You see through dark space that has energy in it. Without the energy your eyes are uncoupled from objects.
Your last gibberish I already know that is what you think, you are like a bot in repeating yourself.
It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
Your last gibberish I already know that is what you think, you are like a bot in repeating yourself.
More meaningless bollocks.
Sight isn't coupled to objects.
How can I word it incorrectly when it is my question?
I ask again, you avoid answering the actual question.
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?
I ask again, you avoid answering the actual question.
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?
Sight is coupled to objects by the energy in the space between your eyes and the object, remove the energy and you uncouple your brain from the object.
No.
Coupling has already been explained to you.
Because what you're saying is unscientific bollocks predicated on a lack of understanding.
As worded: no I do not agree.
Coupling did not needed be to explained to me, I know what coupling is.
As worded you do not agree, the entire question is a true statement.
So you disagree that your brain is coupled to matter. Look at any object with the light on, your brain can clearly decode the information of the objects low voltage differential signalling that is constant by spectral colour but different to the constant of invisible light in dark space .
Now shut your eyes and ''see'' if you can see the object, would you not agree that the circuit to your brain from the object had been lost, an uncoupling from your mind to the object?
Last edited:
This is false, demonstrated by the fact that you have persistently misused the word in all of your posts where you wrote it.
I don't agree because it's NOT a true statement.
Uh what?
Wrong: the brain is not "coupled to matter".
Absolute nonsense.
And now you're misusing the word/ principle of coupling again.
Nice try , I am not misusing the word coupling. ''the pairing of two items.''
Like it or not your brain is coupled to the object you are looking at by the energy constant in dark space that you are immersed in. There is no dark space when the energy is present between your eyes and the object, the see through energy constant connecting you brain to all objects within your vision.
Shutting your eyes at any time, uncouples the coupling of your brain to any object.
we are only on 808 .
In which case you aren't using the word in the scientific sense.
Which requires you to define exactly what YOU mean by "coupling".
Gibberish.
And definitely not science.
are you a bot?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
My bad, #783.
Dark space is a thing and dark space is the natural of the Universe. I understand what you are saying though and my use of state was probably the wrong wording to use.
In my opinion it is not hard to prove that dark space is the natural of the Universe, because if we remove light from anywhere in the Universe , the natural of space is darkness. It is not hard to prove that darkness is always there and light has to be added to make dark space see through.
In the beginning there was dark space and at singular point in dark space there was a big bang that expanded matter through dark space and made stars that illuminated dark space.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That's just a philosophical argument (if that) regarding what is the "natural state" of the universe. Light is around as long as there are stars so I'm not sure what your argument would be but it's not important as far as physics is concerned.
If you are going to argue that "dark" is a "thing" then you are going to have to show exactly what that thing is.
It's not a thing of course and I don't really understand they you insist it is. This seems more like trolling to me.
Unsupported claim.
So far as is known space didn't exist "before" the BB.
Light is an illusion and it is always dark , have you forgot the thread title?
I can prove dark is the natural state , it is easy because a new star is born all the time, a new star that gives light to new areas of dark space.
Dark space needs nothing to be made, it naturally is there without additives.
Unsupported , I will find the Physics on needs for an expansion tomorrow, and I am sure to expand you have to have free space to expand into.
Not shown so far.
Regardless of whether or not "dark is a natural state" it doesn't prove, demonstrate or even indicate in any way that "light is an illusion".
And you appear to have completely ignored the question inherent in Seattle's post: If you are going to argue that "dark" is a "thing" then you are going to have to show exactly what that thing is.
- Status