which, everything points to this being you.
It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
If all observers are stationary with respect to each other, and all gravitational potentials are identical, then no Doppler shift is observed.
No, do you not understand we are submerged in the ocean of energy?, ''light'' already is in our eyes at a frequency equal to sight.
Imagine being underwater, the water is in your eyes, touching your eye ball.
It is so simple and you still fail to understand this. Unvaried becoming a varied, an energy difference by interaction, that allows us to see the interaction, because it is offset to the unvaried.
Invisible light, f=0, equal to sight f=0, visible light f=EF over t<d>.
The spectral magnitude, is equal to force.
Allowing us to see in the dark by temporal night vision, and to see variation of spectral magnitude by the heat signature of EM radiation by interaction and Photon electrical effect.
Last edited:
Not when we are in the dark. Then we do not have any significant amount of visible light "already in our eyes." That's why we can't see in the dark.
Complete nonsense.
"Temporal night vision" is word salad.
Yes, night vision goggles do that by transforming ordinarily-invisible EM radiation into visible EM radiation.
OMFG!!!
What a copout!!
So no one in the whole world can understand your Idea? And this is why you don't get peer review?? And of course I forget you claim you don't know how to peer review?
Well let me at least try and help you.
[1] Have you ever heard of Physics departments in Universities?
[2] Have you ever heard of reputable science mags such as Nature?
[3] Have you ever seen or heard of any of our popular scientists that may help?
Now as one layman to another, if I ever had anything of any concrete value for the scientific world, I would leave no stone unturned until I did get it reviewed.....I would knock on one door after another....I would badger people left, right and center, until I did get some form of legitimate peer review.
Or do you really and truly and actually believe that no one in this big wide wonderful world is able to understand the logic and genius in what you claim.
In general parlance, most educated people would call that quite an arrogant, and ego inflated view to have and would diagnose you as having "delusions of grandeur".
No, not at all. I once read a book entitled "The BB Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner, advocating Hannes Alfvén's Plasma Cosmology over standard BB cosmology.
I have also gone into other alternatives to the accepted BB theory of Universal evolution, such as Steady State and Oscillating models.
I am also able to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
As you have already been informed, even one of the greatest minds in history, Newton, said he saw as far as he did by standing on the shoulders of giants.
But you, in all your arrogance, delusions of grandeur, and a child like view of reality, prefer to ignore all those giants and the many thousands of times the accepted model has been validated.
No, most of real knowledge and knowing comes about by taking notice of the real observational evidence supporting any particular model, realising the limitations of ones own expertise in that area of science, and being prepared to admit when one is just plainly and obviously wrong, as the great Albert Einstein did on more then one occasion.
But you did not learn science. You have already stated in no uncertain terms that we should all forget what we have learnt, and those giants of the present and past.
The rest of what you say, is sheer philosophical poppycock.
Light is real. Light is part of the EMS. Light can be experimented with. Light is what interacts with our eyes to enable us to see shapes.
Dark is the absence of light, just as cold is the absence of heat.
Dark does not inhibit light or a light source, as any light or light source will diminish what we see as dark. Just as cold does not diminish heat, rather it is heat that diminishes cold.
Dark does not flow or can not be measured, as light certainly does flow and can be measured.
Is there any country on Earth, any culture, any language in which the phrase "the invisible of light" even appears?
No. There is "visible light" and "invisible light".
You are not even able to form passable sentences.
You keep saying that and then you turn around and continue making pseudo-scientific proclamations
Make up your mind.
No, I do not understand that.
Not with my eyes closed (for instance)
Not with my eyes closed.
Yes, it is very simple and it is also very wrong. It is not a matter of understanding it is a matter of not accepting bull shit.
Aardvarks the vibrate relate sound with harmonics.
What sort of gibber is this.
What is f? Frequency?
What is invisible light? EM radiation not in the visible range?
What is EF? Electronic Fellows?
When I consider light, I do not consider what the giants thought. I consider it from fresh, and consider myself how it works.
f is frequency, invisible light is EM radiation not in our visual range, <but equal to our sight>, E is energy has always, and F is force has always.
Imagine being underwater, the water is in your eyes, touching your eye ball.
