Light and darkness vectors

[kenjimckinstry]

Light and darkness are vectors upon a two dimensional graph. Notes are shown below. They may be hard to read so zoom in.

[Ghideon]

4 hours ago, kenjimckinstry said:

They may be hard to read so zoom in.

Unfortunately zooming in does not help; I'm still in the dark regarding what you wish to discuss, can you please enlighten me?

[kenjimckinstry]

Light and darkness have a certain relationship in a tensor. The formulas I laid out show this to be true. You must measure the angle of refracted light to determine the tensor 

[Sensei]

"Lightness" is presence of photons, and "darkness" lack of photons..

There are various ways photons are created. Typically by black-body emission. Which means the hotter body is, the more energetic photons are emitted by it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

 

[kenjimckinstry]

Darkness has inverse photons. In the refraction of light the black doesn’t travel as far as red.

Edited October 2, 2020 by kenjimckinstry

[Sensei]

11 minutes ago, kenjimckinstry said:

Darkness has inverse protons. In the refraction of light the black doesn’t travel as far as red.

Object/material with black color (from human's point of view), absorbs photons with range between 400 nm to 700 nm (at least), in visible light spectrum.

It has nothing to do with refraction etc. etc.

You're starting writing some nonsense..

"Black" is lack of any photons in visible spectrum (between 400 nm to 700 nm at least)..

 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Sensei

[kenjimckinstry]

Black is the lowest color in the real spectrum of light. Darkness is an aspect in science.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, kenjimckinstry said:

Darkness has inverse protons. In the refraction of light the black doesn’t travel as far as red.

What evidence do you have for this? 

I assume you mean inverse photons. What are they?

[kenjimckinstry]

Sorry I changed it. If we view it through a new tool we can see them.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, kenjimckinstry said:

Sorry I changed it. If we view it through a new tool we can see them.

New tool? Such as?

The burden of proof is with you. Being tight-lipped with details is the opposite of helpful. You need to provide evidence and/or some way of testing your conjecture. If you don’t, it will be assumed it’s because you can’t.

 

[Sensei]

On 10/3/2020 at 1:31 AM, kenjimckinstry said:

Sorry I changed it. If we view it through a new tool we can see them.

Whether it is the old sentence "inverse protons" or new fixed "inverse photons", it is still nonsense. "inverse protons" are antiprotons, particles with some properties equal to protons, but some other properties reversed, e.g. electric charge, Baryon number etc.

In the Standard Model of particles, the photons are their own antiparticles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Sensei