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

Status
Not open for further replies.
paddoboy said:
Certainly not.
I'm here to learn off reputable people, and to pass on what little I do know to those that know even less. I'm also here to refute nonsensical, fairy tale like alternative hypothesis, such as you have put, and which have got you banned from other forums, because they have no basis in reality, no evidence of any form to support them, and then have you lie about it claiming you do have evidence but are unable to present it...Another well known crank cop out.

Again, if you had anything of substance at all, you would be getting it peer reviewed.
But you really have nothing, despite your continuing ranting and claims that its just that the world does not understand. :rolleyes:

In the real world we call that delusional brought about by delusions of grandeur due to an over inflated ego.
And also in the real world, as long as you continue to proceed here with your fairy tale nonsense, the more it becomes obvious that you are a troll.
Click to expand...
I am deluded, I am a troll, I am ill, I have heard this and a lot far worse. But what I do not here is anyone saying we have not got temporal night vision eyes because.....???????

Definition of a troll, someone who tries to emotionally hurt another person by cybernetic means. Let me think, school yard name calling. Does this sound familiar?.

Science is all about objective thinking, you are unable to do this, your only aim in this thread is to troll my life, you are an individual from a previous forum. And the same applied then.


And you continue day in and day out to troll these forums, looking to cause bickering and get the thread closed.

This thread is no harm to you or science, people have their own opinions, and you are entitled to yours sir. I thank you for relating your opinion, in your posts.

And when I finally find the correct words to write a paper that will be understood. I will write it , I assure you. And I will find some peers.
 
billvon said:
Right. But the interactions you predict do not occur. For example you predict that the "sky is less blue to the north." It is not. So your theory fails.


A simple theory that predicts things that do not happen might be a simple theory, but it is wrong. For example, I could predict that all matter is made of condensed light - and burning it releases that light. Simple, right? But since that theory is not reflected in reality, it fails.

One of the important things to realize about science is that we judge how good science is by how well it describes the natural world. A simple, elegant theory that describes the real world incorrectly is rejected. A complex theory that accurately describes the world (as validated in experiments) is accepted.
Click to expand...
Ok back to the drawing board with the sky, but it still does not change my idea. I always thought the polarization weakened the more latitude north, my mistake.
 
krash661 said:
because it is not in the human genetics.
it's not part of the human chromosome.
Click to expand...
Energy has nothing to do with genetics, or chromosomes, EM radiation activating our neural receptors, stimulating sight in the dark, to allow us to see through the dark. Dark is transparent to light. If you want proof of observational experiment that dark is there, and a thing, simply look out the window at night, when your light is on, you can clearly see that cubic volume of energy is equal to cubic volume of dark, equal to sight is the intensity of output of energy.

The darkness outside, you can clearly see as dark, you can not see through this dark, The EM radiation you are in is constantly in your eyes. the dark is constantly dark to your observation,
if a neighbour turns a light on, you instantly see the energy difference of the EM radiation constant, compared to the constantly observed dark.

If you consider what I have just said like this -

the first lit room is f=0 to sight, the dark is a negative constant zero frequency to sight. and the second lit room a mile away for example, is f=0 to sight, by f=0 to sight , i do not mean that the light as no energy etc, it just means it is an equilibrium to sight.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Did I mention red sky at night, when the sun is moving away from the earth and the incident ray angle, allowing the spectral range magnitude to stretch and weaken.
Click to expand...
No, the sky is not red at night. So another prediction of your theory fails. When a theory that you have fails to explain actual phenomena, it is discarded.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Energy has nothing to do with genetics, or chromosomes,
Click to expand...
it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
you need the component to detect the energy [a detector][a sensing device]
if the detector is not included in the construction, then that level of energy will not be detected.
 
billvon said:
No, the sky is not red at night. So another prediction of your theory fails. When a theory that you have fails to explain actual phenomena, it is discarded.
Click to expand...
These are all visuals within the constantly observed next to none refractive index of air, and no refractive index in space,
the sky is just another variation in the constantly observed constant of invisible light.

Light fades over distance, the source of the sun does not have enough energy to create enough distance intensity to allow our temporal night vision eyes to work to see at great distances. If you could travel tot he next nearest star, you could see the same distance again.

You want proof that the volume of energy has to equal dark before we can see?

You want proof that the volume of dark slows down light?

