E=mc2 questions?

[Dywyddyr]

Define dark and light in a way to mimic what history says and in the way of a true lack of understanding, or define light and dark to my knowledge and true understanding?

YOUR definition.
I already know how science defines them.
BTW what you have is neither knowledge nor a "true understanding".

So wrong, a prism is evidence that a prism can spilt light up, it is not evidence that the input is a mixture of frequencies

Still wrong, I explained this earlier: if it's not a mixture then any "splitting" simply produces smaller quantities of the same stuff.
It can ONLY split into "different stuff" if it's composed of that "different stuff".

if you call that evidence I would hate to be in a court of law and you were the defence.

Given your persistent lack of logic and rationality...

 

[theorist-constant12345]

YOUR definition.
I already know how science defines them.
BTW what you have is neither knowledge nor a "true understanding".


Still wrong, I explained this earlier: if it's not a mixture then any "splitting" simply produces smaller quantities of the same stuff.
It can ONLY split into "different stuff" if it's composed of that "different stuff".


Given your persistent lack of logic and rationality...

Dark is the absence of sight, dark is the absence of none obscurity to sight, dark is the original state of the Universe before ''light'' was created, dark is transparent to light, dark is always there.

Light is an illusion created inside your head.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dark is the absence of sight

Of sight?
So you're claiming that if I leave a light on in a room but no one is in that room to see anything that room is DARK?

dark is the absence of none obscurity to sight

Er what?
Now you're claiming that it's NOT the absence of sight but the absence of something that renders dark "non obscure".
You're severely confused here.

dark is the original state of the Universe before ''light'' was created

Wow, you're actually close here...

dark is transparent to light

So you're claiming that dark is an actual thing?
This contradicts your first statement that dark is an ABSENCE of something.

Light is an illusion created inside your head.

So dark is the absence of an illusion and "light" is that illusion?
What causes the illusion and why don't we have it all the time?
Why does this "illusion" ONLY turn up when there's a light source available?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Of sight?
So you're claiming that if I leave a light on in a room but no one is in that room to see anything that room is DARK?


Er what?
Now you're claiming that it's NOT the absence of sight but the absence of something that renders dark "non obscure".
You're severely confused here.


Wow, you're actually close here...


So you're claiming that dark is an actual thing?
This contradicts your first statement that dark is an ABSENCE of something.


So dark is the absence of an illusion and "light" is that illusion?
What causes the illusion and why don't we have it all the time?
Why does this "illusion" ONLY turn up when there's a light source available?

Temporal night vision by motion of the planet, we need a greater intensity of EM radiation to see in the dark, our neural receptors convert this coupling of the energy to being light. You turn on a light source, at the sped of light you become submerged in an ocean of ''light'' energy, your eyes are coupled by the constant to all matter and even the light source, the ocean of energy is at a constant to sight, constant in being invisible to all observers with no change, only by change in the constant do you see spectral colours by absorbing and Propagation means.

If you can get your head around that c is constant, dark is a constant, c in the dark makes a constant, all spectral colours in the constant are a constant, then you can clearly see that we see constants within a constant within a constant.

Even if I drop all my other ideas, this is something that science does not consider, and it is very important, Einstein said it, Light is constant to all observers, not just in speed but also in effect by the speed creating more constants within the constant.

 

[Dywyddyr]

we need a greater intensity of EM radiation to see in the dark, our neural receptors convert this coupling of the energy to being light.

You've just claimed that light is an illusion.
Now you're saying (in a very bullshitty round about way) it's not.

your eyes are coupled by the constant to all matter

Meaningless bullshit.

and even the light source, the ocean of energy is at a constant to sight

Since we see when the EM radiation (light) is there and we don't see when it's absent then it's not a constant.

constant in being invisible to all observers with no change, only by change in the constant do you see spectral colours by absorbing and Propagation means.

If you can get your head around that c is constant, dark is a constant, c in the dark makes a constant, all spectral colours in the constant are a constant, then you can clearly see that we see constants within a constant within a constant.

Word salad.

this is something that science does not consider

Do you know why?
Because it's bullshit.

and it is very important, Einstein said it, Light is constant to all observers, not just in speed but also in effect by the speed creating more constants within the constant.

Einstein did not say that.

I note that you haven't addressed the contradictions:
You: Dark is the absence of sight.
You: dark is the absence of none obscurity to sight.
And:
You: So you're claiming that dark is an actual thing?
Me: This contradicts your first statement that dark is an ABSENCE of something.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You've just claimed that light is an illusion.
Now you're saying (in a very bullshitty round about way) it's not.


Meaningless bullshit.


Since we see when the EM radiation (light) is there and we don't see when it's absent then it's not a constant.


Word salad.


Do you know why?
Because it's bullshit.


Einstein did not say that.

I note that you haven't addressed the contradictions:
You: Dark is the absence of sight.
You: dark is the absence of none obscurity to sight.
And:
You: So you're claiming that dark is an actual thing?
Me: This contradicts your first statement that dark is an ABSENCE of something.

Your being obtuse dude, you know very well if we are in a dark cave we will all agree that we observe a constant of dark to all observers, you know very well that light in invisible form is also a constant, you also know that colour in your room is a constant, and this is a constant based on speed, you are being obtuse to real science, I will even drop the illusion part, because i know this is still new science that is not in the books.
Dark - constant
c- constant
invisible state constant
colours constant.

Axioms my friend and true ones that can be observed to be true.

Dark is an actual thing but without solidity, it is not simply the absence of light, that is a very bad explanation when dark is the only natural thing in the entire Universe, it is always there behind the light and does not need anything added to make but rather a subtraction of energy to make.
Dark obscures our sight, technically it is opaque to sight but without solidity.

P.s at night there is an absence of light, but my cat does not agree that there is an absence of light at night.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your being obtuse dude, you know very well if we are in a dark cave we will all agree that we observe a constant of dark to all observers

Since that cave can be lit then dark isn't a constant.

you know very well that light in invisible form is also a constant

See above.

you also know that colour in your room is a constant

Not true.

and this is a constant based on speed

No, it's frequency for colour.

you are being obtuse to real science

You don't know science and what you're doing/ saying isn't science.

I will even drop the illusion part

Because you just realised you can't support it.

because i know this is still new science that is not in the books.

It's not science by any reasonable definition the term. It's wild unsupported speculation based on gross and wilful ignorance.

Dark - constant
c- constant
invisible state constant
colours constant.

All wrong.

Axioms my friend and true ones that can be observed to be true.

Utter bollocks.

Dark is an actual thing

How can it be an actual thing if it's an ABSENCE of something?

it is not simply the absence of light, that is a very bad explanation

Then explain it.

it is always there behind the light

Trivially "true".
The same way "no elephants" is always there behind the elephant.

but rather a subtraction of energy to make.

Which makes it not a thing.

technically it is opaque to sight

No.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Since that cave can be lit then dark isn't a constant.


See above.


Not true.


No, it's frequency for colour.


You don't know science and what you're doing/ saying isn't science.


Because you just realised you can't support it.


It's not science by any reasonable definition the term. It's wild unsupported speculation based on gross and wilful ignorance.


All wrong.


Utter bollocks.


How can it be an actual thing if it's an ABSENCE of something?


Then explain it.


Trivially "true".
The same way "no elephants" is always there behind the elephant.


Which makes it not a thing.


No.

Since the cave can be lit it is not a constant, that is obtuse again, theres no power supply or light source within the cave.

You are arguing undeniable axioms, I will ask you a simple question, if you are in the dark and you add light, does this light allow you to see in the dark?

Use a pen flashlight if you like that way you can clearly see light and dark in the same volume of space.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Since the cave can be lit it is not a constant, that is obtuse again, theres no power supply or light source within the cave.

Matches, torches...

You are arguing undeniable axioms

Since I am arguing them then they're not axioms.

I will ask you a simple question, if you are in the dark and you add light, does this light allow you to see in the dark?

By definition - dark is the absence of light.
Thus, also be definition - if there's light it's not dark.

you can clearly see light and dark in the same volume of space.

Nope.
1) You can't see dark (even by YOUR definition "dark is the absence of sight").
2) If there's light then it's not dark.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Matches, torches...


