It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!

[theorist-constant12345]

Einsteins speed of light is said to be constant to all observers. Known has C, the speed is recorded at
299 792 458 m / s, and this is said to be a constant speed, observed by all observers.

I would firstly argue the observed part, observed being a visual, and we can not directly observe light, we can only measure the electromagnetic wave.

The constant being a quantity, I would like to mention the other constants involved, that are observed, but have no quantity, but are constant by observation.


3 dimensional space is observed by all observers, as a constant, what is is referred to as white light in empty space.

Sight is constant to all observers, we all see at an equilibrium to the white light, and see white light in 3 dimensional space, as invisible light, and not visible light. And we all observe seeing objects through the invisible empty space, of 3 dimensional space.

Dark, constant to all observers, without EM frequencies present, all observers observe dark,and observe dark to be opaque to sight.

From my observations , I would perceive that dark, is transparent to light, and allows light to pass through it, making the dark , see through to our eyes.

From my observations, I would also perceive , that all matter , except when in shade, is submerged in an ocean of EM radiation.

I would argue that light is not constant to all observers, on the basis that a species which is deemed to have night vision, would if they could talk, argue that at night , it is still light , when we would perceive it to be darkness.

I would also argue that, we live within the constant, and only by interaction of EM radiation with matter, do we notice a change in the constant state.


I would also argue that light is not a thing, and it is always dark, on the basis that light is emitted , to make dark light, where dark, is the absence of light, and nothing is added to make dark, it exists has a natural state.

I would also argue that like the other species, who evolved to see using low levels of EM radiation, we evolved to use the EM radiation to see, and what we perceive to be light, is no more than seeing in the dark, and the light is an illusion, generated by sight.


EM radiation has no mechanism to produce light, it is our eyes , that are the mechanism for the energy conversion.

 

[paddoboy]

I would firstly argue

You can argue all you like.
The first thing I would ask you is what are your credentials?
Do you have an agenda? religious, anti establishment bias etc....
Have you written any scientific papers?
Do you have any evidence other then "I would argue?
And finally, when are you going to get this hypothesis peer reviewed?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You can argue all you like.
The first thing I would ask you is what are your credentials?
Do you have an agenda? religious, anti establishment bias etc....
Have you written any scientific papers?
Do you have any evidence other then "I would argue?
And finally, when are you going to get this hypothesis peer reviewed?

I have no credentials, I am self taught, and people from other various forums have also explained present knowledge.
I have no agenda, except to learn and discuss science, and alternative thought and theory.
I have not written any scientific papers, and would not know where to start with trying to get my idea peer reviewed.

I understand the evidence criteria science requires, often maths related, and I know my personal thought , is meaningless without any already established credentials.


The evidence I can offer, it is more based on some undeniable logic, rather than maths, I have considered what positive evidence I could provide, and to be honest , I do not think there is any maths that could be added, only rational thought.

I do understand that me saying it is dark , even when it is seen as light, does sound the craziest idea ever.

 

[paddoboy]

The evidence I can offer, it is more based on some undeniable logic, rather than maths, I have considered what positive evidence I could provide, and to be honest , I do not think there is any maths that could be added, only rational thought.

I do understand that me saying it is dark , even when it is seen as light, does sound the craziest idea ever.

So, from your point of view, you are the only one able to discertain "undeniable logic" on planet Earth, and have been for more then a 100 years?

I'll tell you a few things. I'm only a layman too, with no credentials at all in the field of physics or the cosmological sciences. But I have read quite a bit, and there is a mountain of evidence disputing what you say. Maths isn't needed to refute it.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

So, from your point of view, you are the only one able to discertain "undeniable logic" on planet Earth, and have been for more then a 100 years?

I'll tell you a few things. I'm only a layman too, with no credentials at all in the field of physics or the cosmological sciences. But I have read quite a bit, and there is a mountain of evidence disputing what you say. Maths isn't needed to refute it.

I understand this, and after several years of reading up on EM radiation, I do believe I can explain most of the present processes, and I do believe I have a model that explains all interaction of EM radiation. However being new to this forum, I do not want an instant ban.

And logic wise, I do not think anyone can deny some of the very simple logic involved.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

3 dimensional space is observed by all observers, as a constant, what is is referred to as white light in empty space.