Experimental observation, at night in a lit room, look out of the window, you will clearly see a greater reflection of yourself and your room in the glass rather than daytime.

The glass at nigh has a higher refractive index than in the day, and the light trying to escape, propagates at a greater intensity than in the daytime.
 
krash661 said:
it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
you need the component to detect the energy [a detector][a sensing device]
if the detector is not included in the construction, then that level of energy will not be detected.
Click to expand...
We have eyes, cats have a layer extra that allows them to see by less energy, we simply need a greater intensity for our night vision to work.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I am deluded, I am a troll, I am ill, I have heard this and a lot far worse. But what I do not here is anyone saying we have not got temporal night vision eyes because.....???????
Click to expand...

And you have been banned from many forums. :)


theorist-constant12345 said:
Definition of a troll, someone who tries to emotionally hurt another person by cybernetic means. Let me think, school yard name calling. Does this sound familiar?.
Click to expand...

And also any person that continues to claim something, in the face of evidence to the contrary, never addresses that evidence, and never supplies evidence supporting his own concept.


theorist-constant12345 said:
Science is all about objective thinking, you are unable to do this, your only aim in this thread is to troll my life, you are an individual from a previous forum. And the same applied then.
Click to expand...


You should try some objective thinking then.
And I have never been banned from any forum.

theorist-constant12345 said:
And you continue day in and day out to troll these forums, looking to cause bickering and get the thread closed.
Click to expand...


While you continue to claim unreal scenarios, I'll continue to refute them [along with others] to the best of my ability.


theorist-constant12345 said:
This thread is no harm to you or science, people have their own opinions, and you are entitled to yours sir. I thank you for relating your opinion, in your posts.
Click to expand...

This is the alternative hypothesis section for posting alternative hypothesis, no matter how unlikely or how ridiculous. It is also open to anyone to either agree with, disagree with, and stae their thoughts on that alternative hypothesis.
In short, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


theorist-constant12345 said:
And when I finally find the correct words to write a paper that will be understood. I will write it , I assure you. And I will find some peers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure you will! :)

In the mean time this may help you.....

Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:


With relation to all 10 points and any alternative theories, the incumbent model, in most cases will always logically be the default position.
If someone does happen to come up with a theory that matches exactly what the incumbent theory does but no more, the incumbent theory naturally holds position.
And also make damn sure that you understand current theory as it is presented by the "main stream" before you embark on your exploration of new frontiers. That is the starting point
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
You want proof that the volume of energy has to equal dark before we can see?

You want proof that the volume of dark slows down light?

Experimental observation, at night in a lit room, look out of the window, you will clearly see a greater reflection of yourself and your room in the glass rather than daytime.
Click to expand...

The usual theorist nonsense.
 
krash661 said:
you mean a detector ?

:) amusing.
you're such an idiot
(shakes head)
do you realize you just contradicted your self.
Click to expand...
Our eyes are detectors, but a species that can pick up on the low level of energy have something different, they detect better than us because of this.
If you remember the talking cat argument at the start of the thread, it made valid logic, You are arguing it is light in the day, and I am arguing it is dark, no different than the cat saying it was light at night when we are saying it is dark.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
You want proof that the volume of dark slows down light?
Experimental observation, at night in a lit room, look out of the window, you will clearly see a greater reflection of yourself and your room in the glass rather than daytime.
Click to expand...
You see exactly the same reflection with the same illumination on your face. During the day there is more light coming through the window, and it overwhelms the small reflection in the glass. During the night there is less light coming through the window and thus you can see the reflection.
Want proof? Get a very good camera and take a picture of the reflection during the day AND during the night. Then subtract out the background. If the camera has enough dynamic range you will see your reflection in both cases.
The glass at nigh has a higher refractive index than in the day
Click to expand...
It has exactly the same refractive index. Want proof? Get a laser and a protractor.
and the light trying to escape, propagates at a greater intensity than in the daytime.
Click to expand...
The light propagates the same in any condition. Want proof? Get a very high intensity laser and a lower intensity laser. Measure the energy in the low intensity beam. Then shine the high intensity laser through the low intensity beam. The energy will be the same, since it "propagates at the same intensity."
 
billvon said:
Yes, they have more sensitive eyes. They can make do with fewer photons. Just as a dog has a better nose than a human.
Click to expand...


That's what I mean about him trolling, or just completely ignoring any evidence or facts to the contrary.
That has been explained about a dozen or so pages back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top