Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Would you agree that electromagnetic radiation in the range of ~400 to ~700 nm. allows us to see in the dark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonG Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Would you agree that electromagnetic radiation in the range of ~400 to ~700 nm. allows us to see in the dark? Yes, provided that there are objects in "the dark" which reflect this radiation back to our eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 Yes, provided that there are objects in "the dark" which reflect this radiation back to our eyes. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonG Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 it is only by the constant of emr that we do see? I agree that we see by light (electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range you specified) entering our eyes. We wouldn't see without that happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 I agree that we see by light (electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range you specified) entering our eyes. We wouldn't see without that happening. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonG Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 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, What do you think on this concept? I think you are referring to what the word "dark" means. If there is light around and some of it is entering your eyes, then it isn't dark. So in day time, it isn't dark - it's light. Slightly off the point, even at night time, there is lots of electromagnetic radiation about, but we can't see it because it is at a wavelength which our eyes aren't sensitive to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 I think you are referring to what the word "dark" means. If there is light around and some of it is entering your eyes, then it isn't dark. So in day time, it isn't dark - it's light. Slightly off the point, even at night time, there is lots of electromagnetic radiation about, but we can't see it because it is at a wavelength which our eyes aren't sensitive to. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonG Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 the radiation that fills the dark. it is still dark but full of radiation, do you agree? This is rather like saying that a glass of water is still empty, but full of water! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 This is rather like saying that a glass of water is still empty, but full of water! 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Dark is not a scientific term. Bit it can have several meanings which could be mapped to scientific terms. Dark, the absence, or significant lack of visible light according to the human eye. This has a mapping to energy flux of light in the visible spectrum. The mapping is not trivial as the human eye is a nonlinear observation tool. Dark the lack of brightness of an object compared to another as observed by a human. This can be mapped to the reflectivity of an object, and it's surroundings. This again is not trivial as the eye is nonlinear and the processing is complicated. You seem to be trying to find underlying meaning to poor descriptors of the universe, that's not the route to fruitful discovery. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 Dark is not a scientific term. Bit it can have several meanings which could be mapped to scientific terms. Dark, the absence, or significant lack of visible light according to the human eye. This has a mapping to energy flux of light in the visible spectrum. The mapping is not trivial as the human eye is a nonlinear observation tool. Dark the lack of brightness of an object compared to another as observed by a human. This can be mapped to the reflectivity of an object, and it's surroundings. This again is not trivial as the eye is nonlinear and the processing is complicated. You seem to be trying to find underlying meaning to poor descriptors of the universe, that's not the route to fruitful discovery. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 This is pointless, it's like saying I'm still hungry when I have eaten- it's just that I don't notice it because my stomach is full. No. If my stomach is full of food, I'm not hungry: and if there is enough light to see then it's not dark.. Also re. "I do not post a concept unless I am 100% sure it is a possibility." I'm 100% sure that unicorns are a possibility, but I still wouldn't try to post a lot about them. What, exactly, do you think "dark" means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. As Klaynos says, you need to define dark carefully. It is not a typical term used in physics. Anyway, if you define dark to be absence of photons in the visible spectrum (just absolutely) then yes, it is always dark without these photons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 This is pointless, it's like saying I'm still hungry when I have eaten- it's just that I don't notice it because my stomach is full. No. If my stomach is full of food, I'm not hungry: and if there is enough light to see then it's not dark.. Also re. "I do not post a concept unless I am 100% sure it is a possibility." I'm 100% sure that unicorns are a possibility, but I still wouldn't try to post a lot about them. What, exactly, do you think "dark" means? 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. As Klaynos says, you need to define dark carefully. It is not a typical term used in physics. Anyway, if you define dark to be absence of photons in the visible spectrum (just absolutely) then yes, it is always dark without these photons. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 thank you , you agreed, Yes, but it is a trivial statement. Without photons that I can at least in principal detect*, then I cannot detect photons. So what? * we have to note that we only see photons that enter our eyes. So for example, we would not see a laser beam unless some of those photons are scattering of some medium and entering our eyes. So we have to be a bit careful by what we mean by dark in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 Yes, but it is a trivial statement. Without photons that I can at least in principal detect*, then I cannot detect photons. So what? * we have to note that we only see photons that enter our eyes. So for example, we would not see a laser beam unless some of those photons are scattering of some medium and entering our eyes. So we have to be a bit careful by what we mean by dark in this context. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 You are not self consistent. You state that dark is the absence of light and then say when you have light you still have dark. Sorry but that just doesn't make sense and has no use to physics. It is best to ignore human observations and rely on instruments, they're easier to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 We evolved to see in the dark by evolving to the frequency of radiation to allow us to see. Yes, we evolved to see in a range that the Sun supplies the Earth in a significant amount. It would be plausible that aliens with a sun that produces EM radiation that peaks at some other frequency then their eyes would be tuned to that and not what we describe as the visible spectrum. So, where are you heading with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) You are not self consistent. You state that dark is the absence of light and then say when you have light you still have dark. Sorry but that just doesn't make sense and has no use to physics. It is best to ignore human observations and rely on instruments, they're easier to understand. 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? Yes, we evolved to see in a range that the Sun supplies the Earth in a significant amount. It would be plausible that aliens with a sun that produces EM radiation that peaks at some other frequency then their eyes would be tuned to that and not what we describe as the visible spectrum. So, where are you heading with this? 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? Edited October 12, 2014 by Relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 I kinda get where you are heading with this. If the sun, for some reason, would stop emitting emr in the visual spectrum, but still emitted UV and IR wavelengths, everything would be dark to us, but there would still be emr, just with a frequency gap in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 I kinda get where you are heading with this. If the sun, for some reason, would stop emitting emr in the visual spectrum, but still emitted UV and IR wavelengths, everything would be dark to us, but there would still be emr, just with a frequency gap in it. yes i think you understand , thats got be a first for me. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 This has no physical importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 This has no physical importance. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Light isn't an action as considered by Newtonian mechanics. Your other statements are pretty much meaningless. We know how human eyes work and we understand electromagnetic radiation. Being able to see at night is because there are some visible spectrum photons, it is not complete darkness. The eye is nonlinear so you cannot draw direct brightness comparisons using your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relative Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 Light isn't an action as considered by Newtonian mechanics. Your other statements are pretty much meaningless. We know how human eyes work and we understand electromagnetic radiation. Being able to see at night is because there are some visible spectrum photons, it is not complete darkness. The eye is nonlinear so you cannot draw direct brightness comparisons using your eyes. You say it yourself night vision eyes , think about what you just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts