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

Status
Not open for further replies.
paddoboy said:
How many forums have you been banned from?


And the following statement by you, absolutely refutes the claim that you have any knowledge about light.




Anyway, I'm out. This is rather boring, refuting something a 8 year old could set you straight on.
Click to expand...
I have probably been banned from about 6 forums, and this is mainly because nobody can understand what I am on about, because people in my opinion can not see past science information of present.

It is simple logic, and I would like anyone to try and dispute the Cat.

It is simple when considering that light is emitted, it is not natural , it has to be produced, dark needs no producing it is natural.


I remove all the EM radiation from the universe it is dark, simple and true logic that can not be denied in any sense.


Anyway i am out ? ., really, why because i have an alternative that is not conventional, and I am saying it is alternative to conventional.

Please feel free to test my knowledge on present thought.

I am not a troll, and genuinely believe my alternative thought has merit.

It is not my fault , no one can consider the idea,

In fact I know you can not even understand my idea, so how can anyone say it is wrong, if no one even understands it?
 
Just because we can measure the speed of an electromagnetic wave, this is not to say that we are measuring the speed of light, the speed of light is equal to the speed of sight.


Light reflecting from matter, according to conventional thought, with a net charge of zero, in principle has no electrical impulse for our neural receptors to be activated.

Light in 3 dimensional space is already in our eyes, if we remove all matter from space leaving just one star, are you saying that no light will enter our eyes?

I do not think so, we are submerged in EM radiation, light does not need to reflect of matter into our eyes to see the matter, it only needs to be different to our visual constant.
 
I did not want to start a thread inside a thread, but to show you my credentials of critical thought process, I will over rule time dilation with simple logic.

Time does not care that the timing of a muon or an atom being not the same, time is not a muon or an atom, and will carry on at the same pace regardless what the timing is of an atom or a muon is.

A change of timing is not a change in time.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I will try again , and try again to explain my logical thought, and where and how I get the idea.
Click to expand...

Most everyone understands what you are saying, it is just that most everyone thinks the idea is silly and illogical.

How is this for logic:
Our eyes are photon detectors, if there are no photons our eyes detect nothing.
 
origin said:
Most everyone understands what you are saying, it is just that most everyone thinks the idea is silly and illogical.

How is this for logic:
Our eyes are photon detectors, if there are no photons our eyes detect nothing.
Click to expand...
I would not disagree with that logic, but I would add, that without photons being detected by our eyes, we can not see in the dark, I think the problem is you do not see dark to being a thing, you only see dark as the absence of light, meaning the absence if sight. Where as , even if we were not here, we would still have dark.

I am glad someone mentioned a shadow.

In shadow of an object, there is less light, if we could stop the light from entering from the sides to make no light, we would see dark in the shadow.

So you agree by your statement that photons allow us to see in the dark.

Can you honestly tell me that light is a thing and we do not see in the dark, and this illusion is light?

It is seemingly logically the same argument.

If we have night vision eyes, in a sense that it is temporal depending on intensity of EM radiation, how would we know the difference?

We logically would not be able to tell the difference, because like the cat, we would be seeing in the dark.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
HEY! no logic, no observation, no experiment,
Experiment observation-
Turn the light off in a room that lets no ambient light in, the results are conclusive, I can not, you can not, and no other species can see the walls.

Fact,

two options -

we are blind

or the dark is solid to our vision, we can not see through it

no other choices........
Click to expand...
Your have continually asked for people to point out if there are any flaws in your logic... Okay.
Your logic is fallacious: it is an example of an excluded middle, of false dilemma or whatever else you want to call it.

Now, people haven't said it in quite those terms but have expressed the same point: you are concluding that there are only two possible options when there are more, including the option that eyes are merely detectors, that the dark does not obstruct our vision but the walls, in your example, obstruct EM frequencies within our visible range from reaching our eyes etc.

If you can not comprehend how your "logic" is thus fallacious, that you are simply missing key options, you will get nowhere because most will consider it simply not worth continuing to discuss such matters with someone who rules out valid options without explanation.


Now, for the purpose of discussion you may want to ask people to only consider alternatives to the currently held theory... But this would need to be one of the premises of your thought experiment... E.g. "For purposes of discussion, eyes are not to be considered photon receptors" etc. and ask it in another way that is conducive to discussion, e.g. "Is it possible that..."

But ultimately a theory needs to be testable.
And if it offers the same predictive power as the current theory but no better, it must (usually) also satisfy Occam's razor for it to be considered preferable.

So what is your theory? What are its predictive abilities? How is it any better than the currently held understanding? Why should we consider darkness as something other than an absence of light reaching our eyes?
Because having read through this thread, I am none the wiser as to what your theory actually is.
 
Sarkus said:
Your have continually asked for people to point out if there are any flaws in your logic... Okay.
Your logic is fallacious: it is an example of an excluded middle, of false dilemma or whatever else you want to call it.

Now, people haven't said it in quite those terms but have expressed the same point: you are concluding that there are only two possible options when there are more, including the option that eyes are merely detectors, that the dark does not obstruct our vision but the walls, in your example, obstruct EM frequencies within our visible range from reaching our eyes etc.

