Relative

of cause its light if it is filled with light, but only what we perceive to be light. emr fills the glass, it is now light, the dark has gone, do you agree? the glass is transparent, I can see through the glass, I can see through the dark because it is filled with light, and only can I see through the glass because it is filled with light, i remove the light, it is dark again because dark is always there, Our eyes adjusted to the frequency of radiation to allow us to see through the dark, light is not an entity,a thing, you can disagree that if we removed all the emr it would be dark, and you can not deny that dark is the absent of light, you can not deny that we can see through ''light'', light makes darkness transparent . light allows us to see through darkness, this also is undeniable, and you know it is if I was honest. and if you hit me in the eye with a single photon i will see a flicker, that is irrelevant , and this is where you try to deny the facts, and add models , when a model is not required when the evidence is undeniable. This certainly puts an uncertainty principle to what we think currently. I have considered every aspect of current light theory, and this is the outcome.

That is not meaningless or a story, the absence of light is darkness, the adding of emr frequencies is light, dark we can not see through, it is a little bit on the undeniable side seemingly. I understand myself the concept of day and night, and it is not my fault I can clearly see by observation what actually happens. You can clearly see it , it is in this thread, I do not want different science either, but surely you have to admit there may be something in what I am saying. I cant think of any other explanation that rules out what i am saying. I had a huge theory on light been transparent, I got it back to front, and have only just realized. I am not a crank , I can not help that science has taught me to think and use my mind, and no I am not over confident and think I am better than anyone. I wanted to share what I think, and you should understand this, that one day i will be gone, so I need to share ideas,

Putting maths to something like this is probably not possible, although I have consider Energy and volume. Yes dark is the absent of something, but light is the adding of something, Try this exercise please, consider dark, consider dark as a solid because you can not see through it, I fill my glass full of dark, you can not see through it, it is solid, I then add certain emr frequencies to the glass, the solid becomes transparent, do you agree with this?

They detect single frequency of the range every day in seeing colours. white light is mixture of frequencies, the whole is what allows us to see, we see radiation pressure differences of matter opposing light, I take away that force, and everything becomes dark in color From the moment you open your eye lid radiation floods in, your eyes are looking through a transparency, the transparency been dark, light makes dark transparent. I had it backwards thinking light was transparent. it is the dark that becomes transparent.

You say it yourself night vision eyes , think about what you just said.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the reaction opposite to light is dark, this shows us that volume of energy of light has to be equal to the volume of dark, Dark is the Physical starting point of the Universe and you say it has no Physical importance? Dark is a Physical conduit for electromagnetic radiation, emr travels through the dark. Dark is the singularity before the big bang that always exists, and can never not exist. But ok, if it is of little importance to science, I will not discuss the volume and reflections at night , simplified version - certain emr frequencies give us night vision eyes

yes i think you understand , thats got be a first for me. without the emr it would be dark, emr is added to dark, so although we see light, it is still dark, but filled with emr, the frequencies allow us to see through the dark.

I am saying that light is not a thing, it is not real, it is an illusion created by evolution, I am saying we see in the dark, I am saying it is always dark, but the radiation allows us to see in the dark. It does not change that it is dark, we just see in the dark. Ok, I do understand it is very difficult to understand, I confuse myself at times with these thoughts. I will add a diagram , a reversal with explanation, and then i hope you understand. The diagram shows, inside a huge box with a flashlight with directional diffuser, The surrounding volume to the light is dark, only can you see where the light is added, I move the direction of the light, and it fills the dark, but it does not remove the dark, it only adds energy to the dark. Light is added, so now if you consider and remove the flashlight and change it to a sun, isotropic direction, the dark becomes full of light, the light has to continue, to flow, or it goes dark again , do you agree? That light is not really a thing, it is just evolution to the frequency that we see. and i thank you all for the proper conversation, I take my words back Can we take the conversation further and discuss the volume of dark compared to volume of light and greater reflections by night?

Daylight , night time, take away the daytime photons it is dark, we only see because the frequencies allow us to see in the dark, space, our visual universe , is filled with emr, take it away, it is always night, we would not see. We evolved to see in the dark by evolving to the frequency of radiation to allow us to see. With out the evolution, we would be technically blind. That is why my comment it is always dark, even when daytime, we see in the dark.

You are comparing to physical bodies. It is not like saying anything except what actually happens in the process. Dark is the absence of light. thank you , you agreed, '' it is always dark without these photons.'' It is always dark, dark is the natural , take away photons it is dark, just because you add radiation, that does not take away the dark, it only allows us to see in the dark.