Do we observe space at all?
Surely we observe only what is occupying space.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Do we observe space at all?
Surely we observe only what is occupying space.

There is in present theory , an understanding that all matter reflects light into our eyes so that we can see the object that is reflecting the light.
When in reality, we are submerged in the light, EM radiation would be present without matter to reflect off. And EM radiation, would always be in our eyes without reflective properties of matter.


I hope this clarifies that for you.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The energy from light triggers photoreceptor cells in our eyes, sending messages to the brain.
Light enables us to infer the shape of the object, and its position, and also the colour of light which it cannot absorb.
All we are seeing is light reflected by the object.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

The energy from light triggers photoreceptor cells in our eyes, sending messages to the brain.
Light enables us to infer the shape of the object, and its position, and also the colour of light which it cannot absorb.
All we are seeing is light reflected by the object.

Our eyes act has a remote sensor, we remotely sense change. Spectral colors are interaction of EM radiation, we see this interaction as a difference to the observed constant.

The observed constant being the transparency of dark, illuminated by light , and we all observe in the 3 dimensional space, an invisibility of light, an emptiness of space.

Example - The space between your eyes and an object is filled with air, the air is transparent, and has little to none refraction , we all observe this as an invisible constant, the constant is equal to sight, and sight is equal to the constant.

We notice change in a constant that is not at an equilibrium to the invisible or sight.

 

[paddoboy]

I understand this, and after several years of reading up on EM radiation, I do believe I can explain most of the present processes, and I do believe I have a model that explains all interaction of EM radiation. However being new to this forum, I do not want an instant ban.

And logic wise, I do not think anyone can deny some of the very simple logic involved.

You did post in the right section, so why would you get banned? Considering your approach so far is reasonable, which is far more then one could say for your crazy idea. Sorry about that.

You have not yet shown any logic with what you claim.
Out of Interest, what does your model say about heat energy, the CMBR, infra red, ultra-violet light, and DM?

 

[billvon]

I would firstly argue the observed part, observed being a visual, and we can not directly observe light, we can only measure the electromagnetic wave.

We can directly observe light, specifically light within our visual range. Our eyes allow us to perceive it directly, without external measurements.

From my observations , I would perceive that dark, is transparent to light, and allows light to pass through it, making the dark , see through to our eyes.

Dark is merely the absence of light. There is no material called "dark" that can be transparent vs opaque.

EM radiation has no mechanism to produce light, it is our eyes , that are the mechanism for the energy conversion.

Light IS EM radiation. There is no conversion process.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You did post in the right section, so why would you get banned? Considering your approach so far is reasonable, which is far more then one could say for your crazy idea. Sorry about that.

You have not yet shown any logic with what you claim.
Out of Interest, what does your model say about heat energy, the CMBR, infra red, ultra-violet light, and DM?

I have already been banned from several forums , the reason, not knowing the correct use of terminology and not being able to explain myself properly by poor literature ability.
However, I have improved.

And showing logic, I will show in time, for now I am just answering the questions put before me to answer.

I fear a ban.

Cosmic back ground, is not associated with electromagnetic waves , it is particle based.
The same with heat energy, a different property than the subject.

UV and Infra red, are not really mentioned in my model, the model represents forces at work, involving EM radiation, and the model explains all interaction , including the Doppler red shift effect, and I feel, even explains the blue sky.

 

[paddoboy]

And showing logic, I will show in time, for now I am just answering the questions put before me to answer.

This forum is far more benevolent and open then most.

I fear a ban.

Some forums give new hypothesis and the people that put them a fixed amount of time to reveal evidence or be shut down.
I don't believe you have evidence, and what you think of as logic, [your thoughts] appear so far to be illogical.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

We can directly observe light, specifically light within our visual range. Our eyes allow us to perceive it directly, without external measurements.

Dark is merely the absence of light. There is no material called "dark" that can be transparent vs opaque.

Light IS EM radiation. There is no conversion process.

We can observe light , only in the spectral range, the light in 3 dimensional space is not observed, dark is not merely the absence of light, it is the absence of sight.

EM radiation has no mechanism to be light, or to produce light, the mechanism that makes light, is sight. Our eyes , by adding EM frequencies, allow us to see in the dark, and through the dark.

