beecee

And making up additional ad-hoc rules as he goes along. sheesh!

Let me as a lay person try and answer your question in as simple a fashion as possible in Newtonian fashion.. There are four known forces....the strong nuclear, the weak nuclear, electromagnetism and gravity. Per capita, or per fundamental particle, the strong nuclear force is by many orders of magnitude stronger then gravity...But this force only acts over very short ranges, within the range of atomic distances. Likewise the weak nuclear force. So we really don't experience these too much in every day life. We do though experience the EMF which is also per fundamental particle stronger then gravity and like gravity acts over long distances, falling off as per the inverse square of the distances involved. But the EMF tends to cancel itself out due to opposing positive and negative charges. Gravity though while acting over long distances, is totally accumulative and is also only attractive. In effect, gravity has no limitations, and can be increased ad-infinitum as mass is gathered. Gravity is why we have stars, it is why stars can form BHs, and why BHs have an EH from which nothing can ever escape.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-astrophysicists-planets-extragalactic-galaxies-microlensing.html Astrophysicists discover planets in extragalactic galaxies using microlensing February 2, 2018, University of Oklahoma The gravitational lens RX J1131-1231 galaxy with the lens galaxy at the center and four lensed background quasars. It is estimated that there are trillions of planets in the center elliptical galaxy in this image. Credit: University of Oklahoma A University of Oklahoma astrophysics team has discovered for the first time a population of planets beyond the Milky Way galaxy. Using microlensing—an astronomical phenomenon and the only known method capable of discovering planets at truly great distances from the Earth among other detection techniques—OU researchers were able to detect objects in extragalactic galaxies that range from the mass of the Moon to the mass of Jupiter. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-astrophysicists-planets-extragalactic-galaxies-microlensing.html#jCp the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aaa5fb/meta Probing Planets in Extragalactic Galaxies Using Quasar Microlensing: Abstract: Previously, planets have been detected only in the Milky Way galaxy. Here, we show that quasar microlensing provides a means to probe extragalactic planets in the lens galaxy, by studying the microlensing properties of emission close to the event horizon of the supermassive black hole of the background quasar, using the current generation telescopes. We show that a population of unbound planets between stars with masses ranging from Moon to Jupiter masses is needed to explain the frequent Fe Kα line energy shifts observed in the gravitationally lensed quasar RXJ 1131–1231 at a lens redshift of z = 0.295 or 3.8 billion lt-yr away. We constrain the planet mass-fraction to be larger than 0.0001 of the halo mass, which is equivalent to 2000 objects ranging from Moon to Jupiter mass per main-sequence star.

Hmmm...We see via the organ that evolution has bestowed on us, called the eye. To see requires light from the visible part of the spectrum to enter the eye via reflection and/or refraction. If no part of the visible spectrum is reflected/refracted to enter the eye, we essentially only then see black...or the absence of any part of the visible spectrum. The nature of any light/photons that are reflected from any object to the eye, are then totally independent of what happens to that object, and are only dependent on the fabric of the framework it is being radiated through, and that we call spacetime. eg 1: photons from distant objects in space appear redshifted due to the framework [spacetime] being stretched. [expanding] eg 2: Also of course if a being on a planet orbiting the star Betelgeuse should observe that star to go supernova, we on Earth would still continue to observe the light that has left that star for another 650 years, before the light from the supernova reaches us. Therefor I conclude that we see at least part of the EMS that we term the visible spectrum via the evolutionary organ we call the eye.

What doesn't hit your eye is never seen in any circumstances. Afterall the eye is the organ that enables us to see and works by receiving and recognising the part of the EMS that is visible to the eye. That's physics...that's how the universe works.

As do a increasing number of scientists these days....eg: Professor Lawrence Krauss.

Clear as an Orange in the dark!!

It seems to me that a major part of the odour of a person of a particular nationality, maybe a result of their staple diet/s. eg: curry, garlic additives in larger then average quantities?

Firstly what you need to do is use the "quote" function properly...secondly, if there were no photons of light, you would just see the absence of colour, or black. The rest is simply philosophical jargon. Posting in upper case letters does not make you correct, nor change the fact that the colour of any object depends in the first instance, on the frequency of the visible EMS that is reflected from that body to our eyes. Light/photons are certainly visible to our eyes, otherwise the world would be permanently black.

Bingo!!

