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

[theorist-constant12345]

I have to admit that this forum, has made me think, very honest posts, explaining the logic behind the word salad. I personally admit, I am probably clueless on the deep insights in some of the processes, and to logically conclude I was correct, would be indeed not logical, if I do not know the subject in full detail.

However, I am an individual who is trying to find the correct terminology. And each day , I learn more than I did the day before.

"Having an idea" is great. Knowing when to abandon it because it is incorrect is crucial.''

True, but what if the individual does not deem that in any way they have been given enough objective by members,<not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts>.

And why would an individual abandon an idea, if they strongly believe in the idea, and because the answers in reply do not explain why the alternative idea is incorrect.

The answers often explain present knowledge of Physics, and not the logic of why the idea is incorrect.

But agreed I should of dropped the prism argument and stuck to the original idea.

The original idea does not need to explain the internal work done of EM radiation, but to only argue that we see in the dark, when certain frequencies and intensity is present. And to argue that the constant speed of em radiation, is equal to sight and invisible to sight, unless by interaction. I also only have to define that Em radiation is already in our eyes, by logically representing submerged in an ocean of energy.

And also to show dark is always there by the shadow example.

I personally from what knowledge I do know about EM radiation, would say that it is over to science, to prove this logic untrue. And that is me being objective, I have nothing to lose or gain.

Personally I could not honestly say, that I was seeing in the dark, in the day time, I would have a 50-50 call, of whether it was light, or I had temporal night vision.

And that is why I believe this is a Physics debate.

 

[billvon]

"Having an idea" is great. Knowing when to abandon it because it is incorrect is crucial.'

True, but what if the individual does not deem that in any way they have been given enough objective by members,<not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts>

Then ask about what you don't understand! There are plenty of people here willing to answer questions - if you are willing to listen.

And why would an individual abandon an idea, if they strongly believe in the idea, and because the answers in reply do not explain why the alternative idea is incorrect.

Because science is not like religion - belief is insufficient. You must be able to test your claim and have evidence that it is correct.

The original idea does not need to explain the internal work done of EM radiation, but to only argue that we see in the dark, when certain frequencies and intensity is present. And to argue that the constant speed of em radiation, is equal to sight and invisible to sight, unless by interaction.

The problem here is not a physics argument. This is simply an argument over the definition of the word "dark." Personally I am uninterested in this argument; dictionaries are readily available and do a good job of defining words.

I also only have to define that Em radiation is already in our eyes, by logically representing submerged in an ocean of energy.

That is certainly true. Your eyes are full of EM radiation, from ELF radiation all the way through cosmic radiation (albeit at low intensities.) Indeed it is present almost everywhere.

I personally from what knowledge I do know about EM radiation, would say that it is over to science, to prove this logic untrue. And that is me being objective, I have nothing to lose or gain.

Well, you have knowledge to gain. Your choice as to whether you pursue it or not.

Personally I could not honestly say, that I was seeing in the dark, in the day time, I would have a 50-50 call, of whether it was light, or I had temporal night vision.

Again, no, that's a debate over the definition of words. If you can see in the daytime, due to daylight, it is not dark. If you disagree, you should take it up with Merriam-Webster, not a physics board.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Ok I will just give up, and not explain how black body radiation is made by the inverse square law, over lapping from source, following inverse isotropic laws.

You can't just give up.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Then ask about what you don't understand! There are plenty of people here willing to answer questions - if you are willing to listen.

Because science is not like religion - belief is insufficient. You must be able to test your claim and have evidence that it is correct.

The problem here is not a physics argument. This is simply an argument over the definition of the word "dark." Personally I am uninterested in this argument; dictionaries are readily available and do a good job of defining words.

That is certainly true. Your eyes are full of EM radiation, from ELF radiation all the way through cosmic radiation (albeit at low intensities.) Indeed it is present almost everywhere.

Well, you have knowledge to gain. Your choice as to whether you pursue it or not.

Again, no, that's a debate over the definition of words. If you can see in the daytime, due to daylight, it is not dark. If you disagree, you should take it up with Merriam-Webster, not a physics board.

I do understand what you are saying, and an alternative theory being just that, alternative, I understand that you are saying, it can not be dark, because it is logically light.

My alternative theory is light is an illusion, and it is always dark. That is alternative to what present says and understands, I think seeing in the dark , and temporal night vision, is not the same as present information, and certainly is alternative.

I also do not consider ''white light'', to be a mixture of frequency, I consider C, the speed of light constant, to be unvaried visually to all observers. I consider this to be equal to sight and unvaried to sight.

I also consider that by interaction of EM radiation with matter or a medium, the unvaried visual observation, of the constant speed, becomes visually varied to the unvaried visual observation. The interaction of EM radiation creating a second unvaried visual observation, within the first visual unvaried observation.