Dark is not a material, but dark is opaque to sight, nobody can deny , that they can not see in the dark, or through the dark, without frequency present.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

This forum is far more benevolent and open then most.






Some forums give new hypothesis and the people that put them a fixed amount of time to reveal evidence or be shut down.
I don't believe you have evidence, and what you think of as logic, [your thoughts] appear so far to be illogical.

Illogical only if you do not think about it in detail, the more I post and answer, the logic will start to reveal itself.

 

[paddoboy]

We can observe light , only in the spectral range, the light in 3 dimensional space is not observed, dark is not merely the absence of light, it is the absence of sight.
EM radiation has no mechanism to be light, or to produce light, the mechanism that makes light, is sight. Our eyes , by adding EM frequencies, allow us to see in the dark, and through the dark.
Dark is not a material, but dark is opaque to sight, nobody can deny , that they can not see in the dark, or through the dark, without frequency present.

So more then a 300 years of physics is wrong? And yet you claim "irrefutable logic" with regards to your thinking and Ideas?
Based on what?

I predict this thread will end up in the cesspool.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

So more then a 300 years of physics is wrong? And yet you claim "irrefutable logic" with regards to your thinking and Ideas?
Based on what?

I predict this thread will end up in the cesspool.

Based on I know present light theory, I understand it well, and from this information, I have my theory.

So on the grounds, I know the present knowledge, have critically thought about my theory, have a model, can explain a prism, a raindrop rainbow, the blue sky, the Doppler red shift and blue shift,

and to add, some very simple undeniable logic.

 

[paddoboy]

So on the grounds, I know the present knowledge, have critically thought about my theory, have a model, can explain a prism, a raindrop rainbow, the blue sky, the Doppler red shift and blue shift,

All those ideas are already explained.

and to add, some very simple undeniable logic.

Climate change deniers and Islamic terrorists also think they have "undeniable logic" to support their causes.
I put it to you that you are not qualified, and are too biased as to be able to say one way or the other, whether you have "undeniable logic".
Your peers will be the judge of what is "undeniable logic" or "undeniable trash" ...If we ever get to see this so called "undeniable logic"

 

[theorist-constant12345]

All those ideas are already explained.





Climate change deniers and Islamic terrorists also think they have "undeniable logic" to support their causes.
I put it to you that you are not qualified, and are too biased as to be able to say one way or the other, whether you have "undeniable logic".
Your peers will be the judge of what is "undeniable logic" or "undeniable trash" ...If we ever get to see this so called "undeniable logic"

I do understand that Prism's etc, are already explained well, however, I can explain all of this, and a Paradox that also works as well if not better.

I will add some questions of logic.

1. If the distance between the Sun and the Earth increased, the intensity of the Sun, over distance would lessen, and eventually by increased distance, we would only see darkness.

2. If the distance continued to increase, in time, the Earth would near another Star, and it would be more intense and we see darkness as light again.

3.Without EM radiation we can not visual perceive that we can see.

4. Other species can see in the dark, compared to us, they are deemed to have better night vision than Humans.

5. Some species have a reverse effect of sight in the day time, and it would be to bright for their eyes to function.

6. If the Earth decreased its distance to the Sun, the energy intensity, would be to much, and we could not see.

7. Night and day is deemed by rotation of the Earth, when night and day does not exist, if the Earth had another Sun, that was parallel to our Sun, and the Earth was between them, then night would not exist and it would be always day.

8. 3 dimensional space , has explained, is constant to all observers.

9. A species at night see's it as light, when we see it as dark.

I believe all these statements to be logically true to all observers.

I believe the species at night being able to see, is what shows us reality, and only by rotation, do we start to see, when the amount of EM radiation intensity is increased.
I also believe that saying another species has night vision, shows you my understanding of why I believe it is always dark, and only by evolution we can see in the dark.

I understand it will be and is hard to see what I am explaining, it is not every day someone tells you black is white.

I am currently in the process of trying to change my models, to a context of science definitions and not my own definitions, I understand my own models, and I understand if it is alien to you all, you will not understand.

You say there is no logic involved so far, I beg to differ, the opening post is full of logic, the above statements are logical correct.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

P.S - I have no idea how to upload a diagram, there is only a URL tag?