and once again..
 Our eyes can't see the invisible, the color is resultant from the existed photons over a space fabric that is transparent to light, no light no color, but this is not dark or black indeed, its invisible... Space fabric in the absence of exited photons, does not produce light, even if light is a effect of this fabric, there is no existed particles, the fabric inside a pitch black cave would be completely invisible, so you're not being able to see trough space fabric, but your eyes would be working anyway, simple that your can't see the walls around you cause there is no light around you and your eyes can't see, although you're not blind, the gin-clear hasn't changed...

 So sorry, in answering to your specific question, yes there is a particle or something entering your eyes so you can see, all the time, even if your eyes are closed...
 I simple still think that is not "dark", the substance is invisible, and there is nothing like it, not even glass nor clean water can be compared to it, there are things that will block the light from entering your eyes, as put a black glass, this will cause "shadow" because of the dense atomic structure, but the absence of light at night would not be the same thing, your eye would not be able to see the space fabric around you, it's invisible, but the particles that are caring the "absence of light" to inside your eyes, is the same that are caring the light, so with 100%, there is something invisible entering your eyes so you can see, if you want to call wherever forms the fabric of space as the "darken particle", than you wouldn't be wrong at all...

 and this explanation is a little bit confused cause, share a concept that one does not agree it's very hard, feels unreal, but than again, the act of trying to is much more acceptable than simple deny it's possibilities, simple cause is better try to be wrong than accept the premise that one is absolutly correct when the decision was made based on a prtial knoledge...

[Ethos_]

blank state of mind

This description says it all regarding the subject of this thread.

[jeffreyH]

Darkton, spin -2, repulsive. Yes it's ugly.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

This description says it all regarding the subject of this thread.

 Yes I agree with you, but in reference to the question itself, the answers is yes, it can't be answered simple because no one knows for sure what forms space... You can explain many things, but you can't even explain everything that is entering now only trough your eyes, but trough your own body, how expect to answer his question whiteout accepting this lack of knowledge?

  The shortest answer someone can provide is "We don't know", since it's not good enough, one needs to try and by doing this be wrong, the collectively will eventually step on the correct answer...
  Ignore the questions or use emotions to explain it, those are all products of negative feelings created by the mind to protect itself against hostility from other people, a reality that at the moment before you answered didn't existed yet, and now that one didn't answered, never will...
  I'm not proud of his question as I'm not proud of my own answer, not answering the question with your own answer means that one didn't know neither and the worst part?
  The user who posted it seems that trough his practice was the only one to be able to notice the possibilities, pretty sure he knew what was coming for himself when he did and he seems to have asked it anyway...

 The point is, he's considering to be wrong, he just want an answer from any of the others that would confirm it for himself, not one seems to truly understand his question, and the ones who does don't know how to try or admit that they don't know for sure, doing so they deny the whole experiment he described... This won't help, one's not asking for the correct answers, one's asking for what you thing and why so one can check for himself...

[guest39538]

This description says it all regarding the subject of this thread.

 Yes I agree with you, but in reference to the question itself, the answers is yes, it can't be answered simple because no one knows for sure what forms space... You can explain many things, but you can't even explain everything that is entering now only trough your eyes, but trough your own body, how expect to answer his question whiteout accepting this lack of knowledge?

  The shortest answer someone can provide is "We don't know", since it's not good enough, one needs to try and by doing this be wrong, the collectively will eventually step on the correct answer...
  Ignore the questions or use emotions to explain it, those are all products of negative feelings created by the mind to protect itself against hostility from other people, a reality that at the moment before you answered didn't existed yet, and now that one didn't answered, never will...
  I'm not proud of his question as I'm not proud of my own answer, not answering the question with your own answer means that one didn't know neither and the worst part?
  The user who posted it seems that trough his practice was the only one to be able to notice the possibilities, pretty sure he knew what was coming for himself when he did and he seems to have asked it anyway...