I do not believe that anywhere in science it says this, so my question would be , how is this not alternative by definition?

p.s - I will be asking questions about science in most sections, I thank you for the invite to learn here.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

You can't just give up.

I do not want to, but it is hard to get noticed for something in science, and coming from a civilian type situation, compared to science, it is even more harder.

I will keep learning and keep trying. Hard at times though when I have to consider getting a job etc.

 

[billvon]

My alternative theory is light is an illusion, and it is always dark. That is alternative to what present says and understands, I think seeing in the dark , and temporal night vision, is not the same as present information, and certainly is alternative.

That's fine. Someone else could claim that darkness is caused by light-magnets that steal the light when it is cold out, and since it is cold at night it is dark at night. That's also an alternative theory. But it has no validity because it has no proof to back it up, and simple experiments reveal no light-magnets that suck up light when it is cold out.

As mentioned before, it is insufficient to "have an idea."

I also do not consider ''white light'', to be a mixture of frequency

This is disproved rather simply via several experiments:
- Prisms are known to split light into various wavelengths, and when a prism is used on white light, a range of wavelengths appear.
- Filters can be used to filter out all but a narrow range of wavelengths, and again, using many filters reveals many spectral components of white light.
- When the above filters are used on light sources, and several narrow-wavelength light beams are combined, the result is white light.
- Semiconductor sensors can be made sensitive to specific wavelengths, and the use of such sensors reveal many spectral components in white light.

I consider C, the speed of light constant, to be unvaried visually to all observers.

That is correct! Demonstrable by a range of experiments, going all the way back to Michelson-Morley.

I consider this to be equal to sight and unvaried to sight.

The speed of light doesn't have all that much to do with sight, other than EM radiation propagates at the speed of light (at least in a vacuum.)

 

[paddoboy]

What you consider, what you believe, what you think, means sweet f%$# all if it does not match the results of experiments, matches observations, and can make correct predictions, finally passing appropriate peer review and then accepted.
Ever tried pushing shit up hill? That is what you are attempting. Because in all reality, you adhere to none of the points I have made.

Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:


And finally, Make damn sure that you understand current theory as it is presented by the "main stream" before you embark on your exploration of new frontiers. That is the starting point. Our recent troubles are caused by the fact that our would-be Hawkings don't even understand the first postulate(Relativity) and flat out deny the second postulate(constant, invariant c)yet still claim to understand the theory based only on those two postulates. This is not rationality, it is delusion

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Getting a job and a decent place to live are the first priorities.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

''This is disproved rather simply via several experiments:
- Prisms are known to split light into various wavelengths, and when a prism is used on white light, a range of wavelengths appear.
- Filters can be used to filter out all but a narrow range of wavelengths, and again, using many filters reveals many spectral components of white light.
- When the above filters are used on light sources, and several narrow-wavelength light beams are combined, the result is white light.
- Semiconductor sensors can be made sensitive to specific wavelengths, and the use of such sensors reveal many spectral components in white light.''




''The speed of light doesn't have all that much to do with sight, other than EM radiation propagates at the speed of light (at least in a vacuum.)''

Nowhere in any of the above does it explain white light to be a mixture, dispersion techniques etc, are changing the natural state of light. The visual spectrum wavelength , is man made, and not the natural.
The 3 dimensional space that is invisible, unvaried to all observers, is equal to sight, The constant of the speed being unvaried to sight.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

What you consider, what you believe, what you think, means sweet f%$# all if it does not match the results of experiments, matches observations, and can make correct predictions, finally passing appropriate peer review and then accepted.
Ever tried pushing shit up hill? That is what you are attempting. Because in all reality, you adhere to none of the points I have made.

Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:


And finally, Make damn sure that you understand current theory as it is presented by the "main stream" before you embark on your exploration of new frontiers. That is the starting point. Our recent troubles are caused by the fact that our would-be Hawkings don't even understand the first postulate(Relativity) and flat out deny the second postulate(constant, invariant c)yet still claim to understand the theory based only on those two postulates. This is not rationality, it is delusion

Noted, but my knowledge of EM radiation is quite good, or else I would not have my idea. I also believe I can provide observation experiments, and by experiment show that white light is not a mixture of frequencies.
If I could upload diagrams, this would add to my idea.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Let me confirm my understanding of present thought about the nature of light.

In 3 dimensional space , EM radiation travels at C, and is a mixture of frequency, when interacting with matter, the incident ray on matter ,at C , is reflected by the matter.

So basically all these mixed frequencies make surface contact and reflect, <laymans term- a box of smarties being poured onto the floor at a continued rate>. Obviously they are mass less,

Is this about correct?

 

[paddoboy]

Noted, but my knowledge of EM radiation is quite good, or else I would not have my idea.