No, my science basis in on your science, I do not post a concept unless I am 100% sure it is a possibility. The logic involved and rational thinking, tells me that without emr it is always dark, night, so just because the glass is filled, it does not mean that the empty space is not still there. But disguised. I can do a diagram and show you

Not really , water has a Physical body, but yes in comparison I will use your quote. Night is the empty glass, I fill it with water , and leave it filled, you would never know that the origin of the glass was empty space, take away the water you see empty space, You empty the glass, the empty space is the natural, emr is not a natural , emr is processed, where as dark is the empty space. The whole of the visual universe is an empty glass, filled by the process of emr, take away the emr , then we have empty space. Darkness. I 100% think that it is always dark, and in example I will ask you to consider night, and the orbit, if we drew a line around the orbit, representing night, we would have a dark circle, a circumference that was dark, if we move our planet about the universe, you will always see the dark, night, the blocking of emr allowing us to see the natural state of before light creation. That may sound confusing , but if you understand that u will understand my concept

Again you agree with me and disagree, at the same time, you say'' but we can't see it because it is at a wavelength which our eyes aren't sensitive to.'' It is a wavelength that is to weak for our eyes to see, in the day all the frequencies are there, it is still dark in respect to , that if we remove the emr it is dark, we have to add light, to dark, dark is the natural, you may well see it has light in the day, but you are not seeing light, you see it as light, because our eyes are use to the radiation frequency. I understand this is hard to get your head around, technically you see light has a thing, dark is a natural , You see light in the daytime, but you are not seeing light, you are seeing the radiation , the radiation that fills the dark. it is still dark but full of radiation, do you agree? EMR allows us to see in the dark.

So technicalities apart, you are agreeing with me, because you know emr is apart of process. You also know if emr is removed it is dark, so technically even in day time, it is still dark but the darkness is full of the EMR, a shadow is the blocking of light, I believe night shows us the original of the Universe. I do not think light is a thing, I think light is no more than evolution to the radiation, allowing us to see. What do you think on this concept?

So you agree, so you must also agree that it is always dark, and it is only by the constant of emr that we do see?

Would you agree that electromagnetic radiation in the range of ~400 to ~700 nm. allows us to see in the dark?

Thanks for the normal sounding reply, often science forums answer questions and word it basically as if they were WIKi, understanding some of wiki is not easy, the wording , you have to be a genius to just decode what they mean at times, I do agree this forum is probably the best I have come across, BUt I need to talk my ideas through, not be told I am wrong it is this way, I already know what science says, and do not chuck out random ideas, my ideas are all current science, but slightly edited , changed, it is not my fault I see an Often Paradox. I have got one forum disagreeing saying that If i took away all of the emr, it would not be dark, hey really.

Can someone please assist me and tell me where I can find a science forum, that does not expect their members to know every single Phrase , word and meanings, be a literate genius and can discuss science, and not keep discussing current science that we already know? I have found on several forums that they expect seemingly you to know everything, and you are not aloud to make mistakes or have any of your own thoughts, I accuse all these forums of been the Johovah witnesses of science . I intend on finding an open forum, not a stereotypical forum.

Would you consider that radiation pressure is strong enough to cause friction from an opposing force?

I have been considering mph , and I do not understand how mph can be true , when a curvature velocity running parallel to a linear velocity at the same mph travels slower compared to the linear. Can someone explain how this works?

You say none at all, I will ask you to reconsider that , and quote you - ''Lastly, the photosphere, the visible surface of the Sun, is where visible sunlight is free to propagate into space(move into space). The energy then washes across the surface or atmosphere of the bodies in the solar system. Here on Earth the atmosphere filters some of the UV rays but passes a portion of that energy. The energy bounces off of the surface and is then reflected back by the atmosphere. After this bounce the Earth absorbs some of the energy and our planet is heated'' Anything that bounces, is reflected, has force, in a weightless vacuum, how much force would you consider it takes to move an object f=ma, friction is zero,? I consider light is energy, and the energy may have enough force in a weightless vacuum to accelerate matter?

and if you could change the zero net charge of matter to equal output you will break the equilibrium. And you say the Sun is full of electrons and protons so no net charge, this is speculation, how do you know this? Why can a solar flare knock out communication, EMP, electromagnetic pulses, electricty and from the other thread to continue, He has no Neutron , less mass, Proton-proton chain , does this create electrical energy, if so what polarity?

Sorry thought I was in the electricity thread. ''Contrary to popular conception, the purpose of particle physics is to understand the everyday world. The current theory of fundamental interactions among the quarks and leptons depends on eighteen parameters, which are a priori arbitrary. '' None of what you know is actual fact, unless you have current observations ? and will go over to the electricity thread sorry

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, Gravity has an opposite, something that is opposite is anti, so anti-gravity exists. The Earth is not charged, really?, the Earth's core emits electrons, the core contains electrical energies, heat , radiation, etc, Mankind creates electrons, an object can become statically charged, but the mass of the Neutron is greater than the energy contained in a Proton. He, is repelled by the Earth, the energy in the Proton been equal to the Earths emitting electrons. Something that becomes Ionized, saturated in energy, is more of a plus than a negative, less mass by repelling force been equal to G. What becomes charged, Protons, Gravity is an amplitude of input that also has an amplitude of output, Fn=0, increase the amplitude to equal output amplitude and it should f=ma You add electrical energy to a Proton it gains mass? Anyone ever considered, that the electrostatic coupling between a Proton and an electron, is not actually a coupling, and the electron is an emit from the Proton?

'' Yes, equilibriums of electrostatic balancing, hydrogen , been more charged, making it anti gravity, repelled by earths charge, I have the sun has positive, the core has positive, the ground, mantle, crust, at a negative, because of higher Neutron mass. ...protons. One electron itself has a negative charge of 1.602176565 × 10 −19 coulomb. In the centimetre–gram–second system there are two units of electric charge: theelectrostatic unit of charge, esu, or statcoulomb; and the electromagnetic unit of charge, emu, or abcoulomb. One coulomb of electric charge equals about 3,000,000,000 esu, or one-tenth emu.