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

Status
Not open for further replies.
theorist-constant12345 said:
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.
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.
Click to expand...

I'll let our peers on this forum decide who is lying, who is being objective or otherwise, and who is letting feelings get in the way of discussing something that does not even measure up to any idea of logic what so ever.


The following statement by you way back early in the thread illustrates exactly where you are coming from...You want people to discuss "stupidity" [that is your idea] with no basis in reality or observational data....And you want them at the same time to ignore the present knowledge of light, quantum physics and SR/GR that has been passed down for 300 years by the giants of the past.
Now that is quite conveniant is it not?


theorist-constant12345 said:
P.S - why can people not discuss an idea, without instantly ruling out the idea and instantly reverting back to present knowledge, without even considering the idea or thinking about the idea .
Click to expand...

ps:
I have thought about your idea, and it literally stinks and fails at the most basic concepts that even a child can grasp.
Again, our peers on this forum will be the judge of you and I, just as they judged you on past forums you were banned at.
 
paddoboy said:
I'll let our peers on this forum decide who is lying, who is being objective or otherwise, and who is letting feelings get in the way of discussing something that does not even measure up to any idea of logic what so ever.


The following statement by you way back early in the thread illustrates exactly where you are coming from...You want people to discuss "stupidity" [that is your idea] with no basis in reality or observational data....And you want them at the same time to ignore the present knowledge of light, quantum physics and SR/GR that has been passed down for 300 years by the giants of the past.
Now that is quite conveniant is it not?




ps:
I have thought about your idea, and it literally stinks and fails at the most basic concepts that even a child can grasp.
Again, our peers on this forum will be the judge of you and I, just as they judged you on past forums you were banned at.
Click to expand...
I notice you still avoid the questions, and are not honest to yourself. My theory has great merit, the invisible of light in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers. And by variation in the unvaried we see change in the unvaried.

It is simple, it is logic, and it is very easy to understand, and it does have merit.

If you are so confident, in your own science ability ,please feel free to argue any of my points made?

All accurate logic,

If I tell you , when it is daytime, on the surface, that you have temporal night vision, you can not prove it otherwise.

You and I would not be able to distinguish the difference, so stop being so petty, because a nobody, has a better idea, than science as had for ages.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
That is not quite true, I can see from within a shadow quite well
Click to expand...
That is because you are seeing reflected light. In your example there would be no reflected light. You cannot "see" photons passing by; you can only see photons entering your eye, and in your example there would be none, since there would be no matter to reflect the light.
there is EM radiation present, but at less intensity.
Click to expand...
From reflections due to other matter.
The radiation fills any empty space, regardless of obstruction.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Visible EM radiation is blocked by opaque materials. Simple experiments prove this.
"You will see nothing. There will be no visible EM radiation "in your eye'',
you would see dark, no radiation it is dark.
Click to expand...
Somewhat correct. Being in the dark is similar to (but not equivalent to) having no visible radiation in your area.
 
billvon said:
That is because you are seeing reflected light. In your example there would be no reflected light. You cannot "see" photons passing by; you can only see photons entering your eye, and in your example there would be none, since there would be no matter to reflect the light.

From reflections due to other matter.

Incorrect. Visible EM radiation is blocked by opaque materials. Simple experiments prove this.

Somewhat correct. Being in the dark is similar to (but not equivalent to) having no visible radiation in your area.
Click to expand...
Just a simple yes or no, do you agree that the invisible of light in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers?
 
We went through many weeks of this nonsense before banning theorist, and his name is still a byword for willing stupidity.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I notice you still avoid the questions, and are not honest to yourself. My theory has great merit, the invisible of light in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers. And by variation in the unvaried we see change in the unvaried.

It is simple, it is logic, and it is very easy to understand, and it does have merit.

If you are so confident, in your own science ability ,please feel free to argue any of my points made?
Click to expand...

Three points:
[1]If it is simple, if it is logic, if it has merit[:rolleyes:] then get it peer reviewed.
[2]You have 17 pages of your nonsense and rebuttals...Please go back, take the time, and you'll find your answers. Obviously you dont accept those answers as they conflict with your nonsense.
[3]I have already told you, I'm only a layman, on the first page from memory. But I have read plenty of reputable books, partaken in forums such as this, and am able to sort the shit from the clay.

theorist-constant12345 said:
All accurate logic,
Click to expand...

WELL GET IT PEER REVIEWED!


theorist-constant12345 said:
If I tell you , when it is daytime, on the surface, that you have temporal night vision, you can not prove it otherwise.

You and I would not be able to distinguish the difference, so stop being so petty, because a nobody, has a better idea, than science as had for ages.
Click to expand...


