Cadmus

Almost, but not quite. To some degree, yes. Have you ever had a look at the night sky? Did you consider that the night sky is to a large degree filled with darkness? Yet, you could make out the structure of the entire sky, could you not. You did not only see light from stars surrounded by indecipherable nothingness that you determined to mean that there was non-existence, did you?

There is no need to theorize. The universe is flooded with radiation, most of which is outside of the visible spectrum. Nothingness is a meaningless concept. What you call nothingness is the complete inability of the eyes to decipher information from the EM radiation that is constantly impacting the eyes. Everything in the universe is a source of EM radiation.

Have you ever looked at the night sky on a clear moonless night? There are many dots of light, known as stars, but most of the night sky is filled with darkness. If you were to make a map of the night sky, would you map the stars, and just cut out the areas of darkness? No. The areas of darkness are not interpreted by the eyes as nothing, or non-existence. The eyes can recognize that the darkenss is in the vicinity of the light, which would not be possible if the eyes saw zero. The sky looks like a continuous spectrum of existence, not lights in the midst of non-existent nothing.

Yes, exactly. Darkness, like light, is the human interpretation of portions of the EM spectrum.

In modern China, that thought and a quarter will get people a cup of coffee. Many people are disillusioned with the Chinese government. Remember the June 1 (1989) incident? What did that change?

I think not in the near term certainly. The cultural and political climate is too different. I think that when tens of millions of rural people flooded the cities every year the factory owners had the upper hand. Now, things are showing signs of change, and workers have more choice. Perhaps unions or union-like structures will follow. This is much less like in the near term, I think. Already happening.

No need to imagine. It is already forecast that China will surpass the United States as the number one producer of cars withiin the next 5 years or so. Chinese made furniture is also booming in the U.S.

My. my, you do sound like you are pouting. I told you before that you have the right to your opinion, but that I disagree with it. You, however, prefer to pout. Your "fact-derived knowledge" versus our "opinions, devoid of fact and reason". What a joker you are. Ha, ha. Good, let this thread finish. It is clear that you are in no mood to defend your opinion.

Now you understand what we are dealing with. How does your statement that relates only to the Chinese culture have any relationship at all to the Korean culture? Are you serious? Your sources are either not relevant, such as your point about the Yellow River valley, or are otherwise not convincing. Surely you realize from the reaction that you have been getting that your arguments are not convincing. I contend that the Chinese were the major source of cultural developments, and that Korea and Japan borrowed much more heavily from China than the other way around. I would think that you agree, given your statement about the Yellow River civilization. However, it seems that you do not. Yes, there are many similarities in culture, due mostly to the outward reach of the civilization of the Yellow River valley. Linguisitically, I am not sure what you are saying. Korean and Japanese have borrowed heavily from China. Therefore, in this sense, there are many similarities. In the same way, English borrowed heavily from French and Latin. Here again there are similarities. However, there are important fundamental differences between English and French, despite the similarities. The linguistic differences between Chinese, Korean, and Japanese are far, far greater than the differences between French and English. Therefore, although I agree that they are similar, in the sense that I do not think that there is zero similarity at all, I think that you are claiming a far greater degree of similarity than I am. Please provide any examples of Chinese lingistic borrowing from Japanese or Korean, other than unrelated words. The influence of Chinese culture on Korea and Japane is extremely significant. However, the very different ethnic groups of Korean and Japan adapted what they borrowed to their own culture. The Chinese, Korean, and Japanese civilizations are composed of ethnically very different people, with extremely different linguistic forms, and very different cultures. There has been a large amount of borrowing, mostly from China, and not by China, but this does not make them "similar" in any way as significant as you seem to be implying here.

We all get that way sometimes. Let's discuss something else in another thread. Perhaps we will find ourselves on the same side sometime.

