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

[Seattle]

TC, you do know that the word is "as" and not "has". I see that every time the correct word to use is "as" you write "has" so it isn't a typo since you do it every time.

What's up with that?

Regarding light, the intensity of light drops off as the inverse of squared distance from the light source so doubling the distance give you 1/4 the lux reading.

Therefore, if the lux measurement at 5 meters is 100 lux at 10 meters it will be 25 lux and at 20 meters it will be 6.25 lux .

 

[theorist-constant12345]

TC, you do know that the word is "as" and not "has". I see that every time the correct word to use is "as" you write "has" so it isn't a typo since you do it every time.

What's up with that?

Regarding light, the intensity of light drops off as the inverse of squared distance from the light source so doubling the distance give you 1/4 the lux reading.

Therefore, if the lux measurement at 5 meters is 100 lux at 10 meters it will be 25 lux and at 20 meters it will be 6.25 lux .

I do admit I do mix my has and as up , I do apologise.

I thank you for the information and explanation about the inverse square law and lux. To be clear , twice the distance from source one quarter of the magnitude,

Example - 50m 500 lux , so at 100m 125 lux?

 

[Seattle]

I do admit I do mix my has and as up , I do apologise.

I thank you for the information and explanation about the inverse square law and lux. To be clear , twice the distance from source one quarter of the magnitude,

Example - 50m 500 lux , so at 100m 125 lux?

That's correct. That is one way to way how far away certain stars are although it's not applicable in all circumstances (when the star's intrinsic brightness isn't known).

 

[theorist-constant12345]

That's correct. That is one way to way how far away certain stars are although it's not applicable in all circumstances (when the star's intrinsic brightness isn't known).

Thanks for the information and yes I can see why and how you can use lux to define distance if you know the intrinsic brightness of a star.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

''In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.''

I refer this to white light and the mixture of frequencies.

 

[paddoboy]

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.
.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty and stop pulling punches....
[1] You are insulting scientists, pretending to aid them in their work, when [2] you are not intelligent enough to aid them in any respect, and [3] you certainly suffer from delusions, [4] It is you who is arrogant as well as delusional, in not having the intestinal fortitude to give up, and admit you are pushing shit uphill, and are just plain wrong in your weird ideas about the Universe.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Let's get down to the nitty gritty and stop pulling punches....
[1] You are insulting scientists, pretending to aid them in their work, when [2] you are not intelligent enough to aid them in any respect, and [3] you certainly suffer from delusions, [4] It is you who is arrogant as well as delusional, in not having the intestinal fortitude to give up, and admit you are pushing shit uphill, and are just plain wrong in your weird ideas about the Universe.

Let me go down the nitty grit path and say , I do not care what you think, you have more interest in my personal life and mental health than science, your posts are repetitive and always of the same gibberish of presumption.

I wish you good day sir , stop bothering me if that is all you going to post.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Do you understand this any better?


Dark is a constant, light speed is a constant, the white light mixed frequencies is a constant see through the dark.

 

[billvon]

Dark is a constant

Dark is a low value of illumination. It is not a constant. What is dark to you is quite well lit to an owl.

light speed is a constant

Correct! One of the few absolute constants.

the white light mixed frequencies is a constant see through the dark.

Nope. White light is a term used to describe a mix of frequencies. In lighting design, for example, there are many kinds of white light, often referred to by the temperature of the black body you would need to produce that light. "Warm white" is around 3000 kelvin, for example, with a peak wavelength of around 900nm. "White" is around 3500 kelvin, "cool white" is 4100 kelvin, and "daylight" is around 6500K, with a peak wavelength around 450nm. (This is because the Sun's blackbody temperature is about 5800K.)

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Added - You are saying white light before it enters a prism is a mixture of frequencies, I ask you by what mechanism can a camera , be angled to achieve lens flare, and capture the same lens flare shot over and over again, if the light is a moving mix of frequencies , f=? with a momentum of p=c?

p.s image credited to google.

 

[billvon]

Added - You are saying white light before it enters a prism is a mixture of frequencies, I ask you by what mechanism can a camera , be angled to achieve lens flare

Via reflections from internal mechanisms and refraction through unexpected paths through the glass of the lens.

and capture the same lens flare shot over and over again

Lens flares are deterministic events.

if the light is a moving mix of frequencies , f=? with a momentum of p=c?

It's a pretty static mix of frequencies. There are so many photons in (for example) a picture of a beach in the daylight that the energy in every band is effectively constant.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Via reflections from internal mechanisms and refraction through unexpected paths through the glass of the lens.

Lens flares are deterministic events.

It's a pretty static mix of frequencies. There are so many photons in (for example) a picture of a beach in the daylight that the energy in every band is effectively constant.

I put to you that lens flare is not a deterministic event but rather by angular displacement of the lens to the light, you are decreasing or increasing the distance to the light source relative to the lens , reducing the light force by a marginal amount of lux by distance, has can be shown in the inverse square law.
The greater the distance the less force of the light making a difference in propagation giving the various spectral range.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

In science, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed

 

[billvon]

I put to you that lens flare is not a deterministic event but rather by angular displacement of the lens to the light, you are decreasing or increasing the distance to the light source relative to the lens , reducing the light force by a marginal amount of lux by distance, has can be shown in the inverse square law.

