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

Status
Not open for further replies.
exchemist said:
T-C, you're doing it again, that is introducing extraneous concepts that have nothing to do with the subject and cause confusion. Please do not do that, it really doesn't help.

The retina of your eyes simply absorbs light. Any surface on which light is falling does this, unless it is a mirror. However the rods and cones of your retina contain pigments that generate electrochemical signals when they absorb light and these signals are passed to the optic nerve and thence to the brain. That is how you see.

The term "coupling" in physics has a technical meaning, to do with certain interactions of waves with matter, and it is not helpful to invoke it here. (As a matter of fact, at the level of individual molecules in your retina, the absorption process does involve coupling of a molecular electron to the photon being absorbed. But it really does not help to go down that particular rabbit hole in the present discussion.)
Click to expand...
Coupling is very important to my idea, and I do know that the ''Resonant inductive coupling or electrodynamic induction is the near fieldwireless transmission of electrical energy between two magnetically coupled coils that are part of resonant circuits tuned to resonate at the same frequency.''

Is not directly related to light, but I am trying to relate it, I am trying get you to understand the invisible constant and the coupling of the invisible constant of your eyes to matter by the invisible constant.

I know we see with our brains and Neural receptors by electrical chemical signals , interpret what are eyes sense.

As soon as you turn on a light source, light waves of mixed frequencies are sent through space, instantly your eyes starts the feed of the energy to your brain, the energy is always there has long as the light source is available.
1 hr of light, 1 hr of temporal vision.

The light from your eye ball surface to any object surface is a space of a constant speed and constant frequency to sight of light.

The space between your eyes and the object when light is present, is full of light energy, the energy your eyes use to couple to objects by the electro part of electromagnetic radiation.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Coupling is very important to my idea, and I do know that the ''Resonant inductive coupling or electrodynamic induction is the near fieldwireless transmission of electrical energy between two magnetically coupled coils that are part of resonant circuits tuned to resonate at the same frequency.''

Is not directly related to light, but I am trying to relate it, I am trying get you to understand the invisible constant and the coupling of the invisible constant of your eyes to matter by the invisible constant.

I know we see with our brains and Neural receptors by electrical chemical signals , interpret what are eyes sense.

As soon as you turn on a light source, light waves of mixed frequencies are sent through space, instantly your eyes starts the feed of the energy to your brain, the energy is always there has long as the light source is available.
1 hr of light, 1 hr of temporal vision.

The light from your eye ball surface to any object surface is a space of a constant speed and constant frequency to sight of light.

The space between your eyes and the object when light is present, is full of light energy, the energy your eyes use to couple to objects by the electro part of electromagnetic radiation.
Click to expand...

Sorry. You are just picking up a nice shiny term and making putting it somewhere to brighten things up. That's what magpies do but it isn't science.

You are NOT, repeat NOT coupling your eyes to the objects illuminated by the light. Coupling would imply some synchronisation of a motion of the object with an equivalent motion in your eyes.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Coupling is very important to my idea, and I do know that the ''Resonant inductive coupling or electrodynamic induction is the near field wireless transmission of electrical energy between two magnetically coupled coils that are part of resonant circuits tuned to resonate at the same frequency.''
Click to expand...
That says NEAR FIELD. Your eyes work in the FAR FIELD. Do you understand the difference?
The light from your eye ball surface to any object surface is a space of a constant speed and constant frequency to sight of light.
Click to expand...
Light does not come out of your eyeball.
 
exchemist said:
Sorry. You are just picking up a nice shiny term and making putting it somewhere to brighten things up. That's what magpies do but it isn't science.

You are NOT, repeat NOT coupling your eyes to the objects illuminated by the light. Coupling would imply some synchronisation of a motion of the object with an equivalent motion in your eyes.
Click to expand...
Motion is synchronised to your sight, that is why motion blur exists, by changing the motion of a static observer, you are changing the motion relative to light.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
We have a near field of sight
Click to expand...
Incorrect. "Near field" is within one wavelength of the receiver. In other words the transmitter and receiver are less than one wavelength apart. "Far field" is 2 or more wavelengths distant. In other words the transmitter and receiver are more than two wavelengths apart.

So here's an exercise for you - how close would a light have to be to your retina to be considered "near field" per your definition of resonant inductive coupling?
 
billvon said:
Incorrect. "Near field" is within one wavelength of the receiver. In other words the transmitter and receiver are less than one wavelength apart. "Far field" is 2 or more wavelengths distant. In other words the transmitter and receiver are more than two wavelengths apart.

So here's an exercise for you - how close would a light have to be to your retina to be considered "near field" per your definition of resonant inductive coupling?
Click to expand...
I think I may have seen near field and far field to mean something different from the content. I viewed that as near or far in distance. Either way I am not the scientist here, I am simply applying my visual representation and observations and trying to find the science that explains the process, although the science may be related to other content.