If you can not comprehend how your "logic" is thus fallacious, that you are simply missing key options, you will get nowhere because most will consider it simply not worth continuing to discuss such matters with someone who rules out valid options without explanation.


Now, for the purpose of discussion you may want to ask people to only consider alternatives to the currently held theory... But this would need to be one of the premises of your thought experiment... E.g. "For purposes of discussion, eyes are not to be considered photon receptors" etc. and ask it in another way that is conducive to discussion, e.g. "Is it possible that..."

But ultimately a theory needs to be testable.
And if it offers the same predictive power as the current theory but no better, it must (usually) also satisfy Occam's razor for it to be considered preferable.

So what is your theory? What are its predictive abilities? How is it any better than the currently held understanding? Why should we consider darkness as something other than an absence of light reaching our eyes?
Because having read through this thread, I am none the wiser as to what your theory actually is.
Click to expand...
My theory is it is always dark, and light is an illusion, that allows us to see in the dark, and light is not a thing, but we perceive it to be a thing, when it is not a thing, it is simply night vision by use of electromagnetic radiation.

Evidence - night vision cameras. other species, thermal cameras. they all see in the dark.

Not only this, but also considering that even white is several shades darker than the constant of invisible light.

Testable yes - turn the lights off, or make a shadow, dark is always there.

light is the adding of EM radiation to the dark.

Dark is the lack of night vision.
 
Last edited:
theorist-constant12345 said:
My theory is it is always dark, and light is an illusion, that allows us to see in the dark, and light is not a thing, but we perceive it to be a thing, when it is not a thing, it is simply night vision by use of electromagnetic radiation.
Click to expand...
You say "night vision by use of EMR"... how is it used?

Otherwise, I am not sure you are saying anything new here at all... just twisting words around such that it might seem that way...
Light is merely what we use to refer to the visible spectrum of EMR that we can detect with our eyes. But EMR does exist. It is real. It is a "thing". Our brain interprets the spectrum of EMR that it can sense in a way that gives rise to colour, to brightness, to tone etc. and this is what we refer to as light.

Light is not an illusion, any more than the ability of your microwave oven to heat food is an illusion. Microwaves are merely different frequencies of the same EMR spectrum. They are real. Light is merely that range that we can interpret through the use of our eyes.

So I think all you are doing is getting twisted up in the label of "light", "night" and "dark" etc.
You can only have "dark" relative to "light", for example. What you seem to mean is that there is no dark, no light, only EMR.
At least as far as I can tell. And as such, you are not saying anything new.
Evidence - night vision cameras. other species, thermal cameras. they all see in the dark.
Click to expand...
Strictly, they see ranges of the EMR spectrum that we struggle with, and in levels of light that we struggle with.
What we refer to as "dark" are low levels of EMR in the spectrum that our eyes sense.

Furthermore, this "evidence" (and all the rest you put forward) also supports the prevailing theory (if it indeed it is even different to yours), so is hardly going to be taken as evidence that suggests you are correct and is a different theory. If all tests and evidence supports both theories equally then at best you have the same theory merely worded differently, and possibly with layers of redundancy.
Not only this, but also considering that even white is several shades darker than the constant of invisible light.
Click to expand...
??? you've lost me here.
Testable yes - turn the lights off, or make a shadow, dark is always there.
Click to expand...
And here you are just twisting and equivocating meanings and uses of the word "dark".
light is the adding of EM radiation to the dark.
Click to expand...
If you mean "light" as in we say "it is light outside at the moment" then this is just equivocation of the word, the same word being used to mean two related but different concepts:
- One is the EMR itself, the visible spectrum.
- The other is the interpretation of that EMR by our brains, as being sufficient to navigate / observe with our eyes.
You seem to be mixing the two meanings and if not confusing yourself you are confusing the rest of us.
Dark is the lack of night vision.
Click to expand...
The antonym of the meanings for light, "Dark" is either the absence of EMR in the visible spectrum, or it is the subjective interpretation of the level of EMR (that our eyes can normally sense) as being too low to be able to observe what is emitting that EMR.
 
Sarkus said:
You say "night vision by use of EMR"... how is it used?

Otherwise, I am not sure you are saying anything new here at all... just twisting words around such that it might seem that way...
Light is merely what we use to refer to the visible spectrum of EMR that we can detect with our eyes. But EMR does exist. It is real. It is a "thing". Our brain interprets the spectrum of EMR that it can sense in a way that gives rise to colour, to brightness, to tone etc. and this is what we refer to as light.

Light is not an illusion, any more than the ability of your microwave oven to heat food is an illusion. Microwaves are merely different frequencies of the same EMR spectrum. They are real. Light is merely that range that we can interpret through the use of our eyes.

So I think all you are doing is getting twisted up in the label of "light", "night" and "dark" etc.
You can only have "dark" relative to "light", for example. What you seem to mean is that there is no dark, no light, only EMR.
At least as far as I can tell. And as such, you are not saying anything new.
Strictly, they see ranges of the EMR spectrum that we struggle with, and in levels of light that we struggle with.
What we refer to as "dark" are low levels of EMR in the spectrum that our eyes sense.