 The point is, he's considering to be wrong, he just want an answer from any of the others that would confirm it for himself, not one seems to truly understand his question, and the ones who does don't know how to try or admit that they don't know for sure, doing so they deny the whole experiment he described... This won't help, one's not asking for the correct answers, one's asking for what you thing and why so one can check for himself...

You have good observation skill, I like you already , not because you are in affect standing in my corner to a degree, but because you have an open mind, well done sir I am well impressed.

[guest39538]

The visible spectrum is colour, I am not sure you or anybody will understand this,

  I'm trying to, I also share with you the concept of blank state of mind, and also the way you described you can clear your mind, I also like to wonder in that same line, rarely I need to do a physical experiment cause I trained myself to do it using my thoughts, this helps to expurge almost all emotions and with this the positive and negative thoughts over my observations are put aside the whole mental experiment, for me someone that mastered this blank mind practice would always be correct, and one would only be incorrect because of lack of information that wasn't available, so I do share the possibilities of the abstract darken particle concept, as long as the answer is not revealed, I don't agree, but most important I fell nothing for both concepts... I can see the reason why you see visible spectrum is color, I think if is not the shadows, in the pitch black cave there would be no shadows cause there is no light, and you're correct...
  I think than that the thing, the particles that are entering your eyes so you're able to see, is wherever forms the space fabric, dark energy in my concepts, but give it the name that suit you the most, photons travel trough space fabric, your eyes work capturing the light, for this the muscle of an ocular globe do not have a very dense atomic structure, not one that "gravity", and by that I mean gravity A, at the quantum level, compression of space fabric is able to pass trough the interior of your eyes, is acceptable once that the photon does, and the atomic structure of your eyes is less dense that one of a wall that it can't, not the photons but the fabric it is traveling trough...

  So I accept that the "Dark particle" could be the invisible particle of wherever form the space fabric, assuming that the photon reached your eyes traveling trough space, these also is explained as why our eyes hurt when looking to a strong light but our skin does not, so its hard to put in words but I thing that I comprehend your point of view, and get to the conclusion that your question cannot be answered yet, but its not incorrect, and probable is correct...
  The way darkness penetrates your eye "compression"
 compression of what?
 Space fabric from outside in being compressed against the atomic structure of your eye, as it is doing with any other matter out there.
 The darken particle could be represented, by wherever gin-clear particle or substance that forms this fabric.
 Why does it seems to be black, its black because of the absence of photons moving around, but this absence of photons wouldn't change the fact that space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, and it is transparent, in the absence of exited photons, and once again..
 Our eyes can't see the invisible, the color is resultant from the existed photons over a space fabric that is transparent to light, no light no color, but this is not dark or black indeed, its invisible... Space fabric in the absence of exited photons, does not produce light, even if light is a effect of this fabric, there is no existed particles, the fabric inside a pitch black cave would be completely invisible, so you're not being able to see trough space fabric, but your eyes would be working anyway, simple that your can't see the walls around you cause there is no light around you and your eyes can't see, although you're not blind, the gin-clear hasn't changed...

 So sorry, in answering to your specific question, yes there is a particle or something entering your eyes so you can see, all the time, even if your eyes are closed...
 I simple still think that is not "dark", the substance is invisible, and there is nothing like it, not even glass nor clean water can be compared to it, there are things that will block the light from entering your eyes, as put a black glass, this will cause "shadow" because of the dense atomic structure, but the absence of light at night would not be the same thing, your eye would not be able to see the space fabric around you, it's invisible, but the particles that are caring the "absence of light" to inside your eyes, is the same that are caring the light, so with 100%, there is something invisible entering your eyes so you can see, if you want to call wherever forms the fabric of space as the "darken particle", than you wouldn't be wrong at all...

 and this explanation is a little bit confused cause, share a concept that one does not agree it's very hard, feels unreal, but than again, the act of trying to is much more acceptable than simple deny it's possibilities, simple cause is better try to be wrong than accept the premise that one is absolutly correct when the decision was made based on a prtial knoledge...

I think you understand the question and know how I ''tick'', thanks.