I'm just a humble layman who also has reasonable knowledge of physics in general, and also has a couple of Ideas that would turn cosmology on its head if shown to be correct.
But I'm big enough, and ugly enough to realize that what knowledge I do have, pales into insignificance when compared to the giants of the present and past, and I'm equally big enough and ugly enough to accept that the couple of Ideas that I do have remain just speculative and unproven hypothesis.

I also believe I can provide observation experiments, and by experiment show that white light is not a mixture of frequencies.
If I could upload diagrams, this would add to my idea.

Are you saying white light is not composed of seven colours, ranging in frequency range from 430–790 THz.?
Well there goes that shit again and you pushing it uphill.
Why do I say that?
Because that fact about white light has been already shown many many millions of times over the last 300 years and I do not believe those experiments and the data gathered can be refuted.
Here, read this....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_spectrum

 

[origin]

p.s - I will be asking questions about science in most sections, I thank you for the invite to learn here.

That is a strange statement since you have done nothing but proclaim what you 'believe' and you have been fighting tooth and nail to make sure you learn nothing. Odd indeed.

 

[billvon]

Nowhere in any of the above does it explain white light to be a mixture, dispersion techniques etc, are changing the natural state of light.

Correct. Those experiments do not explain anything. They just prove that white light is made up of many wavelengths of light.

The visual spectrum wavelength , is man made, and not the natural.

Given that sunlight is natural, and is from a wide spectrum blackbody source, the above statement is incorrect.

The 3 dimensional space that is invisible, unvaried to all observers, is equal to sight

The phrase "3 dimensional space is equal to sight" is a nonsensical statement, like "the angle of incidence is equal to smell."

 

[origin]

Let me confirm my understanding of present thought about the nature of light.

OK

In 3 dimensional space , EM radiation travels at C,

First of all the speed of light in a vacuum is 'c' not 'C'.

and is a mixture of frequency,

Each individual light wave or photon is a single frequency or wavelength. Of course there can be a mixture of individual light waves each at different frequencies.

when interacting with matter, the incident ray on matter ,at C , is reflected by the matter.

When a photon encounters matter it can do one of 3 things:

1. It can pass through the matter
2. It can be absorbed by the matter (generally electrons)
3. It can be absorbed and another photon can be reemitted (again generally by electrons)

So basically all these mixed frequencies make surface contact and reflect, <laymans term- a box of smarties being poured onto the floor at a continued rate>. Obviously they are mass less,

Huh?

Is this about correct?

Most of what you said seems wrong and confused.

 

[AlexG]

Noted, but my knowledge of EM radiation is quite good, or else I would not have my idea.

Since your idea is very bad, it reflects the fact that your knowledge of EM is very bad. This is the same crappy nonsense which has gotten you banned at one forum after another.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

So it is fortunate that we have an alternative theories section, where even bad ideas can be discussed
without fear of anyone being banned.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

OK

First of all the speed of light in a vacuum is 'c' not 'C'.


Each individual light wave or photon is a single frequency or wavelength. Of course there can be a mixture of individual light waves each at different frequencies.


When a photon encounters matter it can do one of 3 things:

1. It can pass through the matter
2. It can be absorbed by the matter (generally electrons)
3. It can be absorbed and another photon can be reemitted (again generally by electrons)

Huh?


Most of what you said seems wrong and confused.

''Each individual light wave or photon is a single frequency or wavelength. Of course there can be a mixture of individual light waves each at different frequencies.''


This is the reason I used a box of Smarties for an example. This is the problem I see and can not see past this. You say that each photon is an individual frequency.

So according to the logic in that statement, you are saying white light is a mixture of frequency, of mass less microscopic dots.

So an incident ray of white light is countless colored dots making contact with a surface at an incredible rate.

This is where I see a problem, there is no mechanism of a prism, on the receiving face, for the incident ray of white light, <the mixture>, to ''tell'' the coloured dots , to line up in the mix and go through a prism in single file.

Also according to that, I would not be able to take two of the same photos of an incident ray , and using lens flare to angle the dispersion , and capture a static shot.

Also I can angle the spectral colors to maintain a color , by angular displacement of a cd, and using diffraction . So surely a mixture , would not be able to maintain a constant color, if it were mixed , and by using angular displacement, allowing me to angle blue ,changing it to red,

My ideas are from experimental observations.

 

[AlexG]

You say that each photon is an individual frequency.

So according to the logic in that statement, you are saying white light is a mixture of frequency, of mass less microscopic dots.

Not dots. The smarties analogy is something you just pulled in. The fact that we're talking about frequencies means we're talking about waves, not individual bits of something.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Not dots. The smarties analogy is something you just pulled in. The fact that we're talking about frequencies means we're talking about waves, not individual bits of something.

Waves or Photons, the receiving face of a prism , of the incident ray, has no mechanism, only by the angular displacement , is the single frequency, changed.

I offer in evidence an experiment with a CD. You can visually see, light displacement by angular displacement of the CD, compared to the source.