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

[theorist-constant12345]

Given that it has been proven thousands of times via practical experiments, your statement is not based in reality.

You clearly have a lot of beliefs. Reality is what happens regardless of your beliefs.


Do you understand that the above statement is directly contradicted by the one that follows it:

It is not contradictory, I just believe I have a good vision of reality, I have lived a life and need 100% solid facts before I will accept anything, in another words I do not get scammed.
The science I learnt have a few facts short, I have simply played with the short facts, and looked at the axiom values of truth.
A statement of light allows us to see in the dark is a true statement, then by interpretation of this statement we could agree that we see in the dark by the light.

Seeing in the dark we can interpret has night vision or dark vision, by the light we see in the dark, seeing in the dark is night vision.

 

[billvon]

It is not contradictory, I just believe I have a good vision of reality, I have lived a life and need 100% solid facts before I will accept anything

Then require 100% solid facts before you accept your own ideas as well.

A statement of light allows us to see in the dark is a true statement, then by interpretation of this statement we could agree that we see in the dark by the light.
Seeing in the dark we can interpret has night vision or dark vision, by the light we see in the dark, seeing in the dark is night vision.

Playing semantics games will get you no closer to the truth. Actually learning the science will.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Then require 100% solid facts before you accept your own ideas as well.

Playing semantics games will get you no closer to the truth. Actually learning the science will.

How can a person learn something and accept that something, if they have to keep stopping for the hurdles in the way that do not make truthful sense?
I have had about 3 years or so learning about light and I know I understand it very well , I am submerged in the light also and my observations tell me I am seeing in the dark by the energy added, this energy is equal to sight in the form of it is invisible and see through and takes away the obscurity of darkness, I see visible spectral constants through the light, light interacts with matter at a constant rate, it is not hard to visually observe what is happening.

 

[billvon]

How can a person learn something and accept that something, if they have to keep stopping for the hurdles in the way that do not make truthful sense?

Because learning is more than making stuff up in your head. Sometimes you reach things that don't make sense. The fool stops at that point and says "it is science that is to blame for my inability to understand." The wise man continues on and learns where he went astray.

I have had about 3 years or so learning about light and I know I understand it very well

Which courses have you taken in it? Do you have any publications or patents in the field of optics? What new systems or devices have you designed using your knowledge of optics?

it is not hard to visually observe what is happening.

Many a junior scientist has been fooled by his eyes. After all, to your eyes, the earth looks flat.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Because learning is more than making stuff up in your head. Sometimes you reach things that don't make sense. The fool stops at that point and says "it is science that is to blame for my inability to understand." The wise man continues on and learns where he went astray.

Which courses have you taken in it? Do you have any publications or patents in the field of optics? What new systems or devices have you designed using your knowledge of optics?

Many a junior scientist has been fooled by his eyes. After all, to your eyes, the earth looks flat.

You know I have had no papers etc or took courses , the problem is I do understand and understand very well. It is not my ability to not understand, it is my ability to question things that I do not perceive logically accurate or explained truthfully , for example white light is a mixture of frequencies, although this may indeed be the truth, the explanation should state that the mixture of frequencies for ? reason is not seen has a mixture but seen has a constant state of invisible light. This would save on 100's of trolls getting mislead.

 

[Seattle]

TC, a measurement is taken from a light source that is 10 meters away and that measurement is 10 lux. What will be the measurement (in lux) if taken from 20 meters away?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

TC, a measurement is taken from a light source that is 10 meters away and that measurement is 10 lux. What will be the measurement (in lux) if taken from 20 meters away?

I know light and the process very well, I have not bothered to learn any values or the value of the inverse square law etc, I am sure it is not doubled, i will guess and say 15 lux?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I know light and the process very well

No you don't.

I have not bothered to learn any values or the value of the inverse square law etc

In other you certainly DON'T know light and "the process" well at all.

i will guess and say 15 lux?

Er, right, the further away you are away the brighter it is.
How does that work?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No you don't.


In other you certainly DON'T know light and "the process" well at all.


Er, right, the further away you are away the brighter it is.
How does that work?

It is not brighter the further away you are, light follows the inverse square law, at distance it is weaker, unless you are saying intensity of 15 lux is less than 10 lux ?

I should of said 5 lux in guess my error

And values are added , nothing to do with the nature of light which I discuss, I have not mentioned the quantified values of light.

 

[Seattle]

I know light and the process very well, I have not bothered to learn any values or the value of the inverse square law etc, I am sure it is not doubled, i will guess and say 15 lux?

You always say you actually understand the underlying physics of what you talk about...but you don't.

You throw out terms like "inverse square law" without (obviously) even understanding what those terms mean.

You would have us believe that you are being "studying" about light for 3 years and yet you don't even know how to apply the inverse square law?

This isn't about you not being very effective at communicating. Math cuts through all that. You just don't know anything.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You always say you actually understand the underlying physics of what you talk about...but you don't.

You throw out terms like "inverse square law" without (obviously) even understanding what those terms mean.

You would have us believe that you are being "studying" about light for 3 years and yet you don't even know how to apply the inverse square law?

This isn't about you not being very effective at communicating. Math cuts through all that. You just don't know anything.

Why would I need maths to explain the nature of something such as light? I need no maths to discuss the nature of light. I do not chuck out terms, the inverse square law , I may not know the maths but I understand clearly how it works, it is not hard to imagine a square that expands over distance, it is not hard to see the transverse of the action either, Physical process is very simple to understand.

