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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aqueous Id said:
So just grow up and admit you were wrong.
Click to expand...


That is not going to happen.
This poster is obviously either trolling for his own weird sense of humor, or like chinglu, is burdened with delusions of some sort of pixie in the sky or other creationist rubbish......In fact the inane stupidity of his claims here, plus the complete ignoring of present accepted models, and insightful knowledge that others here have posted, appears quite similar to the same ignorant ways of that same chinglu.
Could it be???? :)
 
paddoboy said:
That is not going to happen.
This poster is obviously either trolling for his own weird sense of humor, or like chinglu, is burdened with delusions of some sort of pixie in the sky or other creationist rubbish......In fact the inane stupidity of his claims here, plus the complete ignoring of present accepted models, and insightful knowledge that others here have posted, appears quite similar to the same ignorant ways of that same chinglu.
Could it be???? :)
Click to expand...
I just went off the deep end not too long ago believing there was a creationist conspiracy in the Physics forum. I'm trying to avoid that here. But don't let my hesitation deter you from developing that idea.

Might be chinglu. A lot of banned creationist cranks come to mind. For a long time I never understood why they were attacking relativity and the constancy of c. Then earlier this year I came across a book explaining the nature of creationist attacks and the author cited these as arguments against the validity of radiometric dating. It blew me away. If they can use the dilation and contraction of time to show that the decay rates are not smooth exponentials then they have another piece of pseudoscience to wave at their sheeple. But look how hard that is to set up. Instead they may try to show that gravity itself is not constant and therefore the decay rates have to be calibrated to "expanding time". And indeed we have seen threads ardently trying to prove that time is not proceeding at a constant pace, probably with the same goals in mind.

No doubt then these are Young Earthers. And then at some point they have learned that the decay rates are calibrated against c, which, as that author revealed to me, makes attacking the constancy of c all the more attractive to them.

This did come to mind when theorist mentioned recently that time cannot be applied to atoms (that was the gist of it). And you see here a lot of hole cards, like the attack on time dilation (although it sounds counterproductive, it also might be a bit of reverse psychology).

I suppose the attacks on refraction are supposed to lead to a generalization that since c is not constant in media, then maybe it's not constant in a vacuum.

Then there was some BS about 9 dimensions leading to the elimination of relativity.

Once thing is for sure. If the end game here is to shore up creation pseudoscience, this is one of the dumbest most roundabout ways to do it. And the manic effort to pull it off is really ultra nutty.

But then, who else but creationists would even invest the time in this?

One more thing. The trait closest to chinglu/reiku/Farsight/RealityCheck is the refusal to even acknowledge established science. So instead theorist tries to dismiss all facts and evidence as something not settled which he calls "present knowledge". And that's a creationist tactic - to raise the spectre of uncertainty about science, which was the strategic plan when they manufactured ClimateGate.

Yeah, you're probably right.
 
Theorist isn't a troll, he really is that obtuse and ignorant.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
a shadow is darkness. . . . .You are not being objective , Consider a sheet of cardboard held out, you see a shadow has an observer in the light. Then add 4 sides, inside the made box it is now dark, the dark is always there.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. First you state that a shadow is darkness, then you say a shadow is not darkness until you add "sides to the box." (In reality, of course, a shadow is just a visible reduction in light due to occlusion by another object.)
 
billvon said:
You just contradicted yourself. First you state that a shadow is darkness, then you say a shadow is not darkness until you add "sides to the box." (In reality, of course, a shadow is just a visible reduction in light due to occlusion by another object.)
Click to expand...
A shadow is darkness compared to the surrounding volume of ''light''. A visible reduction in sight. We can see the shadow through the unvaried, the same has in a room at night filled full of energy, ''light'', we can see in the room, but can not see across the garden outside.

Dark is the natural, it is always there, it never leaves.
 
And to the person who mentioned the nine dimension time cube over ruling relativity, that is not my aim, but the model does show that all time is the same for all observers.
 
Aqueous Id said:
I just went off the deep end not too long ago believing there was a creationist conspiracy in the Physics forum. I'm trying to avoid that here. But don't let my hesitation deter you from developing that idea.
Click to expand...

Yep, I remember....Although, I don't believe it's so much you having gone of the deep end, or that there is a conspiracy afoot, rather then the fact that these fanatical creationist ratbags, and anti science brigade just have no other outlet to spew their sewage like garbage, other then science forums such as this...At least as far as my country is concerned.
And in one way, we need to be thankful of that.
Irrespective, these forums also get genuine individuals that are Interested in science, and in that respect, in my own little limited way, I will continue to refute their fucking nonsense and do my best to see that their sort of shit does not infect those other genuine individuals that come here after real knowledge.


Aqueous Id said:
Might be chinglu.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same "operandi modus" of chinglu, claiming absolute crap, and then ignoring completely the real science and observational and experimental evidence supporting that science.