I will reply further to the post after I wake up proper.

People really can't see the ''beauty'' of the question and all it means.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

People really can't see

Yeah that's the kind of the whole problem, we can't see, but if there are people outhere that accept the possibilitie of negative mass, why not open to the possibilitie that there is the oposite of the white light, I man no one have ever see a planet or asteroid not existing and having considerable mass, althoug we close our eyes to the fast that nothing interacts with space fabric in the way a photon does, I think you're correct, I just thing that the particle is actually invisible, and the dark outhere is a result of depth of what we can't see, in the whole question I do accept the possibilitie of a particle not one that is traveling trough space fabric, but what forms it... Not sure if are particles or substance, or super masive prothons, the only gasp is that it can't interract with dense attomic structure and its related with the photons, similar to them...   Observing universe maybe one particle alone, a super massive photon or something like that, and we are existing within it, it can't interract with matter only with different temperatures, such as the photon that forms light...

You see, the last interview I read from Tesla he mentioned many things back there that only nowaay we are confirming, like everything is ligth and space fabric is only inactivated matter, he was the guy to anwser the questions about ligth, even the vibrations and frequencies he was correct about...
 The problem with our understanding for will always be the "weigth concept", for me it always sounded unreal at least for planets, many people outhere relate the eletromagnetic bounds within atoms and particles as provinient of themselves, talking about gravity A, I do believe that dark energy can't flow trought an atoms, and this fact alone forces the flow to work around them, compressing them and depending of the the frequency of the atomic structure it atracts more or les particles to it, preducing different kind of matter, the charges are from the particles around the atoms, but their bounds I do believe that is provinient from dark energy around, using general compression because its colder temperature and the heat these bounds cause heat up the space within the atoms and also the one within the atoms and the particles, we will always get to the same conclusion but one is looking at gravity and saying that every single atom structure is the cause of gravity, and I that the atomic structure only provides different temperatures when compressed, and trough this generating more stronger or less expansion.. Basicly for me gravity is exclusive related with dark energy on the quantum level being represented as gravity A with is the compresion of dark energy at the quantum level agains the expansion caused by the frictions of atoms and particles, and at the astronomical level, gravity B, being generated in the same frame but by the the precense of the celestial bodies, just by existing,inside the space fabric, form me all materia structure is a "hole" on its fabric, simple by existing, the same as a rock inside another sphere filled with water, the water can't flow trough the atomic structure of a rock, but is will never be resting on the areas surroinding the objects, simple because it will be always tring to fill the hole on the fabric, in this scenario represented by a rock... For me the weight concept is simple a "alwas comes with" but not real at all, all that mater for gravity B is if you are dense atomic structure mass and if you're big, this will not change the expansion at the gravity A perspective, the atomic expansion force, but it will change the the expansion at the gravity B level....

