dark.

[Klaynos]

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

What o said is not terribly interesting. There is some evidence that human eyes can act as single photon detectors.

[Relative]

What o said is not terribly interesting. There is some evidence that human eyes can act as single photon detectors.

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.

[Klaynos]

They detect single frequency of the range every day in seeing colours.

 

That's not what I said.

 

white light is mixture of frequencies,

Correct

 

the whole is what allows us to see, we see radiation pressure differences of matter opposing light,

 

This seems poorly formed but true to a certain extent.

 

I take away that force, and everything becomes dark in color

 

What force. Nothing has been said of force yet.

 

 

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.

 

Meaningless. Transparent isn't the word. Photons do not strongly interact with other photons.

 

I had it backwards thinking light was transparent.

 

it is the dark that becomes transparent.

Dark s we've discussed is broadly defined as an absence of something. Can you mathematically define darkness in this context so that out could be measured?

[Relative]

That's not what I said.

 

 

Correct

 

 

This seems poorly formed but true to a certain extent.

 

 

What force. Nothing has been said of force yet.

 

 

Meaningless. Transparent isn't the word. Photons do not strongly interact with other photons.

 

 

Dark s we've discussed is broadly defined as an absence of something. Can you mathematically define darkness in this context so that out could be measured?

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?

Edited October 12, 2014 by Relative

[Klaynos]

No, I don't agree. It's telling meaningless stories.

[Relative]

No, I don't agree. It's telling meaningless stories.

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,

Edited October 12, 2014 by Relative

[John Cuthber]

 

, the dark becomes full of light,

No.

Dark that's full of light isn't dark because the definition of dark is that there's no light.

[Klaynos]

Ignore the human eye.

 

If we have a completely isolated room with no light sources in it and place a photon detector in it out will measure 0.

 

Now we place a single photon source in there pointed at the detector. The detector will detect a single photon.

 

Darkness is not a thing, it's a poorly defined word and should probably be ignored. Ideas are not science. Science is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models.

[Relative]

No.

Dark that's full of light isn't dark because the definition of dark is that there's no light.

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.

Ignore the human eye.

 

If we have a completely isolated room with no light sources in it and place a photon detector in it out will measure 0.

 

Now we place a single photon source in there pointed at the detector. The detector will detect a single photon.

 

Darkness is not a thing, it's a poorly defined word and should probably be ignored. Ideas are not science. Science is the mathematical modeling of the universe and the testing of those models.

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.

[John Cuthber]

light is not an entity,a thing,

 

 

Yes it is

[Relative]

Yes it is

I would argue that light is not really natural, it is only by process that we have by definition light.?

 

Looking out the window now and it is over cast, less radiation pressure on the matter and medium, it is dull, it is darker than when it is more light, I can see clearly a different contrast, brightness, the low level of energy is prohibiting my vision, I do understand very well what is happening, the high frequency is not high enough to see clearly, my eyes need more energy in front of them to see better.

Less light and matter will dull in colour, it is not reflecting at the same rate, when it stops reflecting we know it is night time, it will then become a dark object to our visual.

 

I would add that I would consider light as a thing, but not like the thing current thinks it is,

[John Cuthber]

I would argue that light is not really natural,

Then you are plainly talking nonsense.

[Klaynos]

I have considered every aspect of current light theory, and this is the outcome.

Based on what you've said about Lorentz and coulomb in recent threads I fail to see how this could be the case. Your aversion to maths pretty much makes it conclusive that this is either a lie or a complete lack of knowledge on what would be required to make the statement true.

Oh yeah the eye is still a terrible sensor, we've much better ones they're what should be used for evidence.

[Relative]

Based on what you've said about Lorentz and coulomb in recent threads I fail to see how this could be the case. Your aversion to maths pretty much makes it conclusive that this is either a lie or a complete lack of knowledge on what would be required to make the statement true.

Oh yeah the eye is still a terrible sensor, we've much better ones they're what should be used for evidence.

I could do a model if you wanted , but the point of the model would be pointless to show +frequency = sight in the dark,

 

How can it be a lie when it is based on facts of your own, you say and admit that if we took away certain frequencies it would be dark, so you have to admit that if we add certain frequencies it is light, light is added,

 

 

The big bang made the sun , the sun makes the light, the light is made by a process, a process that adds light to the dark, making it seam always light.

 

 

I would argue that light is not really natural,

''Then you are plainly talking nonsense.''

Light is not natural it is made by process on the Sun, it is a natural process, but not natural, the only entity that is for sure 100% a natural , is the dark.

I understand why you refer to it as natural, but if you think deeper , it is not actually natural , it is a part of process.

[John Cuthber]

I could do a model if you wanted , but the point of the model would be pointless to show +frequency = sight in the dark,

 

How can it be a lie when it is based on facts of your own, you say and admit that if we took away certain frequencies it would be dark, so you have to admit that if we add certain frequencies it is light, light is added,

 

 

The big bang made the sun , the sun makes the light, the light is made by a process, a process that adds light to the dark, making it seam always light.

