I have explained this several times. The speed of light constant, is observed by all observers has unvaried, not measured at a constant , but seen at a constant, unvaried, 3 dimensional space is invisible to all observers, empty, light is not seen in this space. If we removed all matter, accept one star, we would still be able to see in the constant.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
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.
To any children viewing this forum, or any layperson here to gain knowledge, what the poster "theorist-constant12345" claims is wrong, stupid and childish in the extreme, and in reality is too silly for words.
The overwhelming evidence for that is the following.....
[1] Like other alternative hypothesis pushers, he automatically claims his nonsense as a "faitre complei"certainty.
[2] He ignores all evidence to the contrary.
[3] He will boringly keep on insisting that he is the carrier of truth and enlightenment and everyone else is wrong.
[4] He does not adhere to the accepted scientific methodology.
[5] He does not accept appropriate peer review.
Any bullshit alternative hypothesis pusher of any description, can be revealed by all the above points.
You have not provided any evidence to the contrary, provide logical evidence that over rules what I say , without referring back to present information, which I am disputing with an alternative theory.To any children viewing this forum, or any layperson here to gain knowledge, what the poster "theorist-constant12345" claims is wrong and in reality is too silly for words.
The overwhelming evidence for that is the following.....
[1] Like other alternative hypothesis pushers, he automatically claims his nonsense as a "faitre complei"certainty.
[2] He ignores all evidence to the contrary.
[3] He will boringly keep on insisting that he is the carrier of truth and enlightenment and everyone else is wrong.
[4] He does not adhere to the accepted scientific methodology.
[5] He does not accept appropriate peer review.
Any bullshit alternative hypothesis pusher of any description, can be revealed by all the above points.
Start with this , that the invisible constant of light in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers.
any interaction of the constant is a variant in the constant to all observers.
Any one can consider special relativity, relativity is a type of thinking. My time cube is not unqualified BS, feel free to draw the model, and test the model for any weakness.
Wrong on both counts. [1] SR is a scientific theory, that is in the top echelon of near certainty, as it has been tested and verified many tens of thousands of times over the last 110 years.
[2] Your other claim is 100% unmitigated bullshit, as is all of your posts relative to the question of light.
You still offer no evidence, and still try to persuade people I am in some way a troll, by your constant bickering.Wrong on both counts. [1] SR is a scientific theory, that is in the top echelon of near certainty, as it has been tested and verified many tens of thousands of times over the last 110 years.
[2] Your other claim is 100% unmitigated bullshit, as is all of your posts relative to the question of light.
You offer no evidence to the contrary.
Start with this , that the invisible constant of light in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers.
You still offer no evidence, and still try to persuade people I am in some way a troll, by your constant bickering.
You offer no evidence to the contrary.
You are a liar.
I have given you many links and factual scenarios as accepted by mainstream science.
You have given us nothing except gibberish, childish fairy tale claims.
You quack like a duck, and you look like a duck.
And I'm pretty sure I don't actually need to persuade anyone you are a troll...You do that well enough yourself.You are a liar.
I have given you many links and factual scenarios as accepted by mainstream science.
You have given us nothing except gibberish, childish fairy tale claims.
You quack like a duck, and you look like a duck.
I am not a liar, and all you have provided is present information, you are not objective to yourself, and are letting feelings get in the way of discussing the actual idea.You are a liar.
I have given you many links and factual scenarios as accepted by mainstream science.
You have given us nothing except gibberish, childish fairy tale claims.
You quack like a duck, and you look like a duck.
I ask again for critical thinking about my claims.
I ask again
Start with this , that the invisible constant of light in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers.
I ask again for critical thinking about my claims.
.
Your claims have been dismissed here and elsewhere, in fact you have been banned elsewhere for your trolling.
You are the troll, stop trolling the thread, and answer or talk about the idea if you are staying, you are not being productive or constructive, you are a poor scientist, and stubborn in your ways, I have asked you 3 times now to start here, and you ignore because you have to agree I am correct.Your claims have been dismissed here and elsewhere, in fact you have been banned elsewhere for your trolling.
Correct - empty space (i.e. vacuum) is invisible.3 dimensional space is invisible to all observers
Any light that traverses the space and hits a sensor (like an eye) capable of detecting it will be seen.empty, light is not seen in this space.
If you removed all matter except the star then you would never see anything, because there would be nothing to sense the light.If we removed all matter, accept one star, we would still be able to see in the constant.
If you removed all matter except the star and a single infinitesimally small camera, all the camera would ever see is the star.
Yes, you have said that several times. Unfortunately actual experimental results disagree with your claim. It's akin to claiming the Earth is flat. Claiming it a dozen times will not make it any more true, because we have experimental evidence that it is a spheroid.
Correct - empty space (i.e. vacuum) is invisible.
Any light that traverses the space and hits a sensor (like an eye) capable of detecting it will be seen.
If you removed all matter except the star then you would never see anything, because there would be nothing to sense the light.
If you removed all matter except the star and a single infinitesimally small camera, all the camera would ever see is the star.
Why add a camera when we are talking about sight?
The eyes would see the star, but even with our backs to the star, EM radiation will still be in our eyes.
Because your eye is what gives you sight, and an eye is effectively a camera. Without an eye or a camera there is no sight.Why add a camera when we are talking about sight?
Not if we were behind an opaque object. There would be no radiation in our eyes if facing away from the star.The eyes would see the star, but even with our backs to the star, EM radiation will still be in our eyes.
With only one star and empty space, we are not behind any object. EM radiation fills all of empty space.Because your eye is what gives you sight, and an eye is effectively a camera. Without an eye or a camera there is no sight.
Not if we were behind an opaque object. There would be no radiation in our eyes if facing away from the star.
So do you agree , with one star, we are seeing within the unvaried in this situation?
Again, this gets back to having matter there. If your "eye" (camera) is infinitesimal and omnidirectional (i.e. it can see in all directions) then you see the star. If you have an eye and a head (which is an opaque object that blocks light) then you will not see the star when you are turned away from it. You will see nothing. There will be no visible EM radiation "in your eye."With only one star and empty space, we are not behind any object. EM radiation fills all of empty space.
That is not quite true, I can see from within a shadow quite well, there is EM radiation present, but at less intensity.Again, this gets back to having matter there. If your "eye" (camera) is infinitesimal and omnidirectional (i.e. it can see in all directions) then you see the star. If you have an eye and a head (which is an opaque object that blocks light) then you will not see the star when you are turned away from it. You will see nothing. There will be no visible EM radiation "in your eye."
The radiation fills any empty space, regardless of obstruction.
''You will see nothing. There will be no visible EM radiation "in your eye'',
you would see dark, no radiation it is dark.
would you agree that the invisible of light in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.