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

[Aqueous Id]

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.

Adding to what origin just said: you are expressing confirmation bias. The pursuit of truth does not begin with fantasy, followed by a search for evidence to support it. It begins with the search for evidence of every kind, and making the inferences which tie all the evidence together consistently and correctly.

On the other hand, when you deny evidence, you're simply perpetrating a falsehood. So this is pretty simple: you either pursue the truth or you flee from it. And in this case you are simply telling readers you are on the run.

 

[billvon]

And I will never give up on this idea.

Good scientists abandon a failed idea when experimental evidence proves it is incorrect.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Good scientists abandon a failed idea when experimental evidence proves it is incorrect.

and my experiments prove we see different energy levels in the dark.

 

[billvon]

and my experiments prove we see different energy levels in the dark.

What does "different energy levels" mean? Different wavelengths of photon? (not true) Different sensitivities to light levels? (true; this is a biological effect that makes our eyes more sensitive in the dark, and has little to do with physics.)

 

[theorist-constant12345]

What does "different energy levels" mean? Different wavelengths of photon? (not true) Different sensitivities to light levels? (true; this is a biological effect that makes our eyes more sensitive in the dark, and has little to do with physics.)

I think you do not understand the idea in full, but look at the video, look where I cut off the laser, and you clearly see the dark, and look at how the propagation makes white light, agreeing with what I am saying, and we see energy in the dark, we detect the change in the constant, and our temporal night vision detects the difference.

The laser by the way is in water.

 

[paddoboy]

and my experiments prove we see different energy levels in the dark.

You do realise what section you are in don't you?
Have fun.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You do realise what section you are in don't you?
Have fun.

I worded that last post badly,

edit -

I think you do not understand the idea in full, but look at the video, look where I cut off the laser beam using the water surface for a pass band filter, and you clearly see the dark, and look at how the propagation of EM radiation makes a higher energy, agreeing with what I am saying, and we see energy in the dark, we detect the change in the constant, and our temporal night vision detects the difference in energy levels by propagation.

The laser by the way is in water. You clearly see dark and energy level difference by propagation through the water.
Water having a higher refractive index, than air. And you can clearly see that once the laser beam leaves the water, it is allowed to un-propagate, decreasing its energy so we can not see it.

 

[billvon]

I think you do not understand the idea in full, but look at the video, look where I cut off the laser, and you clearly see the dark

Right. Because the camera does not record any light, so it is dark.

and look at how the propagation makes white light

No, the propagation does not make white light.

and we see energy in the dark

No, we see nothing in the dark because it is dark (no light.)

we detect the change in the constant, and our temporal night vision detects the difference.

"Night vision" means being able to see in low light conditions. We have devices that do that by either intensifying visible-wavelength light until it is visible, or by shifting invisible (infrared) light into the visible spectrum. "Temporal" means time-based, and since we use night vision at night, I suppose you could call it temporal.

However, I suspect you have some wacky crazy-straw idea where you redefine all those words to mean something completely different.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Right. Because the camera does not record any light, so it is dark.

No, the propagation does not make white light.

No, we see nothing in the dark because it is dark (no light.)

"Night vision" means being able to see in low light conditions. We have devices that do that by either intensifying visible-wavelength light until it is visible, or by shifting invisible (infrared) light into the visible spectrum. "Temporal" means time-based, and since we use night vision at night, I suppose you could call it temporal.

However, I suspect you have some wacky crazy-straw idea where you redefine all those words to mean something completely different.

see edit correction.

 

[billvon]

nd you can clearly see that once the laser beam leaves the water, it is allowed to un-propagate, decreasing its energy so we can not see it.

No, we see the beam in water because the floating particles reflect the light into our eyes. If the water were perfectly pure, but the air was dusty, then you would see the beam in the air but not the water. If the beam were intense enough you would see it in both places no matter how clean the air/water due to Rayleigh scattering.

In no case would you see the beam itself in a perfect vacuum since there would be nothing to reflect or scatter the light.

 

[paddoboy]

I worded that last post badly,
I think you do not understand the idea in full,

I understand the quality of your posts quite well.
Anything else I have to say is not very nice, but quite justified by the quality of your posts, your claims, and your past record elsewhere.
So I'll refrain.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Evidence that ''light'' is dark, at its most intensity of propagation observed by nasa observation experiment.