I was once involved in a debate re "what colour is an Orange in the dark. It was eventually agree after a long drawn out debate that in the dark [no photons of light] the Orange is black...that is it has no colour. In other words the colour of any object depends on the wavelength of the visible part of the EMS that falls on it. If photons are not reflected into the eye, the eye and its transmitters have nothing to determine. I see that favouring the position that light/photons are visible. This is a debate re the nature of light. There are so far two reasonable opinions. You again need to accept that. Either [1] You are wrong. [2] Your argument is solely based on semantics and pedant and philosophical in nature, or [3] You are putting your argument rather poorly and acting the same way. I suspect it is a combination of the first two. You see cars because your eyes detect light...yes, if there was no light, you would not see your car. Then you say you can't see light! ???

It also makes no difference to me what you wrongly claim. What I'll do is cling to the empirical evidenced based science of light and photons. In the meantime once again, let me inform you that you do not get to rewrite science or your own definitions from the comfort of your chair in front of a computer screen. Your unsupported philosophically based claims here will in time be lost in cyber space and the scientific methodology will continue via the proper path.

Therefor we do see light and your philosophical pedant is just that.

What is reflected into your eyes is the actual light in the form of photons...When we see beams of light in a dusty room, we see the photons scattered off that dust and so we see an apparent path via the beam of photons scattered off that dust and illuminating the path. We don't say that we see a beam of dust, we say we see a beam of light, albeit light that is reflected off that dust into our eyes. Putting it scientifically, the photons that enter our eyes, strike our retina and triggers neural signals to our brain. Our brains interpret those signals into a recognised pattern that we recognise as the shape of whatever the object was that reflected those photons into our eyes. It's still photons that we see though.

The BB/Inflationary model of the evolution of spacetime/Universe, is by far the best model we have. The onus is on you to put up a better model for consideration, not just make a lengthy posts with errors and self opinionated unsupported notions. So what is the model that you subscribe to to best describe the universe we observe?

The Australian candidates of the year are selected by committees in each of the states and territories as designated by the Sate governments governments. I just see it as rather nice and gives one a symbol of hope that a genuine scientists has won. Plus I wasn't real sure where to put this anyway.

Firstly its not a belief....It's a scientific description based on empirical evidence, secondly your opinion that you know better, is just that....your opinion: It does not really hold much sway in a science forum, nor in science and academia in general. Likewise black is without doubt not a colour but is what we see when there is no colour. All frequencies of the visible EMS have been absorbed by the particular object, or there are simply no photons of light present.

The definition is correct....Black is not a colour...Black is the absence of colour...It occurs when an object absorbs all frequencies of the visible part of the EMS. You need to accept that. Great stuff! It certainly validates the reasonings etc, as to why scientists such as Lawrence Krauss, and Neil De Grass-Tyson are at times critical of philosophical arguments.

Take a Disprin and have a good lie down. Again, no. Black is not any colour...it is the absence of colour and yes it is colourless, or black....and it is what we see when the object concerned absorbs all fequencies within the visible part of the spectrum.

Let's put that another way...Colour is simply the terminology describing various EMR frequencies within the visible part of the spectrum. Any object that absorbs all the frequencies within the visible spectrum, is seen as black...or with no colour, which can be termed the absence of colour.

State whatever you like matey, but you really don't get to change definitions nor apply new physics on a science forum and in the mainstream section. Black is simply the absence of colour.

It is you that is wrong. Black by definition is the absence of colour. Water in general is transparent and light is visible by definition and we call that the visible spectrum. Put our Orange that we normally see as Orange, under a pure say green part of the visible spectrum, and the Orange wlil not be Orange but purple from memory.

Irrelevant. Colour depends on the type of EMR that falls or enters one's eyes. What colour is an Orange in the dark? It has no colour.

Today, Friday 26th Jan is Australia Day, celebrating 240 years since colonisation in Sydney Cove in 1778 by Captain Arthur Philip of the first fleet. Quantum physicist Michelle Simmons named 2018 Australian of the Year Quantum physicist Michelle Simmons has been named 2018 Australian of the Year, in recognition of her work in the "space race of the computing era". The University of New South Wales professor is leading the development of a new type of computer, which would allow humans to solve problems in minutes that might otherwise take thousands of years. A "quantum computer", which could look at all possible outcomes simultaneously, has the potential to change approaches to areas such as weather forecasts, stock markets, facial recognition, self-driving cars, traffic flows and drug development. more at link..... http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/quantum-physicist-named-2018-australian-of-the-year-20180125-h0ob29.html

The reflection off the air molecules are photons/light...I see the light, I don't see air molecules. The Sun rose for me this morning was certainly real....just as real as the same Sun was seen as setting by someone else, some where else. They were both certainly reality. Or let me put it this way, all frames of references are as valid as any other. No, colour depends on the EMR that enters the eye.