 In a rudimentar model if you simulate a planet size object with the same size of earth using a very strong and dense atomic structure as layer and set o the interior of such object a eletromagnetic device that generates the artificial poles, the space fabric would not care or know if your are empty on the interior, it will compresse you with the same amoung of compression proporsional to your artificial expansion, being the solid natural planet or the artificial sphere generating eletromagnetism, both will be the same thing to it... For me a crost of a planet is casuality, the heat on the interior generating eletromagnetism leaking from the poles is the only things that matter and determines how much compression you'll recieve from outer space, the effests you're atificialy producing and not the weight of your mass bending space, once they are existing within the compression of a horizontal spiral disk generated by a star or black hole, there only ifference between both is the existence of the same crost, as long the are on the horizontal disk being compressed they have no weight and always will be space that is being itself around them...
 For me two objects will never atract one another, but their very existence will inevitable force space fabric to conserve energy and by that the most pratical way is push one agains the other within its flow, compressing them... How would we know if we can't see space fabric?
How one would know for sure that not the charges of the particles, but their bounds within the elesctrons is not provenient from the invisible compresion of gravity B due different frequencies? Different temperatures?  Ypu can look to a planet or atom as much as you want, the both concepts will seem to be correct, and humanity would accept not the most logical one, we will consider that the objects that we can see are the source of the atraction, above the possibilitie of the compression of a invisible substance being pushing one against the other, it would always seems the same...
 one could even calculate with accuracy the force of the "reactions" without have ever compreed if they where atracting due eletromacnetism and weight bending space or being compressed by the very space due the different temperatures, "density" the heat of their vibrations, "frequencies" were changing the density of space fabric, they don't even need to be heating up, they only need to be more colder than the space normal temperature, and the gravity A the heat provinient of their atomic tructure would be aways present, meanin that at the quantum level the object is not at the same temperature and density of the enviroment around them, they would inevitable sees to be bein atracted one by the other...
  I can also be totally wrong, but somethings tells me that I'm not, my prove will come or not when they finally get close enought to observe a black hole, if they get to the conclusion that is a deep depresion a hole indeed due its weight over space fabric, I'll disconsider my theory, but if they get to the conclusion that it is actually expanding out, I'll know to be correct, not the details but the general cocept of heat and cold interacting with space fabric and not the weight...  At this very moment warp space will be changed from generating negative matter to bend space, simple to cause a specific sort of heat behind to expand and push, and generate or not very cold temperatures forward to compress, just like a EM drive is doing but with a very different design and in a much more efficient way than a propulsor...

[guest39538]

People really can't see

Yeah that's the kind of the whole problem, we can't see, but if there are people outhere that accept the possibilitie of negative mass, why not open to the possibilitie that there is the oposite of the white light, I man no one have ever see a planet or asteroid not existing and having considerable mass, althoug we close our eyes to the fast that nothing interacts with space fabric in the way a photon does, I think you're correct, I just thing that the particle is actually invisible, and the dark outhere is a result of depth of what we can't see, in the whole question I do accept the possibilitie of a particle not one that is traveling trough space fabric, but what forms it... Not sure if are particles or substance, or super masive prothons, the only gasp is that it can't interract with dense attomic structure and its related with the photons, similar to them...   Observing universe maybe one particle alone, a super massive photon or something like that, and we are existing within it, it can't interract with matter only with different temperatures, such as the photon that forms light...

You say we can't see!   But what if we can see and the brain is directly connected to the constant quanta whole of ''invisible'', this invisible ''thing'' being an invisible couple/circuit  that connects our brains with seeing matter and spectral content between 400-700nm  .

I believe I could show this to be true, if we place any opaque object in front of our eyes the connectivity to any objects behind the object is lost.

If we placed a sheet of glass in front of our eyes we retain connectivity because the glass is ''invisible'' like the space is ''invisible'' so we don't really notice the glass that well.


We close our eyes we lose most of the connectivity, although we can see bright lights or shadows etc with a bright light illumination.


I agree light has to enter your eyes so that you can see things, but how far does the connectivity extend from the brain to the object?

I would say all the way because I can quite clearly distinguish distance and even measure it and I ''see'' colour in its exact location.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

If we placed a sheet of glass in front of our eyes we retain connectivity because the glass is ''invisible'' like the space is ''invisible'' so we don't really notice the glass that well.

yeah we share almost the same concept, but see a glass would do that not by being invisible, the glass on your example is the same as close your eyes looking to light, space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, the density of them...

 I do understand but I thing the property of the glass being invisible or not is irrelevant, its the atomic structure of the object that changes, any lower dense atomic structure, the tort of density that would still let light pass trough, means that space fabric compression is also able to pass trough, like a piece of clothe or anything, I really thing the glass being invible or not is irelevant for your expermient to be correct, you never needed the glass in the first place, any less dense atomic structure that light can pass trought would have done it too...

 I'm short of time, a tip, thing about the density of your fingers when you turn a flashlight against your opened hand, now do it with your hand close, now change your hand for a piece of transparent glass, see? The passing trought it is still the same thing...