Since I am arguing them then they're not axioms.


By definition - dark is the absence of light.
Thus, also be definition - if there's light it's not dark.


Nope.
1) You can't see dark (even by YOUR definition "dark is the absence of sight").
2) If there's light then it's not dark.

Why are you always so obtuse?

By definition dark is the absence of light, that is being obtuse and avoiding the question you know is rational and you have to agree with me, light allows us to see in the dark and through the dark, an undeniable axiom that you seem to think you can just ignore and pass off has nothing.
In the daytime we are seeing in the dark by the light intensity, that is no different than night vision and seeing in the dark.
If there is light it is not dark, really? dark is always underneath the light, remove the light and at an instant it is dark and the natural state.

Adding light only removes the dark to sight, gives us the ability to see in the dark, this is an axiom, you are wrong and obtuse when the evidence is obviously there and can be observed.

You are just being awkward and not agreeing with the truth and keep trying to sidetrack the truth.
I know I am correct by the Physics involved,


I will ask another question, If I give you night vision glasses in the dark at night are you seeing in the dark compared to someone with no glasses?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

If i increase the intensity of ambient light for the person with no night glasses, does this not give that person the ability to see in the dark also?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Why are you always so obtuse?

I'm not.
That would be you.

By definition dark is the absence of light, that is being obtuse

No, that's the FACT.

and avoiding the question you know is rational and you have to agree with me, light allows us to see in the dark and through the dark, an undeniable axiom that you seem to think you can just ignore and pass off has nothing.

Wrong again.
Dark is the absence of light.
If there is light then it's not dark.

In the daytime we are seeing in the dark by the light intensity

If there is light - oh wait, didn't you claim that light is an illusion? - then it's not dark.
So we aren't "seeing in the dark".

If there is light it is not dark, really? dark is always underneath the light, remove the light and at an instant it is dark and the natural state.

If there's light then it's not dark.

Adding light only removes the dark to sight

You can't REMOVE dark - you yourself stated this.

gives us the ability to see in the dark

Nope.

this is an axiom

Nope.

I know I am correct by the Physics involved

But you're not correct and you don't know physics.

I will ask another question, If I give you night vision glasses in the dark at night are you seeing in the dark compared to someone with no glasses?

Compared to someone without that device yes.
Because other frequencies become light to me.


I'm sorry but I can't reply for a while because I'm dead.
By your own argument:
I froze to death (because "cold" is a constant and "heat" is illusion).
I starved to death (because "hunger" is a constant and "food" is illusion).
I suffocated to death (because vacuum is a constant and "air" is illusion).
And I couldn't fix any of those because "poverty" is a constant and "wealth/ money" is an illusion.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I'm not.
That would be you.


No, that's the FACT.


Wrong again.
Dark is the absence of light.
If there is light then it's not dark.


If there is light - oh wait, didn't you claim that light is an illusion? - then it's not dark.
So we aren't "seeing in the dark".


If there's light then it's not dark.


You can't REMOVE dark - you yourself stated this.


Nope.


Nope.


But you're not correct and you don't know physics.


Compared to someone without that device yes.
Because other frequencies become light to me.


I'm sorry but I can't reply for a while because I'm dead.
By your own argument:
I froze to death (because "cold" is a constant and "heat" is illusion).
I starved to death (because "hunger" is a constant and "food" is illusion).
I suffocated to death (because vacuum is a constant and "air" is illusion).
And I couldn't fix any of those because "poverty" is a constant and "wealth/ money" is an illusion.

You are being obtuse, it does not matter what I say you will always come back with dark is the absence of light, that is the definition and it could not be possibly wrong because that is what they learnt us.
Why bother to talk if you are going to just post present info back, when i am providing new info and great insight into light?

I have done the quantum slit experiment using my eyes, I have done ray tracing with my eyes, I have experimented with light and laser, I understand EM radiation in a deep way.
You admit by device that you see in the dark compared to someone with no night glasses, why is this? because the glasses use lower levels of energy to see by, your eyes do not have this function like some other species, so your eyes need a greater intensity of light to see in the dark.
My logic is undeniable , you are denying clear axioms and fail to discuss the content of the idea which is a shame because i do know you are clever person.


