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

[theorist-constant12345]

3 dimensional space , the invisibility, f=0

sight f=0


EM radiation f=F<D>

 

[origin]

Cosmic back ground, is not associated with electromagnetic waves , it is particle based.

This statement is incorrect the CMB is EM radiation in the microwave region.

The same with heat energy, a different property than the subject.

Heat energy is transfered radiatively as EM radiation. So why does your idea exclude this?

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.

You have shown nothing approaching a model or theory or even a hypothesis - you are only throwing out conjectures.

UV and IR are simply different energy levels of EM, why would your conjecture exclude them?

All of the 'interactions' you cite have been explained quite well using real physics.

 

[gmilam]

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.

But yet, we can capture it on film.

 

[origin]

We can observe light , only in the spectral range,

Our eyes are simply detectors that convert the EM radiation of certain wavelengths (energy) into electrical impulses that are interpreted by our brains.

the light in 3 dimensional space is not observed,

I observe light in 3 (actually 4) dimensional space all the time.

dark is not merely the absence of light, it is the absence of sight.

Gee no kidding? Quiteness is not merely the absence of sound, it is the absence of hearing.

EM radiation has no mechanism to be light, or to produce light,

Lilght is by definition EM radiation that has a wavelegth of about 390 - 700 nm, so your statement is gibberish.

the mechanism that makes light, is sight.

Wrong. Sight is our eyes interpreting the light that is entering our eyes.

Our eyes , by adding EM frequencies, allow us to see in the dark, and through the dark.

Our eyes do not "add EM frequencies". It is dark when there are no light waves for our eyes to detect.

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.

Yes, if there is no light it is dark. You got that right at least.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

This statement is incorrect the CMB is EM radiation in the microwave region.


Heat energy is transfered radiatively as EM radiation. So why does your idea exclude this?


You have shown nothing approaching a model or theory or even a hypothesis - you are only throwing out conjectures.

UV and IR are simply different energy levels of EM, why would your conjecture exclude them?

All of the 'interactions' you cite have been explained quite well using real physics.

When I can work out how to upload the model, it will be hopefully be made more clearer. UV and IR are included, but not at this stage of trying to get people to firstly understand the idea, and concept.

Agreed at the present interactions are explained, however I can explain them in another way that also works.

Heat is not related to sight, we can not see heat, and if I start to talk about Photon electrical effect at this stage, it will just get more confusing.

''Cosmic rays aren't electromagnetic radiation, they are high velocity particles, mostly protons and atomic nuclei moving at high speed and mostly of extra solar origin. By convention cosmic ray is restricted to the particles of intrinsic mass with high energy photons referred to by names like X ray and gamma ray depending on wavelength. The name is from them initially and incorrectly being thought to be electromagnetic radiation.''


I have quoted an explanation of CBR.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

But yet, we can capture it on film.

You capture radiation, that burns the image,

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Our eyes are simply detectors that convert the EM radiation of certain wavelengths (energy) into electrical impulses that are interpreted by our brains.

I observe light in 3 (actually 4) dimensional space all the time.

Gee no kidding? Quiteness is not merely the absence of sound, it is the absence of hearing.


Lilght is by definition EM radiation that has a wavelegth of about 390 - 700 nm, so your statement is gibberish.


Wrong. Sight is our eyes interpreting the light that is entering our eyes.


Our eyes do not "add EM frequencies". It is dark when there are no light waves for our eyes to detect.


Yes, if there is no light it is dark. You got that right at least.

Light is by definition EM radiation that has a wave length of about 390 - 700 nm, this however can only be perceived by sight.
Our Neural receptors can not receive any impulse from a net force of zero. The spectral magnitude to sight of 3 dimensional space is zero.


And only by interaction do we see a change in 3 dimensional space.

Sight is the processing of information in a carrier signal, the carrier signal being electro magnetic radiation to the frequency range of 390-700 nm,

3 dimensional space and sight have an equal base band , f=0,

Light does need to reflect of matter into our eyes to see the matter, light is already in our eyes without reflection, we are submerged in an ocean of energy constant.

 

[origin]

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.

Prove that you can explain it. A paradox that works better? What the hell does that mean?
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.

Yep, the farther you get from the sun the less the intensity of the light. When you are far enough from the sun you would not see any photons from it.

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.

We would NOT see darkness as light we would seen the light (photons) from the star.

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

Yep without light we cannot see. Very good.

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

Other species cannot see in total darkness they can see better in low light than we can.

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

I think you are trying to say that animals that are adapted to seeing in low light have a difficult time seeing in bright light - which is true but doesn't have anything to do with the OP.

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

We could see just fine. If we got to close we would all die from the heat but we could still 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.

Of course.

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

This is basically meaningless. Length contractions means that depending on you reference frame you may see 3D space as different from someone in a different reference frame.

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

Nope, species that have more sensitive eyes than us can see better in low light than we can. That is it.

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

Your statements are a mixture of the trivially obvious and the completely wrong.

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.

Well that is absurd. Some species have developed eyes that are sensitive enough to see in low light. No animal can see in the absence of light.

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.

Don't worry we get that all the time. The problem is that 100% of the time these earth shattering conjectures are wrong.

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.

Oh, you have been making up your own definitions for words that already have a definition? Hmmm, that is not usually very helpful for communication.

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.

The main problem seems to be your complete lack of understanding of the physics of light. You should learn that first before you try to "fix it".[/QUOTE]

 

[origin]

''Cosmic rays aren't electromagnetic radiation, they are high velocity particles, mostly protons and atomic nuclei moving at high speed and mostly of extra solar origin. By convention cosmic ray is restricted to the particles of intrinsic mass with high energy photons referred to by names like X ray and gamma ray depending on wavelength. The name is from them initially and incorrectly being thought to be electromagnetic radiation.''.

The question wasn't about comic rays it was about the CMB.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Our eyes are simply detectors that convert the EM radiation of certain wavelengths (energy) into electrical impulses that are interpreted by our brains.

I observe light in 3 (actually 4) dimensional space all the time.

Gee no kidding? Quiteness is not merely the absence of sound, it is the absence of hearing.


Lilght is by definition EM radiation that has a wavelegth of about 390 - 700 nm, so your statement is gibberish.


Wrong. Sight is our eyes interpreting the light that is entering our eyes.


Our eyes do not "add EM frequencies". It is dark when there are no light waves for our eyes to detect.


Yes, if there is no light it is dark. You got that right at least.

The main problem with the whole concept of present knowledge is that 3 dimensional space is deemed to be a mixture of frequencies, when the constant observation of the invisible space, shows us the observation of one frequency equal to sight.
The brain does not only convert the frequencies, the brain also converts the energy , giving us seeing in the dark ability. What we visually perceive to be light, is no more than seeing in the dark, no different than a species , who uses low levels of radiation to see in the dark.
We evolved to need a greater intensity of radiation, to see in the dark, taking away the Sun makes it dark. Adding EM frequency to the dark, is undeniable adding.

Dark is the natural constant.

A magnitude of zero, constant to all observers, and constant because it being opaque to all observers sight. Light , allows all observers to see through the dark, light is the perceived image by us , of night vision.

''sight is our eyes interpreting the light that is entering our eyes.''

Sight is our eyes interpreting the EM radiation that allows us to have night vision.

 

[origin]

screwed up post

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Prove that you can explain it. A paradox that works better? What the hell does that mean?
I will add some questions of logic.


Yep, the farther you get from the sun the less the intensity of the light. When you are far enough from the sun you would not see any photons from it.


We would NOT see darkness as light we would seen the light (photons) from the star.


Yep without light we cannot see. Very good.


Other species cannot see in total darkness they can see better in low light than we can.


I think you are trying to say that animals that are adapted to seeing in low light have a difficult time seeing in bright light - which is true but doesn't have anything to do with the OP.


We could see just fine. If we got to close we would all die from the heat but we could still see.


Of course.


This is basically meaningless. Length contractions means that depending on you reference frame you may see 3D space as different from someone in a different reference frame.


Nope, species that have more sensitive eyes than us can see better in low light than we can. That is it.


Your statements are a mixture of the trivially obvious and the completely wrong.


Well that is absurd. Some species have developed eyes that are sensitive enough to see in low light. No animal can see in the absence of light.


Don't worry we get that all the time. The problem is that 100% of the time these earth shattering conjectures are wrong.


Oh, you have been making up your own definitions for words that already have a definition? Hmmm, that is not usually very helpful for communication.


The main problem seems to be your complete lack of understanding of the physics of light. You should learn that first before you try to "fix it".

[/QUOTE]
I will start with a starting point, and firstly talk about this-
No animal can see in the absence of light.

Please remember this is a very complex subject that I am trying to describe, and I am not a scientist, but truly believe I can prove my idea.

''No animal can see in the absence of light.'' Yes , exactly , the absence of ''light'' is dark to all observers, a constant observation.

The absence of light, is also the absence of sight, not we are blind, but can not see in the dark, through the dark, and the opaque of dark is constant to all observers including animals.



