[Just thinking (OP)]

Hi.

   I'm going to go in a different direction with this.

Quote from: Just thinking on Today at 00:02:32

    So to sum up photon + object + eye = light. Photon + object = energy no light. What do you think?

      If you (Just_thinking) want to define light in this way then there isn't much of a problem.  You're effectively saying that light is just a part of the e-m spectrum and we (human beings) wouldn't think it was all that special if our eyes hadn't evolved to react to this frequency.   That's OK.  It doesn't break science or cause anyone much problem.
     Regrettably, the modern English Language and the established specialist scientific lexicon have come to define light as being precisely that part of the e-m spectrum.  The thing that you (Just_thinking) are describing is more commonly given a different name like "Vision"  or  "visual perception".
     You are quite correct in that if light falls on an object and no one is there to catch the reflected light with their eyes then there is no visual perception of the object.   There was only some radiation that did something.

Best Wishes.

Finally a man that has vision yes we must have the mechanism to finalise the process if not it remains as energy and not light this energy has a very broad spectrum that we can not see the portion that we can see is only because we can take that away and we have no light at all. Thank you for your support E.S.

[The Spoon]

Yoy were referring to phhotons as you well know - dont obfuscate. The monitor is generating an image - in this example of something picked up by a camera. You seem very 'box' like.

I have no understanding of what all that means it sounds like bla bla bla to me sorry.

Really? It is really quite simple.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Really? It is really quite simple.

You seem to have missed the point it's all about what is entering the eye called light you seem to be hung up on cameras and electronics and monitors sorry not the subject.

[pzkpfw]

So two photons leave a lit candle:
One enters the eye of an animal and it perceives light.
One enters a plant leaf and is used in photosynthesis.

Were those two photons any different? When the candle "made" them, did it know where they would end up and make them different in some way?

[The Spoon]

Really? It is really quite simple.

You seem to have missed the point it's all about what is entering the eye called light you seem to be hung up on cameras and electronics and monitors sorry not the subject.

You bought up monitors. As i say, obfuscation.

[Kryptid]

Now if we did not have the ability of converting the radiation wavelength that we see then it to would not be light

That still ignores the definition of light. Again, I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.

[Just thinking (OP)]

So two photons leave a lit candle:
One enters the eye of an animal and it perceives light.
One enters a plant leaf and is used in photosynthesis.

Were those two photons any different? When the candle "made" them, did it know where they would end up and make them different in some way?

Thank you my point exactly the plant see's no light and if there was no eye to see then light would not exist only energy that can do other things like photosynthesis and provide heat. Heat is real when there is matter no matter no heat no eye no light.

[Just thinking (OP)]

That still ignores the definition of light. Again, I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.

Light is perceived by the brain via the eye without the brain and the eye we only have radiation no light. Remember we only see a very small amount of the spectrum most of it is radiation not light the little bit that we can see is due to the nature of us take that away and it all becomes radiation no light. What we call sound is a pressure wave it only really becomes sound when it hits the small bone in our ear no ear no sound.

[Kryptid]

Light is perceived by the brain via the eye without the brain and the eye we only have radiation no light. Remember we only see a very small amount of the spectrum most of it is radiation not light the little bit that we can see is due to the nature of us take that away and it all becomes radiation no light. What we call sound is a pressure wave it only really becomes sound when it hits the small bone in our ear no ear no sound.

Again, I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Again, I ask you to provide a dictionary definition that supports your position.

This topic is in new theories. New theories are not found in any dictionaries. PS thank you for putting this topic in new theories it works better here.

[pzkpfw]

So two photons leave a lit candle:
One enters the eye of an animal and it perceives light.
One enters a plant leaf and is used in photosynthesis.

Were those two photons any different? When the candle "made" them, did it know where they would end up and make them different in some way?

Thank you my point exactly the plant see's no light and if there was no eye to see then light would not exist only energy that can do other things like photosynthesis and provide heat. Heat is real when there is matter no matter no heat no eye no light.

Yes or no please: are the photons - in flight - any different from each other?

[Kryptid]

This topic is in new theories. New theories are not found in any dictionaries. PS thank you for putting this topic in new theories it works better here.

"Light" is a word with a generally well-accepted definition. Arguing that such a word means something different than what the dictionaries claim it does is a bit of an oxymoron. If you are going to create a new definition for something, you might as well create a new word to go along with it.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Yes or no please: are the photons - in flight - any different from each other?

The photons are the same but they are doing two different jobs.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Light" is a word with a generally well-accepted definition. Arguing that such a word means something different than what the dictionaries claim it does is a bit of an oxymoron. If you are going to create a new definition for something, you might as well create a new word to go along with it.

My topic states that it is light that we see I have used the word light a number of times I have not denied that we see light and use light so why do I have to redefine the word light to you.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Ok if we are in the dark we see no light that is the definition of darkness we don't go around saying we are in the light we just can't see it like infrared light. The definition of light is the light we can see in the spectrum the definition of darkness is all the light we can not see.

[Bored chemist]

the definition of darkness is all the light we can not see.

No, it isn't.
Darkness is the absence of light we can see.

[Just thinking (OP)]

No, it isn't.
Darkness is the absence of light we can see.

That I will agree with so if we were to evolve into a creature that can not see this light it would be as the rest of the spectrum darkness no light my whole point all along darkness no light only magnetic radiation. Light is only light when it is perceived as such we don't call all the rest of the radiation light unless we detect it as light. Any creature that cant see light and there is quite a number of them only feel the radiation as heat.

[Bored chemist]

we don't call all the rest of the radiation light unless we detect it as light.

Yes we do.
For example, we consider the light that falls on the solar panels of a satellite and provides it with power.
Why do you make categorical statements which are so obviously wrong?

[Just thinking (OP)]

A big misconception in scientific thinking is the term photons move at the speed of light wrong photons move at the speed of photons. Photons have the potential energy to produce light when in contact with light receptive cells until then they remain as photons/energy not light.

[Bored chemist]

A big misconception ...

... is your attempt to redefine light.