Furthermore, this "evidence" (and all the rest you put forward) also supports the prevailing theory (if it indeed it is even different to yours), so is hardly going to be taken as evidence that suggests you are correct and is a different theory. If all tests and evidence supports both theories equally then at best you have the same theory merely worded differently, and possibly with layers of redundancy.
??? you've lost me here.
And here you are just twisting and equivocating meanings and uses of the word "dark".
If you mean "light" as in we say "it is light outside at the moment" then this is just equivocation of the word, the same word being used to mean two related but different concepts:
- One is the EMR itself, the visible spectrum.
- The other is the interpretation of that EMR by our brains, as being sufficient to navigate / observe with our eyes.
You seem to be mixing the two meanings and if not confusing yourself you are confusing the rest of us.
The antonym of the meanings for light, "Dark" is either the absence of EMR in the visible spectrum, or it is the subjective interpretation of the level of EMR (that our eyes can normally sense) as being too low to be able to observe what is emitting that EMR.
Click to expand...
I thank you for the great post that actually discusses the idea .
I agree completely that EM radiation is a thing. And the speed of the flow of EM radiation is 299 792 458 m / s.
That is undeniable.

''What you seem to mean is that there is no dark, no light, only EMR.''

What I mean , there is dark, and there is EM radiation, but no light what so ever.

If we had not evolved to see by using the energy present, it would be dark always. I am saying that in day time , it is pitch black.

I agree that this is a crazy idea, but I also see the logic involved.

I know by losing you, when I mentioned white being several shades darker than the invisible, you do not completely understand the constant I mention.

Mr Einstein, said that the speed of light is constant to all observers.

Light does not have a speed, but the EM radiation does have a flow speed.

I really believe that Einstein, had the same thoughts as I do now, and did not want to try and tell the world, that it is never light, and always dark.

On viewing several documentaries of Einsteins work and thoughts, I really think he was trying to explain my constant.

I will break down the sentence and explain my logic on it.

The speed of light - is really the speed of the electromagnetic radiation linearity from source. A velocity that does not alter unless by interaction with matter or a medium. Isotropic in all directions.

Is constant - continued, no variance, unaltered,

to all observers - This is the part that opened the door to my logic, observers , meaning viewing, observing, seeing. The speed of light is measured at a constant to all observers making the measurement.

The speed of light constant is not ''seen'' by all observers, we can not see the speed of light, EM radiation in a constant velocity is invisible, it is not apart of the spectral range.

The constant speed to sight , is a constant invisible, we observe a constant, we all see empty space the same, constant to all observers.

Science says that the EM radiation in empty space is a mixture of frequencies, white being thought of because of spectral mixes making white. What we see as light in empty space, is not colored, it is invisible and colorless, we can clearly see white as a color through the constant of invisible.

The speed of light measured constant by all observers.

The speed of light is constantly seen as invisible by all observers

Dark is constant to all observers.

Darkness, low light, is not constantly seen the same by all observers. I.E other species.

I believe by my critical thinking, that this is what Einstein was really saying,

I also think by rational thinking that the invisible constant is only seen as a singular and not mixed frequencies.

If the EM radiation, was in a constant change of frequency state, in the invisible constant, a carrier wave from a satellite would not be received.

It would be the opposite of trying to send a 10hrtz carrier signal through 10hrtz of 3 dimensional space, the signal would be blended in and not detected.

If you understand the invisible constant I mention, and for practical reasoning consider this like being underwater in a clear water with no disturbance, then add a dye to the water , you instantly notice the dye,

this is to show reason, of how matter interaction works.
 
krash661 said:
please only speak for yourself.
Click to expand...
shaking%20head.gif

Amusing!
 
grow up.
(shakes head)
i said that because i'm not confused.
he's confused because of all the contradictions.

edit-
if the original poster understood their own thought, then maybe this nonsense would not carry on.
or it can be ignored then forgotten.
 
if the original poster understood their own thought, then maybe this nonsense would not carry on.
or it can be ignored then forgotten.
 
krash661 said:
if the original poster understood their own thought, then maybe this nonsense would not carry on.
or it can be ignored then forgotten.
Click to expand...
I understand my own thought, but explaining it without using any already defined terminology is very difficult.

I can not come on say walla walla bang is the reason, it would be even less meaningful. However I do have a name I call it, and it is D-Light. Which is darkness-light, because light makes the dark light.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
After 41 years on this planet, you trying tell yourself it is never light and always dark, so Yes you can expect confusion, it is a strange idea, but so possible.
Click to expand...
You have nothing but a mixture of semantics issues and confused ideas of what light and em radiation is. Your ideas are utterly absurd. It also appears that you have no ability to understand what people are telling you when they try to help you. This whole thread should be circling the bowl on it's way to the cesspool.

None of your conjectures rise to the level of even needing to be considered to be discussed. This is a complete waste of time.

Adiós mi compañero confundido.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top