Again, I'll stand by the judgement of our peers on this forum, as to who is stupid, who is petty, and who is a troll and a liar, as will you...alrighty? :)
 
Again, I'll stand by the judgement of our peers on this forum, as to who is stupid, who is petty, and who is a troll and a liar, as will you...alrighty? :)

Perhaps you will pad , refer to those " peers " on this forum

Which means you have no mind of your own
 
river said:
Perhaps you will pad , refer to those " peers " on this forum
Which means you have no mind of your own
Click to expand...


Ahh, here we go again, our friend river, with his wearing his "own mind" phobia on his sleeve.
For you my dear friend.....

PEER: From wiki:

People who are equal in such respects as age, education or social class, group, colleague, etc., as in peer group;

Of course the peer review on your own nonsensical beliefs in such things as Alien origin UFO's , giants, Electric/Plasma Universe, and anything remotely anti establishment have been confined to the garbage. :)
 
origin said:
This is really getting silly. What exactly does, "the invisible of light in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers" mean in english?
Click to expand...
You really have got to ask what that means , really?

One more time, the space between your eyes and any object is empty, <yes I know there is air>,

Light is not seen in this space, light is invisible in this space, 3 dimensional space, that light is invisible in.
 
paddoboy said:
Three points:
[1]If it is simple, if it is logic, if it has merit[:rolleyes:] then get it peer reviewed.
[2]You have 17 pages of your nonsense and rebuttals...Please go back, take the time, and you'll find your answers. Obviously you dont accept those answers as they conflict with your nonsense.
[3]I have already told you, I'm only a layman, on the first page from memory. But I have read plenty of reputable books, partaken in forums such as this, and am able to sort the shit from the clay.



WELL GET IT PEER REVIEWED!





Again, I'll stand by the judgement of our peers on this forum, as to who is stupid, who is petty, and who is a troll and a liar, as will you...alrighty? :)
Click to expand...
I am not a scientist, I would not know how to get a peerview, and from what I have understand, no one can even understand the idea, so until I have understanding from people, there is not much point, a peer would still not understand it.
 
''[3]I have already told you, I'm only a layman, on the first page from memory. But I have read plenty of reputable books, partaken in forums such as this, and am able to sort the shit from the clay.''

You mean you have a good memory and can recite back the present information, information that I can learn at an instant by the internet .

Remembering knowledge, is not being smart, a person who advances that knowledge and considers that knowledge is smart.

It is not my fault that I decided by accident to learn science. And it is not my fault that what I am discovering does not read true to my logic. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, I also believe that any thought, has an equal and opposite thought.

I believe the fact that we would not be able to distinguish daytime, from having night vision, can not be proved to be false, so if something can not be proved false, then that something must be deemed possible true.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
You really have got to ask what that means , really?
Click to expand...
Absolutely it was so badly worded that it was gibberish.

Light is not seen in this space, light is invisible in this space, 3 dimensional space, that light is invisible in.
Click to expand...
So what you are struggling to say is this?

We cannot see photons that do not enter our eyes and interact with our photoreceptor cells.

If that is what you are saying, my response is, "no shit".
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
''[3]I have already told you, I'm only a layman, on the first page from memory. But I have read plenty of reputable books, partaken in forums such as this, and am able to sort the shit from the clay.''
Click to expand...
Well, why are you presenting the shit and throwing out the clay?

You mean you have a good memory and can recite back the present information, information that I can learn at an instant by the internet .
Click to expand...
Most the people on this site labored for years to understand (not memorize, UNDERSTAND) science and physics. It is laughable that you think you can learn it in an instant. You have shown over and over that you haven't learned it at all.

You make statements like, "I understand special relativity" but when asked to demonstrate this understanding you don't evne try (because you can't).

Remembering knowledge, is not being smart, a person who advances that knowledge and considers that knowledge is smart.
Click to expand...
Someone who makes up silly fantasies because they have no idea what they are talking about is a fool.

It is not my fault that I decided by accident to learn science.
Click to expand...
Glad you made that decision. When are you going to start learning?

And it is not my fault that what I am discovering does not read true to my logic.
Click to expand...
Your inability to understand does not mean science is wrong, it means you cannot understand it!

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, I also believe that any thought, has an equal and opposite thought.
Click to expand...
More indications that you cannot think logically.

I believe the fact that we would not be able to distinguish daytime, from having night vision, can not be proved to be false, so if something can not be proved false, then that something must be deemed possible true.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity have you lost your mind? Night vision, daylight, night time, is all irrelevent. The bottom line is, if a photon does not enter your eye and interact with your photoreceptors you will not see it. This is not a big revelation this is simple common sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top