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

Status
Not open for further replies.
As well as being explained on every forum he's posted on. This whole subject is not new for him.
 
billvon said:
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.

It has exactly the same refractive index. Want proof? Get a laser and a protractor.

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."
Click to expand...
maybe I will give up on the reflection thing. hmmmm
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Can anyone prove we do not see in the dark by temporal night vision yet?
Click to expand...
We can prove that we see by photons stimulating the rods and cones in our eyes. We can prove that animals that can "see in the dark" see the same way, by having more sensitive eyes. We can prove that in absolute darkness no animal can see with their eyes.

Since there's no good definition of "temporal night vision" no one can prove anything about it, just as you can't prove anything about my "energy is intangible" theory.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
You ever stop moaning, and calling people trolls, you are so offensive. You do not see the relevance of the other species.
Click to expand...


Not moaning in the least [you seem to be doing a good job at that] and just telling it the way it is.
The relevant question was explained by me and others to you more then once at least a dozen or so pages back.
 
billvon said:
We can prove that we see by photons stimulating the rods and cones in our eyes. We can prove that animals that can "see in the dark" see the same way, by having more sensitive eyes. We can prove that in absolute darkness no animal can see with their eyes.

Since there's no good definition of "temporal night vision" no one can prove anything about it, just as you can't prove anything about my "energy is intangible" theory.
Click to expand...
Energy is intangible , I have no idea what that means, so could not comment, is there a thread to look at and comment?
 
paddoboy said:
Not moaning in the least [you seem to be doing a good job at that] and just telling it the way it is.
The relevant question was explained by me and others to you more then once at least a dozen or so pages back.
Click to expand...
yes but I feel the relevance of the other species , seeing it as light at nigh compared to us, adds strong value of logic, when you are saying it is light, that could well be just perceived image by the mind and illusion, a very good illusion at that , that does question the doubt of the nature of light.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
no different than the cat saying it was light at night when we are saying it is dark.
Click to expand...
yes exactly, a detector, the difference is their detectors have more of a detection[added element to the component]
they can see lower levels of light radiation.
as for humans, do not have this capability of detection.
again, because it's not in the the chromosome to tell the construction to build that added element to our component.
what you are saying is, we see the light but it is dark.[not light at all]
that would mean, we actually have " night vision" instead of regular vision.
you are contradicting yourself [along with many other incorrect things] when you say humans do too.
but if we both have night vision, then we ,cat and human, would see as the same in any element, dark or light
since we do not see the same as the cat, that also means, that's incorrect.
 
krash661 said:
yes exactly, a detector, the difference is their detectors have more of a detection[added element to the component]
they can see lower levels of light radiation.
as for humans, do not have this capability of detection.
again, because it's not in the the chromosome to tell the construction to build that added element to our component.
what you are saying is, we see the light but it is dark.[not light at all]
that would mean, we actually have " night vision" instead of regular vision.
you are contradicting yourself [along with many other incorrect things] when you say humans do too.
but if we both have night vision, then we ,cat and human, would see as the same in any element, dark or light
since we do not see the same as the cat, that also means, that's incorrect.
Click to expand...
You misunderstand what I am saying, by not referring to the word I use of temporal night vision, temporal being time related, revolution timing of the planet or timing by the suns motion compared to Earth that moves us into or out of the EM radiation.

Either way now, the mods do not deem what I have to be enough to remain an alternative theory. Before long I will be in the cesspool. I do like this forum, so on that basis alone, I will drop my idea, because I do not want a ban.
 
''THE wave function has collapsed – permanently. A new approach to quantum mechanics eliminates some of its most famous oddities, including the concept of quantum objects being both a wave and a particle, and existing in multiple states at once.

In short, the approach removes the wave function and demotes the equation that describes it. In its place are a huge but finite number of ordinary, parallel worlds, whose jostling explains the weird effects normally ascribed to quantum mechanics.''

Maybe you want to reconsider my idea....

And entanglement is a different heat signature to sight.
 
Last edited:
Light is conceived as a part of this universe as central to this universe because of background radiation and as central to the curvature of the space-time plane. A change in light propagation from stars would mean a change in light propagation of the sun which varies because it is a yellow dwarf but it emits more white light than yellow light. Light is always being subtracted and the light that time perceives doesn't come from the stars and is not of this universe. It's origin is from outside the universe where it's hot and there is no gravitational constant.
 
Forceman said:
Light is conceived as a part of this universe as central to this universe because of background radiation and as central to the curvature of the space-time plane. A change in light propagation from stars would mean a change in light propagation of the sun which varies because it is a yellow dwarf but it emits more white light than yellow light. Light is always being subtracted and the light that time perceives doesn't come from the stars and is not of this universe. It's origin is from outside the universe where it's hot and there is no gravitational constant.
Click to expand...


 
theorist-constant12345 said:
And I will never give up on this idea. And one day I will work out a way to prove it with evidence in hard form.
Click to expand...
That is precisely why you are unable to learn science. When an idea has been shown to be wrong you must reject it and move on or you will not progress. You are mired in the mud and refuse to move on - too bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top