Are you still denying my constants?

Once you understand the constants properly you will clearly see the matrix of light and how it works . You are missing the great reality and the opening up of science to a whole new era. I understand it very well, I get Einstein, I get all the giants, I understand science more than you think I do.

I wish you would not keep just simply denying it and talk about the merits of the ideas I put forward.

You do have the ability to not be a robot and think for yourself, quoting back what we already know is not good science, you need to visualise my ideas, then you will see reality.
Please just try it, if it is day time where you are just say to yourself I am currently seeing in the dark by the energy i am submerged in, look around your room through the invisible constant and consider the interaction of light on matter and the why's.

You could not imagine how this opens up reality .

 

[billvon]

So wrong, a prism is evidence that a prism can spilt light up, it is not evidence that the input is a mixture of frequencies

Actually it is.

if you call that evidence I would hate to be in a court of law and you were the defence.

Judge: "Can you prove that light is a mixture of frequencies?"
me: "Yes, and I can show you how to separate them. Here. And here are 300 years of scientific evidence showing that is the case."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"
you: "But wait, I have a crazy theory!"

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Actually it is.

Judge: "Can you prove that light is a mixture of frequencies?"
me: "Yes, and I can show you how to separate them. Here. And here are 300 years of scientific evidence showing that is the case."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"
you: "But wait, I have a crazy theory!"

Judge - ''Your prism shows you that it has the capability to separate an unknown input , can you show me in 3 dimensional space the constant I see as invisible, is a mixture of frequencies?''

You - ''but, but, ermmm, no I offer no evidence to prove this''.


Judge - ''Can you provide the mechanism that establishes the mixture to become in uniform lines before it enters the Prism?''


You -''ermmm, no the prism has no mechanism to do that''

Judge - ''can you tell me why if it were a mixture of frequencies, I can receive a carrier signal of a constant through the mix of frequencies that is of the same substance and how the signal does not become washed out in the mix by the mix?''

You - ''errmmm, no I can't answer that either''.


Judge - '' So electricity is a mixture of frequencies because it has different wattages?''

You - ''Oh yes judge , I see your point now''.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

me- ''This is what science says happens judge and there is no mechanism to make unified colour order from the mix''.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Judge - ''can science offer any reliable evidence better than the axioms provided by the objector?''

 

[Russ_Watters]

Just because a judge can't answer gibberish doesnt make it valid.

The funny thing is, crackpots DO occasionally sue to have their ideas recognized (mostly for patents) and it gets pretty funny to read how they get smacked down.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Just because a judge can't answer gibberish doesnt make it valid.

The funny thing is, crackpots DO occasionally sue to have their ideas recognized (mostly for patents) and it gets pretty funny to read how they get smacked down.

I am not bothered about patents or prizes or fame or anything along those lines. I am interesting in learning science , and my learning demands 100% facts for me to deem something to be true, that means the information has to be without question a logical axiom or of an absolute value.
In learning science I found several topics without factual evidence and the evidence that was there is not faultless in questioning.
If you can provide mechanism to line up the relative frequencies of the said mixture, or a logical argument that can show the facts, then I would stand down.
I however already know from countless forum time, science can not give me valid reasoning or offer evidence to support their claims of the mixture of frequencies of white light in 3 dimensional space, when we all know we observe the constant speed , at a constant of making the dark none obscure to sight, a constant invisible equal to sight, and we see constants of spectral colours within the visual constant of the speed constant of invisible to sight.

Science does not even consider this, that even if it could prove that in 3 dimensional space light was a mixture of frequencies, the speed of the mix makes a constant that is visual observed as a single frequency of invisible to sight.


regardless of illusions and everything else I say, science should take note of this if nothing else because this is what we all observe.

 

[Russ_Watters]

L

I am not bothered about patents or prizes or fame or anything along those lines.

It was just a coincidental example.

I am interesting in learning science , and my learning demands 100% facts....

I have yet to see any evidence of either, but in particular, you haven't ever posted any references that I've seen. Everything you have said was generated in your head.