Do you agree with this so far?

I am trying to show the logical and critical thinking involved, and to show you the evidence, and I will try to work out how to upload my model, once I am sure the parameters of the model will be understood.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Define the Physical process involved in detecting, the EM radiation,it makes surface force contact, turning a frequency of zero, the constant, into a wave form.

Wave-particle duality, why it can be a wave and act like a particle, it is not a wave until detected, or until by interaction with any matter or medium.

The net force of a Photon is zero, and only by interaction is force applied creating the wave. By angular displacement, the force of the radiation pressure, can be increased or decreased. A simple observation can be made by the use of diffraction. By angular displacement of the CD, the spectrum becomes displaced, by either becoming red to the observer, by more distance being less force, or the observer can see blue, by less distance and greater force of the angular displacement of the CD.

 

[origin]

I will start with a starting point, and firstly talk about this-
No animal can see in the absence of light.

Please remember this is a very complex subject that I am trying to describe, and I am not a scientist, but truly believe I can prove my idea.

''No animal can see in the absence of light.'' Yes , exactly , the absence of ''light'' is dark to all observers, a constant observation.

The absence of light, is also the absence of sight, not we are blind, but can not see in the dark, through the dark, and the opaque of dark is constant to all observers including animals.

Do you agree with this so far?

I think it is safe to say that we cannot see if there is no light.

I am trying to show the logical and critical thinking involved, and to show you the evidence, and I will try to work out how to upload my model, once I am sure the parameters of the model will be understood.

OK

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I think it is safe to say that we cannot see if there is no light.


OK

So all observers all agree we can not see without light.

Do we agree that dark is transparent to EM radiation?, and allows EM radiation to pass through unaltered in 4 dimensional space, 4 dimension being invisible and empty space to all observers,

Do we agree that dark is made ''see through'' by EM radiation, and we can see matter through the dark by this process?.

Do we agree in day time we are submerged in EM radiation?

 

[origin]

So all observers all agree we can not see without light.

Yes.

Do we agree that dark is transparent to EM radiation?, and allows EM radiation to pass through unaltered in 4 dimensional space, 4 dimension being invisible and empty space to all observers,

No. You are treating darkness as a substance. Dark is the absence of light. A cube of glass with no light in it is dark. The space in a room with no light will be dark.

Do we agree that dark is made ''see through'' by EM radiation, and we can see matter through the dark by this process?.

No. Again you are treating darkness as a substance, which is wrong.

Do we agree in day time we are submerged in EM radiation?

I agree that during the day there is a high intensity of EM radiation in the visible range (as well as many other ranges).

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Yes.

No. You are treating darkness as a substance. Dark is the absence of light. A cube of glass with no light in it is dark. The space in a room with no light will be dark.


No. Again you are treating darkness as a substance, which is wrong.

I agree that during the day there is a high intensity of EM radiation in the visible range (as well as many other ranges).

I apologize , I worded the statement badly, allowing you to think I was considering dark to be a material.


I am not considering dark to be a material, I will re-phrase the statement, these statements are based on perceived visual observation.

Do we agree that dark is transparent to sight by EM radiation?, and allows EM radiation to pass through unaltered in 4 dimensional space, 4 dimension being invisible and empty space to all observers,

 

[billvon]

We can observe light , only in the spectral range

We can observe light in the _frequency_ range of 375 to 750 terahertz.

the light in 3 dimensional space is not observed

We can observe light in 3 dimensional space.

dark is not merely the absence of light, it is the absence of sight.

Incorrect. Dark is the absence of light. It does not matter if anyone is there to see it or not.

EM radiation has no mechanism to be light

That's like saying that vehicles have no mechanism to be cars. It's a nonsense statement. Light IS EM radiation.

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.

Our eyes do not "add" EM frequencies. They respond to specific EM frequencies, allowing us to see.

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.

Dark is not opaque to anything. It is the absence of light, not the ability to block light (which is what "opaque" means.)

 

[krash661]

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.

this is teenager/ high school logic.
it would help if you knew and understood anything of these fields of science you mention.

 

[origin]

I apologize , I worded the statement badly, allowing you to think I was considering dark to be a material.

OK, that is good.

Do we agree that dark is transparent to sight by EM radiation?, and allows EM radiation to pass through unaltered in 4 dimensional space, 4 dimension being invisible and empty space to all observers,

Nope, I cannot agree with that. You could say space is transparent or glass is transparent, but saying dark is transparent is meaningless. Darkness is the absence of light.

Does saying, "the absence of light is transparent to light" make any sense at all?????