It is one of the rule guides about to much editing.
So you agree that in dark space we can not see at all?
It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
So you agree that in dark space we can not see at all?
Whut?
By definition, no.
And a shadow happens to be... oh, a blockage (i.e. lack) of light.
Thus NOT dark existing in the light.
A closed box in the light prevents light entering the box (that's what males it dark). So, again, it's not dark existing in the light.
Nope.
Uh, what?
Is what a wave? Dark? No.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You just said that "dark is the natural state of the universe". That certainly implies that dark is a state and not a thing.
You can argue, in a philosophical sense, whether you think a dark universe is the "natural state" or not but you've just admitted that dark is a state and not a thing.
Citation needed.
Provide a source.
I agree that when it's dark we can't see.
And that's because there's no light.
So do you agree that light allows you to see in the dark?
No.
BY DEFINITION if there is light it is NOT DARK.
You are not being objective and contradicting your other answer,
''I agree that when it's dark we can't see.''
So if you are sitting in a dark space, and turn on a light, are saying that the light does not give you sight in that dark space?
Are you saying that by decrease in intensity of the light , that the illuminated dark space does not start to become translucent darkened space?
'' allowing light, but not detailed shapes, to pass through; semi-transparent.''
'' allowing light, but not detailed shapes, to pass through; semi-transparent.''
Wrong.
And wrong.
Where's the contradiction?
I have stated all along throughout this thread exactly what I wrote in my last post: IF THERE IS LIGHT IT IS, BY DEFINITION, NOT DARK.
If you turn on a light the space is no longer dark.
Why is the space no longer darker because you can now see not because light is a thing. You already admitted in the dark we have no vision, you admitted we can not see.
Light allows you to see in the dark can you not agree with this when this is what happens when we add light we can see in the dark.
What?
Light IS a "thing".
Um, one more time: we can't see BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT.
I can't agree with this because:
1) It's wrong.
2) It's wrong.
3) It's wrong.
oh and,
4) It's an utterly fucking stupid assertion.
It is not an assertion , it is fundamental truths, I will take you back to your agreement of dark space is transparent , so if dark space is transparent to light, it is also see through to sight, so what stops us seeing objects in the dark space?
We do not become blind in the dark, and I can clearly see a laser dot on a surface through a dark space.
Nope. It's a false - and unsupported - claim.
You REALLY should learn to read. Go back and read what I actually wrote: I agree that when it's dark we can't see.
I.e. when there is no light we can't see.
Yes we do.
No, you see a laser dot because the light from the laser reflects into your eyes.
I.e. there is light reaching your eyes.
I think you should go back and read what you answered, you agreed that dark space was transparent, and now you are being obtuse again when we were getting somewhere.
You have agreed that we can not see in dark space, so you have to agree that by adding light we are allowed to see in the dark space?
If you're going to quote me then you really should read what I wrote: The dark space.
I.e. the italicisation laid the emphasis on the word "space" - in other words the SPACE is transparent, not the "dark".
Correct.
No.
Because when we add light IT IS NO LONGER DARK.
When we add light and it is by definition then not dark is very small minded and narrow thinking.
We have already established that dark space is transparent, meaning that the dark in a space is transparent and does not obstruct light.
We have already established that dark space obscures objects from our vision.
Do you agree that we need light to remove the obscurity, of objects in dark space?
Unless you can provide evidence otherwise then it's CORRECT thinking.
What you're missing here is that SPACE is transparent (as has been pointed out more than once).
DARK cannot be transparent because it's not a thing.
Haven't you just claimed that dark space is transparent?
If so how CAN it obscure our vision?
What?
dark space is transparent, you agreed with that also, it obscures our vision because the energy constant is not there that couples our brains to matter.
Do you agree that without light , that the dark space obscures matter from our vision, and when we add light the objects are no longer obscure to sight and we can now clearly see through the dark space?
You're ignoring the emphasis AND my clarification I gave in a previous post.
This is either dishonest or phenomenally stupid of you.
SPACE is transparent.
Unscientific word salad.
You're wording this incorrectly.
Without light it is what we call "dark".
When there IS light we can see.
The lack of light makes us unable to see.
We see through SPACE, not "dark".
Before I lose this thought,
Would you agree that when in dark space and looking towards an object you know is there but can not see, would you agree that your sight is uncoupled to this object whilst in dark space?
Would you agree that when in dark space and looking towards an object you know is there but can not see, would you agree that your sight is uncoupled to this object whilst in dark space?
- Status