The outer volume of dimensional space has zero G, compared to the mass of the water.

 

[origin]

Evidence that ''light'' is dark, at its most intensity of propagation observed by nasa observation experiment.

No it doesn't. This is just more evidence that you haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about.

The outer volume of dimensional space has zero G, compared to the mass of the water.

More gibberish. Do you even have a thought you are trying to express when you throw these words together?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No it doesn't. This is just more evidence that you haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about.


More gibberish. Do you even have a thought you are trying to express when you throw these words together?

The words are not thrown together, they express the formal representation of axioms of logic of absolute values and axioms of observation .
The water droplet has mass, it has gravity, all mass is attracted to mass, the empty space surrounding the water, is in a state of zero G, the density volume function of the water, been equal to its mass, propagates the light to its maximum refraction speed decrease. Maximum entropy reaching a state of thermal equilibrium, of the ready state function.

 

[origin]

The words are not thrown together, they express the formal representation of axioms of logic of absolute values and axioms of observation.

How can something have an absolute value when you have 'proven' all maths is a fallacy?

The water droplet has mass, it has gravity, all mass is attracted to mass,

This is essentially true, which coming from you is quite amazing!

the empty space surrounding the water, is in a state of zero G,

So is the water.

the density volume function of the water, been equal to its mass, propagates the light to its maximum refraction speed decrease.

Yet more gibberish. How about this: The refractive index of water is 1.333, which means the speed of light through water is 2.25 x 10^8 m/s.

Maximum entropy reaching a state of thermal equilibrium, of the ready state function.

Just thowing together scientific terms hapazardly makes you look like a buffoon. I would recommend not using terms you do not understand - while it is rather funny and entertaining - it does not make you look too sharp.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

How can something have an absolute value when you have 'proven' all maths is a fallacy?


This is essentially true, which coming from you is quite amazing!

So is the water.

Yet more gibberish. How about this: The refractive index of water is 1.333, which means the speed of light through water is 2.25 x 10^8 m/s.

Just thowing together scientific terms hapazardly makes you look like a buffoon. I would recommend not using terms you do not understand - while it is rather funny and entertaining - it does not make you look too sharp.

The absolute value is observation, the logical worth of the axiom, a maths value of equal to, is absolute.
2. AbsolutePhilosophy
a. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the.
b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

Anabsolutetermdenotesapropertythatathingeithercanorcannothave.Suchtermsincludeabsoluteitself,chief, complete, perfect, prime, unique,and mathematical terms such as equal and parallel.

There is so many usages of the same word , it is astonishing.

The equal to propagation in this video is dark, an absolute value. A logical axiom of experimental observation.

 

[Aqueous Id]

The words are not thrown together,

And then you throw the following words together:

they express the formal representation of axioms of logic of absolute values and axioms of observation .

All meaningless gibberish. Do you even wonder for a moment why everyone is criticizing your posts? Does it even occur tyo you that something must be seriously wrong with your claims . . . or are you fully aware of it, and just pretending to have the intellect of a child?

The water droplet has mass,

Irrelevant.

it has gravity,

The mass is attended by a g field, but that's also irrelevant.

all mass is attracted to mass,

Irrelevant.

the empty space surrounding the water,

Incorrectly cast. You mean: "the interstitial space" (or words to that effect).

is in a state of zero G,

Meaningless gibberish. Space doesn't have states; g-fields permeate all space. "Zero G" is a hypothetical that could only be true if the universe had a centroid, but that's impossible. And if it did that would locate a single point, and that single point would be constantly shifting. So, in other words, your proposition fails.

the density volume function of the water,

Meaningless gibberish. The density of water is 1 kg/L and is not a function (outside of a few special cases not related to this).

been equal to its mass,

No, density is equal to mass divided by volume.

propagates the light

No, light propagates in a vacuum, and everywhere else it scatters.

to its maximum refraction speed decrease.

False gibberish. The speed of light is equal to the geometric mean of the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the medium. Free space has intrinsic values for these (look it up) as does water (look it up) and every other medium. You're just manufacturing bullshit in place of learning facts essential the issue you are arguing.

