Cadmus

On the concrete streets, you are free, in my mind at least, to define darkness however you like. I will not argue with you no matter what your definition.

I see absolutely no sense in which any of these citations suggests that the Chinese and the Koreans ever liked each other. Please connect the dots from your citations to your conclusion. The United States teamed up with Saddam in order to fight the Iranians. Any number of examples of "teaming up" does not necessarily imply to me that they did so out of brotherly feelings. Your friend certainly has the right to his opinion. Would you please ask him if believes that the bulk of the Chinese share his feeling? In my experience with China, I wold be very surprised if this were the case. Other than the opinion of your friend, which is valid as an opinion and which I cannot challenge, if for no other reason than I do not have access to your firned, would you please make the connetion between your citations and your conclusion that the Chinese and the Koreans have any type of brotherly feelings. I am sure that if we read the newspapers in China nowadays we willread lots of nice things about Korea, particularly the north, due to the current political climate. Perhaps your friend, who you state is a poli-sci student, is picking up on current political events. Would you ask him if he is knowledgeable about the total history between these two countries and if he still maintains his statement within the context of their entire history, or even within, say, the recent thousand years?

All of the senses constantly receive input. Not all input is within the range that the sense can process in the way that we normally refer to when we speak of the sense. If the eyes "see" somthing then it must be light. That's what the eyes see. You seem quite free with your pronouns. In this example you say "we". However, you do not mean "we". You are refering to yourself, and even then you are speaking outside of a scientific context, in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you understand what you are doing. When you say "we", you are projecting your context onto me, which I claim is not appropriate.

Your definition here and your usage throughout considers light in the sense of the common English usages for the term, and is not a thoroughlly scientific usage, in my opinion. I think that I understand where you are coming from. However, I disagree that this is the whole story. I contend that just as the sun's gravity impacts the side of the earth that is not facing it, the sun's light also impacts the side of the earth that is not facing it. Furthermore, such light is shifted out of the visible spectrum before it impacts objects on the far side of the earth. I am interested in what you mean by wave properties. Might you expand on this? I ask because I consider that your use of photons is just a "particle property" of electromagentic waves. I believe that the eyes are saturated with light throughout a person's entire life. Most of the light is outside of the range that registers in the brain as vision. Darkenss is not lack of light, but an interpretation of the light that impacts the eyes constantly. Fair enough.

I looked back through this thread for the historical evidence that you say that you posted, but I could not find it for some reason. Would you please repost it. I for one cannot imagine how anyone might claim that the relationship between the Chinese and the Koreans throughout history has been what might be called brotherly.

A question. Do you have some particular experience with Japanese? I ask because you use the Japanese word gaijin in your reference to Asians.

I think that you are missing the point. The old sea scrolls are no closer to the modern English translations, are they? This is true even if you compare the spelling of the words in the old sea scrolls with the spelling of the words in any of the modern English translations. I read the Old Testament in Hebrew and in English. In my opinion, some of the stories lose EVERYTHING in the translation.

I think that you made a typo. In Java, the char data type is a 2 byte unsigned integer. The purpose of the 2 byte type was that Java was designed early on to support unicode.

If we were to accept that such an entity as darkness exists, what would you consider to be its nature and its composition? By the way, I contend that we can see darkness. I think that no one here has suggested that we do not.

Tycho did not claim to be sure, he said that he is "pretty sure". Perhaps he expects all question to cease on the basis of that.

Are you suggesting that you might have a box through which zero electromagnetic radiation could pass? I don't think that this is possible. I also don't think that the notion of "photons in the box" is meaningful, but that is another topic.

The word dark does have meaning. Light and dark refer to different experiences with perception of the electromagnetic spectrum. Other people here seem to use darkness to refer to the absence of electromagenetic radiation, rather than to the absense of perception of the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The eyes are light receptors. Our world is flooded with electromagnetic radiation. There is never a complete (or even near complete) absense of radiation in our environment. It the eyes can see darkness, then it must be light, because they eyes see light. They do not see non-existence.

How quaint. Are you suggesting that you believe that no child has ever complained about the phrase under god in the pledge?

I think that you should consider your good fortune that the teacher was so gracious in coming around to your point of view. I believe that this is quite rare.

It is not ever possible to notice that there is no light, as there is always light. Darkness is a notion that pertains to light that is not within a narrow range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The eyes sense light. Darkenss is a form of light. I wonder if those of you who say that darkness is not light are considering light not to refer to all electromagnetic radiation but only to electromagnetic radiation witin the visible spectrum.

I disagree. In order for a person to see darkness, the person must be seeing light. Darkness is light.

how can you be such a comedian? you cannot

I personally have nothing to contribute to your argument. However, there was an article in the May of 2003 Scientific American entitled Infinite Earths In Parallel Universes Really Exist that describes the implications of infinite parallel earths concerning permutations such as the one that you mentioned. You might be able to access it at http://www.sciam.com.

Here we are in disagreement. I do not think that the people who inserted these words in the pledge of allegiance, over the objections of those who did not want their kids to be subjected to such exposure on a daily basis, did so only to point out to those who desire not to expose their kids to the words under god on a daily basis that they are being forced so that they can recognize how free they are. Children are subjected to such a formalized vocalized reference to god on a daily basis in a captive audience in these other religious references. Are you attacking him because he did not take all such references to the supreme court at the same time, but perhaps only choose what he considered to be the most egregious and immediate threat to the well-being of his child? For that, he is a fanatic? Are you suggesting that all religious references are equal in their potential threat to children, such that being pressured, even if only slightly in your opinion, to a daily vocalization of god is identical to prayers in the congress that the child is most likely not aware of? Many people in this country think that schools should not promote religious concepts. The law seems to agree. Are you suggesting that since money has a reference to god schools should have no expectation of expemption. Wonderful argument. Either yes or no, with no option for qualifying your conditions, and either way you consider him a zealot. I think that you must recognize that some people do not consider this extremely fair-minded of you.

As you read about how the words under god were inserted into the pledge in the first place, do you consider that those who inserted a reference to god over the objection of those who did not want it to be religious fanatics? Why do you conisder Newdow to be a fanatic for wishing to remove the forced exposure of his kid to the word god on a daily basis? It is one thing for you to desire that his kid be forced to endure a religious reference in a public school on a daily basis, but for you to label him a fanatic for not agreeing with you is quite extreme, in my opinion.

Please give an example of a modern society that currently does not use money, and indicate what producers and consumers use to interact in this society.

How about money? Several of the submitted items are requirements for mere subsistence. Are these really also suitable as requirements for a modern society?