''Not with my eyes closed.''
Why again add which was not asked.
You can see light in 3 dimensional space? the light is invisible,
OMFG!!!
What a copout!!
So no one in the whole world can understand your Idea? And this is why you don't get peer review?? And of course I forget you claim you don't know how to peer review?
Well let me at least try and help you.
[1] Have you ever heard of Physics departments in Universities?
[2] Have you ever heard of reputable science mags such as Nature?
[3] Have you ever seen or heard of any of our popular scientists that may help?
Now as one layman to another, if I ever had anything of any concrete value for the scientific world, I would leave no stone unturned until I did get it reviewed.....I would knock on one door after another....I would badger people left, right and center, until I did get some form of legitimate peer review.
Or do you really and truly and actually believe that no one in this big wide wonderful world is able to understand the logic and genius in what you claim.
In general parlance, most educated people would call that quite an arrogant, and ego inflated view to have and would diagnose you as having "delusions of grandeur".
several forums , I knock on doors.
Temporal night vision is not word salad. Temporal - relating to time, night vision is temporally by rotation, we rotate into the flow of EM radiation or out of the flow. We can clearly observe the intensity increase of the night vision on the surface , over time of motion. So temporal night vision is not word salad.
We also can observe, over distance of curvature , EM radiation decrease in force and heat. From the equator to the North, the inwards curvature, being of greater distance, causing EM radiation displacement of force , In simple terms the sky is less blue to the north.
The centripetal force of gravity , pulling the Earth towards the Sun, propagating the EM radiation to a spectral magnitude equal to blue. Decreasing in oscillation compression , by less force by displacement of curvature of distance and time.
Last edited:
That's another bunch of word salad. "Night vision" is not related to time, it is related to the transformation of invisible wavelengths into visible wavelengths. The only thing it has to do with time is that time is a component of frequency.
That is complete nonsense. The sky is not "less blue" to the north.
That is also complete nonsense. The color of the sky has zero to do with gravity.
I was hoping your theories would condense to something comprehensible, but it looks like you don't understand what you are talking about at all, and are now just making stuff up.
And they have all been slammed in your face. You are in never never land.
Science does not concern itself with never never land and the dreamtime.
Oh, and BTW, again, insidiously, you have avoided addressing the questions.
Forums of course are not appropriate scientific peer review panels, but the only outlet trolls, nuts, and ego inflated alternative hypothesis pushers, have to spew their nonsense.
This line is great. It is like he is trying to be funny.
I have to guess what this means based on the confused malarky you're using with everyone who is humoring you.
I think origin and billvon covered this. No, photons can not be detected if they do not impinge on the surface of the photoreceptors of the retina. There has to be energy exchange and it has to be in the bandwidth of human vision and it has to be sufficient in energy to trigger the action potential on the affected optical nerve.
"Visible" light refers to all frequencies between infrared and ultraviolet. All the rest of the frequencies are "invisible". It's purely a reference to the bandwidth of human vision.
Human vision is stereo. That is, our retinas are in the same plane and therefore capable of detecting phase differences of incident light. Therefore we can see in "3D" " although the correct term is depth perception.
And your point is . . . ?
Science is like talking to a brick wall, I have clearly explained my idea, in English using a dictionary.
Night vision is nothing to do with time, yes in general, but in my alternative theory it is .
What part of rotating by time on the surface into the light do you not understand is a part of timing?
Which part of the word constant do you not understand, I will change it to constantly , if that helps Physics to stop redefining terminology.
Which part of invisible light do you not understand, invisible in 3 dimensional space.
You are on some wind up yes and do not take science seriously or with passion?.
The brick wall understands this better than you guys.
PFFF, it is so simple to understand.
Night vision is nothing to do with time, yes in general, but in my alternative theory it is .
What part of rotating by time on the surface into the light do you not understand is a part of timing?
Which part of the word constant do you not understand, I will change it to constantly , if that helps Physics to stop redefining terminology.
Which part of invisible light do you not understand, invisible in 3 dimensional space.
You are on some wind up yes and do not take science seriously or with passion?.
The brick wall understands this better than you guys.
PFFF, it is so simple to understand.
And you are here to preach?
- Status