 

[Seattle]

Why would I need maths to explain the nature of something such as light? I need no maths to discuss the nature of light. I do not chuck out terms, the inverse square law , I may not know the maths but I understand clearly how it works, it is not hard to imagine a square that expands over distance, it is not hard to see the transverse of the action either, Physical process is very simple to understand.

Why haven't you answered my question correctly then?

 

[Seattle]

Why haven't you answered my question correctly then?

By the way, the inverse square law isn't about "a square that expands over distance".

When are you going to give up the pretext that you understand this stuff?

 

[billvon]

You know I have had no papers etc or took courses

OK. Then perhaps you might learn from people who have.

the problem is I do understand and understand very well. It is not my ability to not understand, it is my ability to question things that I do not perceive logically accurate or explained truthfully

It's great to have an ability to question. It's even more important to have the ability to understand the answer.

for example white light is a mixture of frequencies, although this may indeed be the truth, the explanation should state that the mixture of frequencies for ? reason is not seen has a mixture but seen has a constant state of invisible light. This would save on 100's of trolls getting mislead.

See above. If you won't listen to the answer, and are convinced that you are smarter than all the fools offering you an explanation, all the explanations in the world won't help you understand.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

OK. Then perhaps you might learn from people who have.

It's great to have an ability to question. It's even more important to have the ability to understand the answer.

See above. If you won't listen to the answer, and are convinced that you are smarter than all the fools offering you an explanation, all the explanations in the world won't help you understand.

Convinced I am smarter than the fools offering that information, not really.
I have the ability to understand the answer and to question that answer, I am honestly telling you I do know my ideas and what I am saying that is different to science of present.
Some of you do not even know your present science and come back saying I am wrong on points which I am not because it is present knowledge.
Example two posts up, Seattle says I do not understand the inverse square law simply because I explained it in the simplest of form.
I could of explained it deeper and said from a starting point that the inverse square law, square being the word, increases in area by distance travelled away from the starting point in a square shape.
Me saying squares expanding is the exact same thing.
I find it strange that this thread has been quiet for a while, and now it is my only post left really except the one that the mod intervened in and scared some of you off, that at an instance people have jumped on this one to ridicule me and not to discuss the idea.
The next posts will be in the form of I suggest this thread goes in the bin, I suggest we ban this user, quite laughable really.
This is my last science forum , I have no where else to go, ban me from here and science is over for me, my ideas leave with me and maybe in time you would of understood the ideas that I am honestly saying have merit when considering present information.
I understand that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Considering white light and the mixture of frequencies, it was a while ago but by using a sequence and movie maker to increasingly speed up the sequence, I made the colour block blend into the light that was made, I do not alter the contrast or light in this video, the contrast and light is made by the sequence.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You may understand the videos now we have talked

 

[theorist-constant12345]

 

[origin]

I have the ability to understand the answer and to question that answer, I am honestly telling you I do know my ideas and what I am saying that is different to science of present.

And your ideas are totally wrong.

Some of you do not even know your present science and come back saying I am wrong on points which I am not because it is present knowledge.
Example two posts up, Seattle says I do not understand the inverse square law simply because I explained it in the simplest of form.
I could of explained it deeper and said from a starting point that the inverse square law, square being the word, increases in area by distance travelled away from the starting point in a square shape.
Me saying squares expanding is the exact same thing.

So once again you are showing you do not understand the inverse square law. It is not an expanding square it is an expanding sphere that shows the inverse square law.

I find it strange that this thread has been quiet for a while, and now it is my only post left really except the one that the mod intervened in and scared some of you off, that at an instance people have jumped on this one to ridicule me and not to discuss the idea.

Just quit making idiotic statements and you will not be ridiculed.

The next posts will be in the form of I suggest this thread goes in the bin, I suggest we ban this user, quite laughable really.

Well finally we agree! This should go in the crapper and you should go bye-bye.

This is my last science forum , I have no where else to go, ban me from here and science is over for me,

Science for you was over the second you wrote your first line.

my ideas leave with me and maybe in time you would of understood the ideas that I am honestly saying have merit when considering present information.

Your ideas are so wrong they do not even make rational sense. There has got to be some woo-woo site that will welcome you. Search for alternative science forums or something - they will love you.

I understand that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The action is you writting gibberish and insulting real scientist and the reaction is you getting banned.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

And your ideas are totally wrong.


So once again you are showing you do not understand the inverse square lay. It is not an expanding square it is an expanding sphere that shows the inverse square law.

Just quit making idiotic statements and you will not be ridiculed.

Well finally we agree! This should go in the crapper and you should go bye-bye.

Science for you was over the second you wrote your first line.

Your ideas are so wrong they do not even make rational sense. There has got to be some woo-woo site that will welcome you. Search for alternative science forums or something - they will love you.

The action is you writting gibberish and insulting real scientist and the reaction is you getting banned.

I am not insulting scientists, I am trying to aid science from my experience in and of science, science refuses to hear me out, so arrogance is the only way at times.
It really is your lack of understanding, not my lack of understanding, anyone in their right mind can see I put in a lot of time and effort, including videos.

Is my time any less valuable than your time?

NO.


My study is of importance, I understand the nature of light better than yourself and that is why I am able to make speculation founded on your science and Physical process.
You can clearly see by my modulation video that I understand the content referring to white light being a mixture of frequencies, you also can see that I also understand sight and the natural speed constant of light is equal to sight in the invisible mixed frequency form, the mix being at an equilibrium to sight , f=0 even though a mixed state.
You can then add your own spectral chart to include light matter interaction and light medium interactions, to see the constant spectral magnitudes different than the equilibrium to sight of f=0.