[guest39538]

If we placed a sheet of glass in front of our eyes we retain connectivity because the glass is ''invisible'' like the space is ''invisible'' so we don't really notice the glass that well.

yeah we share almost the same concept, but see a glass would do that not by being invisible, the glass on your example is the same as close your eyes looking to light, space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, the density of them...

 I do understand but I thing the property of the glass being invisible or not is irrelevant, its the atomic structure of the object that changes, any lower dense atomic structure, the tort of density that would still let light pass trough, means that space fabric compression is also able to pass trough, like a piece of clothe or anything, I really thing the glass being invible or not is irelevant for your expermient to be correct, you never needed the glass in the first place, any less dense atomic structure that light can pass trought would have done it too...

 I'm short of time, a tip, thing about the density of your fingers when you turn a flashlight against your opened hand, now do it with your hand close, now change your hand for a piece of transparent glass, see? The passing trought it is still the same thing...

I know the glass is not entirely invisible , it has a low opacity, however look at the glass from a different perspective, we can see through the glass it has no spectral content between 400nm-700nm  ,  the light ''passing'' through the glass is still invisible , the glass is ''invisible'',

A good example of my meaning is this

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

If we placed a sheet of glass in front of our eyes we retain connectivity because the glass is ''invisible'' like the space is ''invisible'' so we don't really notice the glass that well.

yeah we share almost the same concept, but see a glass would do that not by being invisible, the glass on your example is the same as close your eyes looking to light, space fabric is still penetrating your eyes, the density of them...

 I do understand but I thing the property of the glass being invisible or not is irrelevant, its the atomic structure of the object that changes, any lower dense atomic structure, the tort of density that would still let light pass trough, means that space fabric compression is also able to pass trough, like a piece of clothe or anything, I really thing the glass being invible or not is irelevant for your expermient to be correct, you never needed the glass in the first place, any less dense atomic structure that light can pass trought would have done it too...

 I'm short of time, a tip, thing about the density of your fingers when you turn a flashlight against your opened hand, now do it with your hand close, now change your hand for a piece of transparent glass, see? The passing trought it is still the same thing...

I know the glass is not entirely invisible , it has a low opacity, however look at the glass from a different perspective, we can see through the glass it has no spectral content between 400nm-700nm  ,  the light ''passing'' through the glass is still invisible , the glass is ''invisible'',

A good example of my meaning is this

I already understand your Idea, I would only be able to anwser by noon, but I can already give you the short awnser not what the space fabric is, but take back there your diagram, the one with the ballon representing dark energy, keep the diagram but consider the darkne poarticle was already there, it is dark energy, it wasnt irradiated with ligth it was already there, it's always there, penetrating your body, compressing it self against it, being pushed away by your own grvaity A, but in the case ofthe eye its always going in, as with the skin...
  In a rudimentar shor version, keep the diagram and expand the dark energy ballon over the hole diagram background, your darkton particle will be not wrong, it is wherever forms space fabric invisible substance, and yeah you're correct maybe the color of the darkton particle is indeed invisible and we see it as it is, transparent to ligth...
 But one thing is for sure it was not iradiated with the photon as ligth does, it was already outside the window "null", it was already inside the room, ad no mater to where you're looking it is already around you and compressed against your eyes, close them would be not enought to block it from penetrating... You need indeed cover your whole had with a very dense atomic structure, althoug there will be sace within the atoms that form your very eyes anyway.... you simple can't get rid of dark energy compression against you...

[guest39538]

I already understand your Idea, I would only be able to anwser by noon, but I can already give you the short awnser not what the space fabric is, but take back there your diagram, the one with the ballon representing dark energy, keep the diagram but consider the darkne poarticle was already there, it is dark energy, it wasnt irradiated with ligth it was already there, it's always there, penetrating your body, compressing it self against it, being pushed away by your own grvaity A, but in the case ofthe eye its always going in, as with the skin...
  In a rudimentar shor version, keep the diagram and expand the dark energy ballon over the hole diagram background, your darkton particle will be not wrong, it is wherever forms space fabric invisible substance, and yeah you're correct maybe the color of the darkton particle is indeed invisible and we see it as it is, transparent to ligth...
 But one thing is for sure it was not iradiated with the photon as ligth does, it was already outside the window "null", it was already inside the room, ad no mater to where you're looking it is already around you and compressed against your eyes, close them would be not enought to block it from penetrating... You need indeed cover your whole had with a very dense atomic structure, althoug there will be sace within the atoms that form your very eyes anyway.... you simple can't get rid of dark energy compression against you...

