Oh, will this be something else you're going to not understand and thus misinterpret to suit your own (ridiculous) claims?
As we have seen in the majority of your posts what YOU are "sure of" is usually not the case at all.
It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
It is not hard to show that space without light is dark .
And you've avoided - again - the actual points made/ questions asked in the post you quoted.
Thing - an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
''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".''
Not that on itself proves it .
Not that on itself proves it .
There is no misinterpret to suit my own claims, it is your science and observational truths.
Demonstrably wrong - you misinterpret ACTUAL science all the time.
It's a defining characteristic of yours.
Bollocks.
You don't know what "my science" says since you persist in not understanding it.
And your "observational truths" are nothing other than the delusional misinterpretation of actualities, helped along by your self-aggrandising predilection for over-estimating your abilities.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Assume dark propagates. Which direction does it propagate? What is its source? I will stipulate that you cannot use anything that produces light (as opposed to dark) in order for you to measure or determine this. Good luck with that.
This subject (darken theory of dark) is very old.
This subject (darken theory of dark) is very old.
Because the definition of dark is "not much light." Sorta like the definition of "empty" is "has nothing in it." When you fill an empty can, where does the empty go?
Just like adding water to a can makes it not empty. Does the water allow you to fill the empty? Where did the empty go?
Imagine what an idiot you'd sound like if you said "water is not a thing; the can is always empty, even when there is water in it!"
That would make it incorrect. You can see through dark transparent space. You cannot see through dark opaque space. You yourself admitted this.
That would also be incorrect. Dark space is not illuminated.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Billvon, I have a postulate that says empty is a see through constant in 3D space.
Will you agree with my postulate that empty is see through?
Would you concede that water is largely transparent under certain conditions through the observer effect?
Therefore, though the constant of mixed frequency light and the constant of gravity empty space is still empty even when filled with see through water.
Do you now see where I'm coming from?
Will you agree with my postulate that empty is see through?
Would you concede that water is largely transparent under certain conditions through the observer effect?
Therefore, though the constant of mixed frequency light and the constant of gravity empty space is still empty even when filled with see through water.
Do you now see where I'm coming from?
Yep. You might also have a postulate that empty is a Casimir observer effect with a 4D confluence of related manifolds, with a Gaussian distribution of pirates. Having a postulate is great - but then it has to mean something.
Empty space is usually transparent, yes.
No. "Observer effect" does not mean what you think it means. If it did, then water might be less or more transparent, and that transparency would be altered through the effect the observer had on it. That is not true at any of the scales we are talking about.
No, space full of water is not empty, by definition.
I do - you are just wrong. You have this odd belief that if you post the same incorrect theories 80 times they will become more true. They won't. Nor will they become more correct if you explain the same incorrect theories over and over.
You say dark space is not illuminated, why can you see through the dark space then when energy is present if the dark space if it is not illuminated?
Observer effect is a change in observation from sight by using device, the observer see's ''white light'' as invisible light as single frequency to sight, and by using devices you can see that the white light is a mixture of frequencies, so how is this not observer effect?
When I refer to empty , I simply mean empty to sight, obscured, darkness is an emptiness to sight even if the volume of empty space is full, in the dark we only see empty.
When you occupy space with matter the space is still there, move the matter left of right, it is not matter filling space, it is matter occupying space.
I will put 3 sentences of truth and a conclusion of truth
In dark space we can not see.
In dark space if we add light we can see,
Adding light to dark space gives us the ability to see in and through dark space.
Conclusion- seeing in a dark space is seeing in the dark, it is night vision no matter which way you try to twist it.
In dark space we can not see.
In dark space if we add light we can see,
Adding light to dark space gives us the ability to see in and through dark space.
Conclusion- seeing in a dark space is seeing in the dark, it is night vision no matter which way you try to twist it.
gives us the ability to see in and through dark space.
Consider that unless Photons enter your eyes you can not see. Light has to enter your eyes, without the ability to convert the information by your brain you would not see, light does give US the ability to see in dark space.
Consider that unless Photons enter your eyes you can not see. Light has to enter your eyes, without the ability to convert the information by your brain you would not see, light does give US the ability to see in dark space.
I think this should move back up to alternative theories, my reason and latest thought ,
Light is a state created by the brain.
Light is a state created by the brain.
- Status