Aqueous Id said:
One more thing. The trait closest to chinglu/reiku/Farsight/RealityCheck is the refusal to even acknowledge established science. So instead theorist tries to dismiss all facts and evidence as something not settled which he calls "present knowledge". And that's a creationist tactic - to raise the spectre of uncertainty about science, which was the strategic plan when they manufactured ClimateGate.
Yeah, you're probably right.
Click to expand...


Bingo!!


Again, and finally, in that respect, I believe it is up to all reputable forumites to deride and refute their rubbish for exactly what it is.
The Ironic point is that I'm not so much "anti religious" and I'm not so much "anti creationist", or even "anti alternative hypothesis" rather that I'm pro science, and all I will ever ask of anyone claiming any alternative idea, is show me genuine evidence supporting your idea, or show me genuine evidence invalidating the incumbent model.
And in my 12 years or so on three science forums, I have never seen any genuine evidence put forward supporting any alternative hypothesis.

Again, I would put forward a suggestion that I did pick up from another forum.
People could put any alternative hypothesis in the alternative section.
Providing that they answered ALL questions put to them, and had genuine observational and/or experimental evidence supporting their ideas.
They were given a month to do that.
If that was not forthcoming, the thread was then closed.
Needless to say in my 12 months on that forum, every alternative hypothesis failed to make the grade.
In a forum as open as this one, and with the genuine reputable people that we do have available, I would see this as a step forward in improving this forum.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
A shadow is darkness compared to the surrounding volume of ''light''.
Click to expand...
Correct. A shadow is darkER than the surrounding illuminated areas. (You are on your way to making another mistake, though; you cannot see a "volume" of light. You can only see light that hits your eyes, either a source that you can see or light that is reflected off an object you can see.)
A visible reduction in sight.
Click to expand...
A visible reduction in light, not sight.
We can see the shadow through the unvaried, the same has in a room at night filled full of energy, ''light'', we can see in the room, but can not see across the garden outside.
Click to expand...
The reason you cannot see the garden is that it is not illuminated and thus no light is coming from there.
Dark is the natural, it is always there, it never leaves.
Click to expand...
That's like saying light is the natural, it never leaves, and it is only covered up by darkness. Neither is accurate. Again, this isn't a physics issue, it is a simple issue of looking at a dictionary.
 
The OP started this monkey business by proclaiming that darkness is 'something' while light is 'nothing.' Anyone with half a brain knows it's the exact opposite of that. It is LIGHT that is something - photons - and they are easily generated (flip the switch on the wall to "on") as well as natural - like the sun.

Honestly - anybody can be a idiot, but this guy takes the prize!!
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Any one can consider special relativity, relativity is a type of thinking.
Click to expand...
Actually, relativity is a physical reality that can be verified by experiment.
My time cube is not unqualified BS, feel free to draw the model, and test the model for any weakness.
Click to expand...
It is indeed BS. It doesn't need to be modeled - it can be proven wrong by observing how the passage of time is altered on GPS satellites.
 
billvon said:
Correct. A shadow is darkER than the surrounding illuminated areas. (You are on your way to making another mistake, though; you cannot see a "volume" of light. You can only see light that hits your eyes, either a source that you can see or light that is reflected off an object you can see.)

A visible reduction in light, not sight.

The reason you cannot see the garden is that it is not illuminated and thus no light is coming from there.

That's like saying light is the natural, it never leaves, and it is only covered up by darkness. Neither is accurate. Again, this isn't a physics issue, it is a simple issue of looking at a dictionary.
Click to expand...
How many more times do I need to explain, light reflected of matter into my eyes, so I can see that matter, is present information, and not alternative. My alternative theory , we need no reflection off matter into our eyes of ''light'' to see the matter.


We are already in the light. Visually imagine all matter in the universe is removed accept one star. We have EM radiation already entered our eyes, at a constant.

We are submerged in an ocean of energy.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
How many more times do I need to explain, light reflected of matter into my eyes, so I can see that matter, is present information, and not alternative. My alternative theory , we need no reflection of matter into our eyes of ''light'' to see the matter.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is your claim, and it is unsupported by theory AND experiment. You do not see without light.
We are already in the light.
Click to expand...
When it's light out we are in the light. If it's too dark to see then we are in the dark. There is EM radiation all around us, but we can't see most EM radiation, and even if there is some light present, we need a minimal amount to see.
Satellite are time displaced by curvature
Click to expand...
And how about the time distortion caused by us being in a gravity well? There's no "time displaced by curvature" there.
 
billvon said:
Yes, that is your claim, and it is unsupported by theory AND experiment. You do not see without light.

When it's light out we are in the light. If it's too dark to see then we are in the dark. There is EM radiation all around us, but we can't see most EM radiation, and even if there is some light present, we need a minimal amount to see.

And how about the time distortion caused by us being in a gravity well? There's no "time displaced by curvature" there.
Click to expand...
I am trying to explain without the relative diagrams to go with the information I am providing, it is hard. You do not know curvature and speed displacement?

I have diagrams that clearly show this.

There is not just em radiation all around us, in the daytime we are submerged in it. It is already in our eyes, you are not considering the unvaried constant of the invisible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top