This is a good example of the old maxim "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." No, the inverse-square law isn't a factor here, nor is observer effect.

Try the following experiment. Point a camera at a bright light. Angle it so that you get a lens flare. Now dim the light. The flare will still be there, just dimmer - since it is deterministic, caused by the paths that the incident rays of the light follow inside the camera.

Now move the camera. Since you are now changing the angle of the incident light, the flare will move.

The greater the distance the less force of the light making a difference in propagation giving the various spectral range.

No, distance does not change spectral range. The Sun's spectral range, for example, does not change after almost 100 million miles.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

This is a good example of the old maxim "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." No, the inverse-square law isn't a factor here, nor is observer effect.

Try the following experiment. Point a camera at a bright light. Angle it so that you get a lens flare. Now dim the light. The flare will still be there, just dimmer - since it is deterministic, caused by the paths that the incident rays of the light follow inside the camera.

Now move the camera. Since you are now changing the angle of the incident light, the flare will move.


No, distance does not change spectral range. The Sun's spectral range, for example, does not change after almost 100 million miles.

What about the force change by distance that I suggest?

And how can a moving mixture at c be relatively static?

Why does the lens flare not change in colour/spectral range, when the mixture is flowing through the lens, surely the spectral colours would change has a different frequencies of the mix passed by/through the lens?

 

[billvon]

What about the force change by distance that I suggest?

What about it? It is neither supported by evidence nor necessary to explain lens flares.

And how can a moving mixture at c be relatively static?

The composition of the light is relatively static. It is, of course, moving at C.

Why does the lens flare not change in colour/spectral range, when the mixture is flowing through the lens, surely the spectral colours would change has a different frequencies of the mix passed by/through the lens?

Often it does, if the path it takes involves refraction through one or more elements within the lens. Here's an example:

However if it is a simple reflection it is generally the same color as the incoming light being reflected.

 

[Seattle]

That's why there are multiple elements in an expensive lens to correct for things like chromatic aberration so you don't get colors around the edge.

Lense flare is just internal reflection including light hitting the edges of the aperture.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I really need to try to stop rushing's things and try to clarify things properly, to take a bit more time and consideration in what I post .

''The composition of the light is relatively static. It is, of course, moving at C.''

The composition of ''white light'' in 3 dimensional space is relatively to all observers a mixture of spectral frequencies that is colourless and makes the unclear of darkness clear and see through to all observers.

In the late 19th century there was a theory about a Luminiferous aether, that was said to be the postulated medium for the propagation of light. In my opinion the EM radiation is it's own medium, an energy medium of space in all of space that is colourless and see through to the human race, by evolution we developed to use this energy to see by and see through.
I postulate that the colourless and see through of EM radiation in 3 dimensional space is unvaried unless in interaction , to all observers and equal to sight.

 

[billvon]

The composition of ''white light'' in 3 dimensional space is relatively to all observers a mixture of spectral frequencies that is colourless and makes the unclear of darkness clear and see through to all observers.

White light does not make the "unclear of darkness clear and see through." Transparent things remain transparent whether or not white light is present.

In the late 19th century there was a theory about a Luminiferous aether, that was said to be the postulated medium for the propagation of light. In my opinion the EM radiation is it's own medium, an energy medium of space in all of space that is colourless and see through to the human race, by evolution we developed to use this energy to see by and see through.

EM radiation is not a medium, it is radiation.
We have indeed evolved to see some wavelengths of light because sight is useful on Earth, which has a pretty bright Sun it orbits. We did not evolve to "see through it" - we evolved to see it.
White light is perceived as white by humans. Most call white light "colorless" unless it has a distinct color temperature that they notice. Individual wavelengths are perceived as colors. Combining all the colors gives white light.

I postulate that the colourless and see through of EM radiation in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers and equal to sight.

That's fine. Since EM radiation is not universally colorless, not universally visible by humans, and not unvaried to all observers, it fails the most basic tests.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

White light does not make the "unclear of darkness clear and see through." Transparent things remain transparent whether or not white light is present.

EM radiation is not a medium, it is radiation.
We have indeed evolved to see some wavelengths of light because sight is useful on Earth, which has a pretty bright Sun it orbits. We did not evolve to "see through it" - we evolved to see it.
White light is perceived as white by humans. Most call white light "colorless" unless it has a distinct color temperature that they notice. Individual wavelengths are perceived as colors. Combining all the colors gives white light.

That's fine. Since EM radiation is not universally colorless, not universally visible by humans, and not unvaried to all observers, it fails the most basic tests.

Are you trying to suggest that darkness is clear to vision and we can see through it?

Are you suggesting that darkness does not allow light to pass through it?

Are you suggesting that without the aid of light we can see through the dark?

Are you suggesting that I can not see through the white light in my living room and see an object?

I postulate that the colourless and see through of EM radiation in 3 dimensional space is unvaried to all observers unless interacting with a medium or matter and I also postulate that the white light is an equal frequency to sight.
postulate - ''suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.''