Without any doubt I postulate a coupling of sight to matter by the evidence of white light is equal to sight in that we all see through it and are all immersed in it, and also the evidence of motion blur.

Relative to the observer effect the light we are submerged in has no velocity.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Since you know that why do you persist in posting bollocks?
Click to expand...
How do I know it is bollocks?

How do you know it is still not you not understanding me , because I am sure if you understood , you would be agreeing with me.

I think the coupling of the brain by the energy in space to matter is not an unreasonable assumption.
 
Dywyddyr said:
This is more than half the problem: you don't know enough to realise how utterly ignorant you really are.


Because you don't what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I realise I know enough knowledge to know what I am talking about or I would not have the ability to talk about the knowledge, anyone can see that I have a clear understanding of light being clear to sight in 3 dimensional space, a clear understanding of the Physical presence of light coupling our brains to matter the same as the Physical presence of gravity couples mass, the same as the electrostatic force of an atom couples electrons to protons.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I think I may have seen near field and far field to mean something different from the content. I viewed that as near or far in distance.
Click to expand...
That's one of your biggest problems. In physics (and in the world in general) terms like "near field" mean something, and you cannot change the meaning of terms and expect yourself to be understood (or even to make sense to yourself.)
Either way I am not the scientist here
Click to expand...
Then why do you argue with people who are?
In any case, to answer your question - to be near field the light source would have to be within about 1000 nanometers of your retina. That means the light source would have to be inside your eye. So unless you are inserting LED's into your eyeball, everything you see is far field - and thus not coupled.
Without any doubt I postulate a coupling of sight to matter by the evidence of white light is equal to sight in that we all see through it and are all immersed in it, and also the evidence of motion blur.
Click to expand...
You are conflating two things that have nothing to do with each other.
elative to the observer effect the light we are submerged in has no velocity.
Click to expand...
Now you are conflating a third thing that has nothing to do with the previous statement. You might as well say "sight rays come out of your eyes because AT+T says you can reach out and touch someone."
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I realise I know enough knowledge to know what I am talking about or I would not have the ability to talk about the knowledge
Click to expand...
You don't have the ability to talk about the knowledge. You don't even know what the terms you are using mean.
anyone can see that I have a clear understanding of light being clear to sight in 3 dimensional space, a clear understanding of the Physical presence of light coupling our brains to matter the same as the Physical presence of gravity couples mass, the same as the electrostatic force of an atom couples electrons to protons.
Click to expand...
You just admitted you didn't have a clear understanding of the science - "I am not the scientist here."
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I realise I know enough knowledge to know what I am talking about
Click to expand...
You continually show that you DON'T know what you're talking about.

or I would not have the ability to talk about the knowledge, anyone can see that I have a clear understanding of light being clear to sight in 3 dimensional space, a clear understanding of the Physical presence of light coupling our brains to matter the same as the Physical presence of gravity couples mass, the same as the electrostatic force of an atom couples electrons to protons.
Click to expand...
Which why you resort to meaningless word salad...
 
billvon said:
You don't have the ability to talk about the knowledge. You don't even know what the terms you are using mean.

You just admitted you didn't have a clear understanding of the science - "I am not the scientist here."
Click to expand...
I am not the scientist here, does not say I do not know the science I am talking about, admitted I do not know everything, but I am not talking about everything, I am talking about some very simple concepts and do not understand why you do not understand.

You know what a coupling is, so do I , it is not hard to consider our brains coupled to mass by the energy in the unoccupied space or low refractive space.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I am not the scientist here, does not say I do not know the science I am talking about
Click to expand...
You are using words wrong. Darkness does not mean what you think it means. Coupling does not mean what you think it means. Near field does not mean what you think it means. You quite literally do not know what you are talking about.
admitted I do not know everything, but I am not talking about everything, I am talking about some very simple concepts and do not understand why you do not understand.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. You are, simply put, wrong, partly because you are using the wrong terms.
You know what a coupling is
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. I work on loosely coupled wireless power systems, so I have a pretty good working knowledge of near field coupling.
so do I
Click to expand...
No, you don't.
it is not hard to consider our brains coupled to mass by the energy in the unoccupied space or low refractive space.
Click to expand...
It's not hard to consider it. I did. You are wrong.
 
TC, you say you need to visualize things. Is there some learning disorder that causes you to not be able to read a book or an article and understand what is meant by that book or article?

As others have mentioned, it would help you and anyone trying to read your posts if you left out nonsense words or phrases.

After you and I discussed the inverse square law the other day suddenly you began inserting "inverse square law" into every post.

Why do you do that? You don't need to insert ....gravity, 3D space, constant, see through, etc into every post. Just say what you mean rather than adding terms you've just been exposed to but don't really understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top