I have explained previously about light energy and dark energy being interwoven in various forms of explanation, I just don't think they understood, but clearly you understand my thinking.

Also though what a person has to consider is that  this darkness outside of the window also extends into your room all the way to your eyes, the light and dark interwoven.  Also one has to consider the CMBR which is light but observed to be dark outside the window and it also, I believe extends all the way to my eyes.

Just maybe the CBMR is the Aether for light and a ''medium'' of connectivity for sight, I think there is so many questions to be answered involving these thoughts.


added- Photons and Darktons are interwoven to produce ''invisible'' space relative to sight, however the Photons and Darkton are indistinguishable from invisible space, the photon is invisible in the dark and the Darkton is invisible in the light, producing invisible visual space and a space that contains  objects that are illuminated in which we observe through invisible space by the connectivity of an interwoven Photon and Darkton whole. (a big lol though)






 

[guest39538]

Elaboration- In a universe with only a single star and one observer, it is neither dark or light .

 [ Invalid Attachment ]



typo sorry, ~neither

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

Elaboration- In a universe with only a single star and one observer, it is neither dark or light .

 Yes, understood, the ligth is also invisible, or eyes can see colours does mean it has colours, our cameras also work in the same way of our eyes, oyl the infrared cameras can capture the heat out there, radio waves, ligth waves those are all frequencies, the colour is provided by our eyes alone, what is there is different atomic frequencies depending from where or what element it is coming from...
  Now I have to agree, I can see trought this very room and I can observe the wall, if one remove light my brain would not be able to see the wall not because there is no light but because the density of the invisible fabric around me, till the wall not because photons arent around, but because one could say there is no heat exiting particles...

 Could be a photon when subjected to different temperatures became inactive?
 We know that light is one way or another produced from heat existing photons away from the heat source, would than be possible the photon when submited to cold temperatures became inert?

 Hard to formulate a question but what if now folowing Tesla, could be the case that the heat and not the photons that are traveling? Speed of ligth is the limit sped of space fabric, could be ligth be interpreted as heat beams, like a flashlight, a star, a sun, all those objects emanate heat, exiting photons, cold be the case that the heat and not the photons are moving?

 I mean your question would make sense, photons are related with dark energy, and dark energy is everywhere, the photons only travel trought it, dark energy can't penetrate dense atomic structure, gravity acts as a linear force, could be that dark energy are inactivated photons? And we never indeed trully moved a photon when turning a ligth bulb on? I mean light is also specrum and also is transparent, if the infrared find hidded on a ray of ligth is the only thing that maters?
 The question is colud be the photons by havving no mas never have being moved at all, but instead they simple spread the head amoung themselves?

 Particles are not my thing, ligth could be a reaction dark energy triggers when exposed to heat? Transfering the heat one to another in one universal sea of inactivated photons?
 Could heat activate a photon to transfer the heat to another without have ever moved, and in the same way could could teperatures or the absence of the heat that was transfered away from the heat source become invisible again?
 In this scenario it provides a good expanation for ligth and dark energy, also the reason why nothing be able to travel faster than light.... Would be possible that the photon have never moded simple tranfered the heat to the other by haviing no mass? the effect would be something like a neon led letter, where one light turns on and off one after the other, if you increase the speed it will seems to us that was a ray of ligth when in the reality where one ligth tuning on and off very fast...
 Could than be space fabric formed by potons compacted one with the other to the point they compress wherever they can't interact or penetrate, in this case normal matter?