Maximum entropy

Irrelevant gibberish.

reaching a state of thermal equilibrium,

No, you have not established any source or sink of heat, or any surface through which heat flux is passing, so there is no case of thermal equilibrium. But it wouldn't matter if you manufactured that too, since it's irrelevant. Go tell us the permittivity and permeability "as a function of" temperature and calculate c for each pair. Of course it's irrelvant, but since you opened this can of worms, you should eat it.

of the ready state function.

What is that supposed to mean? That you read the technical manual for the 8080 or something? Irrelevant.


You continue to build a record for the most words spent saying absolutely nothing, rivaled only by the posts of wellwisher.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

And then you throw the following words together:

All meaningless gibberish. Do you even wonder for a moment why everyone is criticizing your posts? Does it even occur tyo you that something must be seriously wrong with your claims . . . or are you fully aware of it, and just pretending to have the intellect of a child?


Irrelevant.


The mass is attended by a g field, but that's also irrelevant.


Irrelevant.


Incorrectly cast. You mean: "the interstitial space" (or words to that effect).


Meaningless gibberish. Space doesn't have states; g-fields permeate all space. "Zero G" is a hypothetical that could only be true if the universe had a centroid, but that's impossible. And if it did that would locate a single point, and that single point would be constantly shifting. So, in other words, your proposition fails.


Meaningless gibberish. The density of water is 1 kg/L and is not a function (outside of a few special cases not related to this).


No, density is equal to mass divided by volume.


No, light propagates in a vacuum, and everywhere else it scatters.


False gibberish. The speed of light is equal to the geometric mean of the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability of the medium. Free space has intrinsic values for these (look it up) as does water (look it up) and every other medium. You're just manufacturing bullshit in place of learning facts essential the issue you are arguing.


Irrelevant gibberish.


No, you have not established any source or sink of heat, or any surface through which heat flux is passing, so there is no case of thermal equilibrium. But it wouldn't matter if you manufactured that too, since it's irrelevant. Go tell us the permittivity and permeability "as a function of" temperature and calculate c for each pair. Of course it's irrelvant, but since you opened this can of worms, you should eat it.


What is that supposed to mean? That you read the technical manual for the 8080 or something? Irrelevant.


You continue to build a record for the most words spent saying absolutely nothing, rivaled only by the posts of wellwisher.

You continue the misunderstanding of my posts. The function of refractive properties is to change ''light''speed.

The density , or viscosity, been the function of amount of change. By means of rate of velocity change, exchange by density function of energies of the entropy exchange rate to the density function by the function of EM radiation state.

 

[Aqueous Id]

You continue the misunderstanding of my posts.

There is no mystery in the trash you are posting.

The function of refractive properties is to change ''light''speed.

Wrong. Go look up the topics I assigned to you and when you complete your remedial work I will entertain the possibility that you wish to engage me on the level of an adult.

The density , or viscosity, been the function of amount of change.

Meaningless and irrelevant. Do your homework.

By means of rate of velocity change,

It's the other way around. By means of the change in permittivity and permeability, the speed of the wave propagation changes. That's the unit you are failing here. Master that, and you can pretend to wear the big boy britches.

exchange by density function of energies of the entropy exchange rate to the density function

Gibberish.

by the function of EM radiation state.

Meaningless nonsense.

Go do your homework, dude, and stop clowning the site.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

There is no mystery in the trash you are posting.


Wrong. Go look up the topics I assigned to you and when you complete your remedial work I will entertain the possibility that you wish to engage me on the level of an adult.


Meaningless and irrelevant. Do your homework.


It's the other way around. By means of the change in permittivity and permeability, the speed of the wave propagation changes. That's the unit you are failing here. Master that, and you can pretend to wear the big boy britches.


Gibberish.


Meaningless nonsense.

Go do your homework, dude, and stop clowning the site.

And the reaction of EM radiation to permittivity and permeability properties is?


permittivity and permeability is the function and work ,


In mathematics, a function[1] is a relation between a set of inputs and a set of permissible outputs with the property that each input is related to exactly one output.


The resulting function of work, being the action of propagation, that is the effect of reduced speed of flow.


Where has force over distance, TFR, explains a prism, where as refraction does not explain a square transparent block, with refractive properties the same has a prism. having no ability to change the function of ''white light'', and only by angular displacement of force, is the work possible, to change the function.
Permittivity and permeability have no affect on ''white light'' through an equally same refractive index block, in the dispersion, unless angular displaced.