[guest39538]

It's preposterous to say that science has some how managed to "leave out" light travelling in space.

But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.

added- science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies.  White light is different to the randomness of the light permeating through space. We can't see randomness, not only in probability but also when discussing the nature of light. We can only see or detect things that are constant and have enough intensity and magnitude compared to the chaos.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns,

Permeability (electromagnetism), the degree of magnetisation of a material in response to a magnetic field

Consider the field itself as been a material relative to other fields. (N-field).

The degree of magnetisation of a field in response to a magnetic field

[guest39538]

t's possible that the path is chaotic- that's sometimes done deliberately.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9806183.pdf
as far a I'm aware, it is currently in the box marked "fascinating, but useless".
The chaos arises from a chaotic substrate.

Why would a clear path - air, or even a vacuum- do that?

Or glass, because it has low permeability of the field magnitude.

[Bored chemist]

But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.

No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 

Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.

We can't see randomness,

Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.

[guest39538]

But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.

No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 

Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.

We can't see randomness,

Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.

I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light

[Bored chemist]

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-monochromatic-light-how-used-468051

[guest39538]

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-monochromatic-light-how-used-468051

I think you will find that ''light''permeating through space is colourless therefore it can not be monochromatic.   It has no colour, especially not white. 

Like I said science as not covered the nature of this.

You can't provide information because there is none. 

So lets discuss.

added- for the purpose of discussion are you happy calling the electromagnetic radiation that permeates through ''free space'' , clear light?

[Bored chemist]

If it has no colour, how does it "know" to make, for example a bit of paper light up blue or green?

Just because nobody is looking doesn't stop it having a colour.

Since you are simply flat out wrong, I can't provide information about your hallucination.

added- for the purpose of discussion are you happy calling the electromagnetic radiation that permeates through ''free space'' , clear light?

It's just light; there's nothing "clear" about it.

You need to get to grips with the fact that light is light.
You only see it if it goes into your eye.

[guest39538]

If it has no colour, how does it "know" to make, for example a bit of paper light up blue or green?

By feedback ,

Since you are simply flat out wrong, I can't provide information about your hallucination.

added- for the purpose of discussion are you happy calling the electromagnetic radiation that permeates through ''free space'' , clear light?


It's just light; there's nothing "clear" about it.

You need to get to grips with the fact that light is light.
You only see it if it goes into your eye.

If it has no colour, how does it "know" to make, for example a bit of paper light up blue or green?

The magnitude of feedback.

It's just light; there's nothing "clear" about it.

Huh, no, it is very clear in appearance between my eyes and object, the light is invisible/clear between eye and observation. You are quite mad if you think it is not. I can see it is.

[The Spoon]

But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.

No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 

Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.

We can't see randomness,

Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.

I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light

So you have never seen light shining on a surface from the sun for example? Is the light on the surface clear? Of course it isnt Mr. Pigeon.

[guest39538]

But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.

No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 

Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.

We can't see randomness,

Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.

I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light

So you have never seen light shining on a surface from the sun for example? Is the light on the surface clear? Of course it isnt Mr. Pigeon.

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.

[The Spoon]

But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.

No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 

Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.

We can't see randomness,

Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.

I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light

So you have never seen light shining on a surface from the sun for example? Is the light on the surface clear? Of course it isnt Mr. Pigeon.

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.

Oh I see. So it is the special kind of light that you have made up that we are talking about? Not the light that everybody else is referring to? Good diversion pigeon.

[guest39538]

But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.

No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 

Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.

We can't see randomness,

Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.

I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light

So you have never seen light shining on a surface from the sun for example? Is the light on the surface clear? Of course it isnt Mr. Pigeon.

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.

Oh I see. So it is the special kind of light that you have made up that we are talking about? Not the light that everybody else is referring to? Good diversion pigeon.

huh.... are you reading something else.

[The Spoon]

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

[guest39538]

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?

[The Spoon]

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?

A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.

[guest39538]

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?

A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.

It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.

[The Spoon]

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?

A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.

It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.

In other words, the definition does not conform to what you think it should do, the world does not conform to what you think it should, evidence does not confirm your deluded beliefs so you accuse people who point out your mistakes of trolling. Amazing how many people you accuse of trolling really. You remind me of Donald Trump but without the intellect.

ETA. This is not an airport so there is no need to announce your departure.

[guest39538]

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?

A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.

It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.

In other words, the definition does not conform to what you think it should do, the world does not conform to what you think it should, evidence does not confirm your deluded beliefs so you accuse people who point out your mistakes of trolling. Amazing how many people you accuse of trolling really. You remind me of Donald Trump but without the intellect.

ETA. This is not an airport so there is no need to announce your departure.

How about I be totally blunt with you, you are stupid.  You are not a clever person, you can only do remembrance of subjective dogma,

End of continue to be stupid.

[The Spoon]

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?

A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.

It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.

In other words, the definition does not conform to what you think it should do, the world does not conform to what you think it should, evidence does not confirm your deluded beliefs so you accuse people who point out your mistakes of trolling. Amazing how many people you accuse of trolling really. You remind me of Donald Trump but without the intellect.

ETA. This is not an airport so there is no need to announce your departure.

How about I be totally blunt with you, you are stupid.  You are not a clever person, you can only do remembrance of subjective dogma,

End of continue to be stupid.

Yep. Like 'the Donald'. Where facts are inconvenient to your belief, they are 'fake news'. Enjoy your delusion Pigeon.

[guest39538]

'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.

Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?

A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.

It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.

In other words, the definition does not conform to what you think it should do, the world does not conform to what you think it should, evidence does not confirm your deluded beliefs so you accuse people who point out your mistakes of trolling. Amazing how many people you accuse of trolling really. You remind me of Donald Trump but without the intellect.

ETA. This is not an airport so there is no need to announce your departure.

How about I be totally blunt with you, you are stupid.  You are not a clever person, you can only do remembrance of subjective dogma,

End of continue to be stupid.

Yep. Like 'the Donald'. Where facts are inconvenient to your belief, they are 'fake news'. Enjoy your delusion Pigeon.

You is the one who is delusional and some way thinks they are clever.. Why not face reality and accept you can not do any science.