[PhysBang]

Yes in the darkness there is certainly a lack of visible light/photons, however all the science available and none of it explains why we see the dark in an independent location away from ourselves such as the observation of the window.

Just because one does not know the science doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I have the suspicion that this thread is the result of not looked very hard at or for the available science. There are many books on the physics and psychology of seeing.

One thing that one should understand is that the darkness around us is usually still fairly well lit. So our eyes and brain can distinguish between the amount of light coming from one area and other. And the "empty space" around us is filled with stuff, stuff that often reflects light, so our eyes and brain can distinguish between the amount of light coming from one given volume of space and another.

Plus, there is the fact that what we see is not what the world is like; what we see is a construction of our brain. We never "see" our own blinking, for example, or the slight shaking of our own head, for another example. What we see is not always a good guide to how the world is.

[guest39538]

the colour is provided by our eyes alone,

Possible, but it is also possible that a red apple is just really red outside of our minds. It starts of green then turns red, however we can place a red apple in a shadow and it remains red, there would be no way to know if the apple was still red in the dark, I think it  would be rather naive of us to think that colour did not exist outside of our minds.
And if colour worked like we presently think it does, then surely a blue object would turn red when put into a shadow because the absorption and reflection temporal distortion of light would certainty lose radiation pressure and magnitude.

Like the window and seeing dark in exact location, we also see colour in its exact location.  Light is just for illumination, I think the colours exist without light.

[Ethos_]

  Light is just for illumination, I think the colours exist without light.

That answer is a bit misleading Mr. Box. While the structure and chemical composition of the object in question determines which color we recognize, white light is composed of all the colors of the rainbow. And we only see the colors which the object does not absorb and reflects back to our eyes. An object which we see as black, is in effect, absorbing all the colors present in white light. While an object we recognize as red absorbs all the other frequencies of radiated light, a white object appears white simply because it's surface reflects all frequencies of light back to our eye.

If you've ever experimented with a prism, you should have learned about the refractivity of light and how the different colors of the rainbow organize themselves in a predictable pattern. One interesting fact about the blue bird: It's color is not caused by chemical absorption but by refraction of the light similar to how the prism separates light into it's various frequencies.

[guest39538]

  Light is just for illumination, I think the colours exist without light.

That answer is a bit misleading Mr. Box. While the structure and chemical composition of the object in question determines which color we recognize, white light is composed of all the colors of the rainbow. And we only see the colors which the object does not absorb and reflects back to our eyes. An object which we see as black, is in effect, absorbing all the colors present in white light. While an object we recognize as red absorbs all the other frequencies of radiated light, a white object appears white simply because it's surface reflects all frequencies of light back to our eye.

If you've ever experimented with a prism, you should have learned about the refractivity of light and how the different colors of the rainbow organize themselves in a predictable pattern. One interesting fact about the blue bird: It's color is not caused by chemical absorption but by refraction of the light similar to how the prism separates light into it's various frequencies.

White light is not ''gin-clear'' light, and because we can make ''coloured'' light with  a prism, that does not mean the light is the reason for the colour of objects necessarily.
If you consider the present information and how an object absorbs light and reflects light to give the perceived colour, then the colours should change when an object is put in shadow because the intensity changes so does the absorbing rate and reflecting rate, a blue object according to science should turn red in the shade.


 

[Ethos_]

we can make ''coloured'' light with  a prism, that does not mean the light is the reason for the colour of objects necessarily.

If you read my post through, you should have noticed:

"While the structure and chemical composition of the object in question determines which color we recognize."

The effect of these physical characteristics either absorb or reflect various wavelengths of light.

The end result is: The wavelengths which are not absorbed and become reflected are the colors we see. The character of the object determines the color we see but light is responsible for the transmission of that information.

This thread is just one more example of your inability to sort out good information from the bad and inspires you to concoct another one of your bogus and flawed concepts. We don't see darkness, our minds only recognize the absence of the light. Try taking Alan's advice and close your eyes for a moment and open up your mind for a change..............."good luck with that one"

I'll not be holding my breath...............