 

 

''Then you are plainly talking nonsense.''

Light is not natural it is made by process on the Sun, it is a natural process, but not natural, the only entity that is for sure 100% a natural , is the dark.

I understand why you refer to it as natural, but if you think deeper , it is not actually natural , it is a part of process.

That's still nonsense.

[Relative]

That's still nonsense.

Does it really matter how my wording comes across when the answers to undeniable physical process have all been yes?

 

People have technically already admitted it by saying yes to questions from myself.

 

 

There is a word for it, where has there can be no fault in the logic, so every observer has to agree.

 

The logic is rock solid, as solid has darkness looks, but add emr and darkness is no longer solid, we can see through the dark, it is undeniable no matter how hard science tries to add twists.

example and thought experiment to concur with what I have said.

 

It is now going dark outside , I can clearly see the difference compared to my radiant energy in my house. Soon it will be too dark outside to see through the dark, but I can still see in my room.

 

Can any one deny this happens?

[Klaynos]

Logic!=science

 

I've already suggested you stop using a nonlinear observation tool but you've ignored me. What would be the point on continuing if you insist on a flawed measurement system.

[John Cuthber]

No. What people said were things like

 

"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!

 

 

or

"You seem to be trying to find underlying meaning to poor descriptors of the universe, that's not the route to fruitful discovery. "

and

"As Klaynos says, you need to define dark carefully. It is not a typical term used in physics."

 

 

And

"Relative, on 12 Oct 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

thank you , you agreed,

Yes, but it is a trivial statement."

 

 

And

"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 "

 

or "This has no physical importance. "

"Your other statements are pretty much meaningless. "

 

So essentially, people are not agreeing with you except in the trivial matter that the absence of light is dark.

 

[Relative]

Logic!=science

 

I've already suggested you stop using a nonlinear observation tool but you've ignored me. What would be the point on continuing if you insist on a flawed measurement system.

And what exactly would you suggest in a way to measure something that can have no maths?

No. What people said were things like

 

This is rather like saying that a glass of water is still empty, but full of water!

 

 

or

"You seem to be trying to find underlying meaning to poor descriptors of the universe, that's not the route to fruitful discovery. "

and

"As Klaynos says, you need to define dark carefully. It is not a typical term used in physics."

 

 

And

"Relative, on 12 Oct 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

Yes, but it is a trivial statement."

 

 

And

"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 "

 

or "This has no physical importance. "

"Your other statements are pretty much meaningless. "

 

So essentially, people are not agreeing with you except in the trivial matter that the absence of light is dark.

 

Can you imagine if someone tells you that black is white, so yes i am confused adding the word light , i have known that word for a very long time , so to try and cast it out of conversation is difficcult

[JonG]

Quote from Relative:

 

The logic is rock solid, as solid has darkness looks, but add emr and darkness is no longer solid, we can see through the dark, it is undeniable no matter how hard science tries to add twists.

 

 

I think that you should consider what actually happens if you shine a light into empty space which is dark. Answer, you see nothing. Light does not illuminate "darkness". It illuminates objects which are in that space and renders them visible.

[Klaynos]

And what exactly would you suggest in a way to measure something that can have no maths?

 

I don't agree with the premise that this cannot have maths. Thus far every physical phenomena had been modelled extremely accurately with maths.

[Relative]

Quote from Relative:

 

The logic is rock solid, as solid has darkness looks, but add emr and darkness is no longer solid, we can see through the dark, it is undeniable no matter how hard science tries to add twists.

 

 

I think that you should consider what actually happens if you shine a light into empty space which is dark. Answer, you see nothing. Light does not illuminate "darkness". It illuminates objects which are in that space and renders them visible.

and that is why you see matter

I don't agree with the premise that this cannot have maths. Thus far every physical phenomena had been modelled extremely accurately with maths.

0+emr = sight , what else can you put?

[Klaynos]

You're still using a poor nonlinear sensor (human eye).

 

We already have maths to describe this, although it becomes significantly easier it you use a different detector, for example a photodiode.

[Relative]

You're still using a poor nonlinear sensor (human eye).

 

We already have maths to describe this, although it becomes significantly easier it you use a different detector, for example a photodiode.

I do not want to sound rude, but the detectors you are talking about, you do not really detect anything that is significant to what I am saying or the dissuades what I am saying.

 

You detect wavelengths, frequencies, energy levels , this has nothing to do with what I am saying, technically light is an illusion and energy conversion by your eyes, it is always dark, and you only see by the frequency adjustment to the radiation, you do and can not deny that in daytime hours you can see through light, but you are not seeing through light, you are seeing through the dark, emr makes the dark ''transparent'' it is undeniable.

If any one of you can say they can see through dark without emr then i will admit im incorrect.

[Klaynos]

Right... This sounds like philosophy. I'm out.