I agree. However, I see this in no way supporting, or even being relevant to, your point. Which part do you consider false, or do you disagree with all of it? Do you have other evidence than to demand that we check your seemingly non-existent sources? I have no idea your point might be, so I will just assume that you have none. I do find it humerous that you preface your labeling my statement absurd with a meaningless statement of your own. Your use of the word absurd makes me think that you are getting upset because we don't agree with you. Perhaps you think that you are an expert on Asia, and that if others of us who also think that we are knowledgeable on Asia disagree with you that you should try to use words like absurd to show us how well you can argue. To me, it seems as though you really do not understand what you are arguing. Your only defense seems to be to demand that people check your irrelevant or non-existent sources.

Other than me, I assume. Are you suggesting that "true darkness" does not exist in our daily lives and is therefore a meaningless concept? If so, we should have defined the term in the beginning, before spending so much time arguing over its attributes. Let us agree to try again in a different thread.

Assuming that the priestess told all of the women, 40 men were killed.

I agree, and it does not seem to be going anywhere. Perhaps we should just move on, rather than continuing it.

OK. I don't consider the term very meaningful for this conversation. Fine, define it this way. I don't mind, as I don't consider the term very important or meaningful here. I don't think that it is useful to imagine a hypothetical situation which cannot and does not exist as a justification to deny a situation that does exist. To answer your question, I consider that if the eyes see darkenss, then they are seeing light that is outside of the visible spectrum. By the way, if you were in a faraday cage, whatever that might mean, do you think that you would you be able to see or otherwise sense yourself?

Yes, culturally, racially, and linguistically, they are very different. THe Koreans did borrow heavily from the Chinese. This is an excellent post, in my opinion. This is true, but you have the direction in reverse.

I am not familiar with the specifics of faraday cages, and therefore cannot comment on this. I think that this is not possible in the sense that I am considering it, particularly the notion that I might be inside of a faraday cage without photons, since the body emits EM radiation. I went to the web site http://www.boltlightningprotection.com/Elemental_Faraday_Cage.htm, which states: Since a perfect conductor is an idealization unavailable in nature, perfect Faraday cages do not exist.

No. Go in your room at night, shut the windows, and turn out the light. You can observe complete darkness. What does this mean? It means that all light (EM radiation) that impacts the eyes is outside of the visible spectrum. It does not mean that in this situation zero EM radiation makes contact with the eyes.

Please expand on this. I don't know of their similar ancestry, except that conquest leads to interbreeding. Hardly a sign of brotherlieness. I think that China had by far the greater influence on Korea. This last sentence says it all. I accept that you believe this. However, I find it very hard to recognize this at all. Surely you can recognize that many people will not be swayed by your evidence, nor is this really necessary or to be expected.

I have problems with the notion that light is made up of distinct, separate, and unrelated entities called photons, which are not integrated into the wavefront of the radiation of which they are a part.

I agree that light is massless. I disagree with your contention that nothing more is necessary than to consider that light is made of photons. Although this is a useful concept, it has many problems. Unfortunatlely, I think that this is not the proper forum to hold a discussion on the concept of photons and the nature of light.

OK. This is perhaps one reason for our dispute. I consider that all EM radiation is light. I think that it is not possible for there to be no radiation at all. Your definition of darkness fits with your defintion of light, which is a usage that I have not been using. The problem is the level at which we are discussing. Using your definition, which I do not share and which I have not been using, I can follow your point. Do you understand my usage of the word and the point that I am making on the basis of it?

I quite agree. My point is that a dictionary definition of a word in a normal usage context is not necessarily appropriate in a scientific context. Useful, yes, but also misleading at the same time, in my opinion. I think that the wave concept if very important in this discussion. No, not an ether. However, the universe is flooded with electromagentic radiation. This radiation travels the universe, interacting with objects that it encounters. For example, some of it interacts with our eyes, such that we see things. I consider that light travels as a wave. Consider water waves as a partial analogy. The wavefront is affected by the objects in its path.