The surface of the cd acts like a prism. The light wave is bent, with different wavelengths bent by different amounts. Hence the spectum.
It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
Not bent, angular displaced, you can clearly see that angling a cd away , creates a longer wave, red, and you can also clearly see that by decreasing the angle , the wave turns blue. In both instants, static, no change , unvaried unless by movement, angular displacement of either the source of light or the object.
One action leads to an opposite reaction, a single frequency, changed by angular displacement. having more or less distance, and less or more opposing force by angular displacement over time.
The above two posters have summed up this poster "theorist-constant12345" admirably.
It is now beginning to appear that he is a troll.
Please define alternative theory.
It is for me to defend my alternative theory is it not?.
And for you to question my idea, and not start to tell me it is this way or the high way?
A prism, a raindrop, a cd, has no mechanism to partition different frequencies, they only have angular displacement properties, which changes the distance light travels.
If I could upload , I have this modelled .
It is also for all of us to listen to common sense and logical evidenced accepted explanations.
We do have a experimentally verified explanation as to why raindrops and prisms, reflect and refract light into its basic constituent spectral colours.
You have nothing and I stand by my trolling comment.
I know from prior experience that it's hopeless to try to explain anything to you, but read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction, and see if you get it at all.
You have the experiment of the dispersion, this does not say that white light is a mixture of frequencies, this tells you that you can split one frequency into several by angular displacement. I have nothing you say, yet I have already offered several experimental observations that are conclusive results. I have a model showing angular time displacement of light.
I stand by light is an illusion, and it is always dark.
Refraction is the output, nothing to do with the input, and no evidence of mechanism to separate the mixture. You can not have a mixture, and give it no mechanism for lining up the different waves before entry,
Bullshit, you have sweet f%#@ all.
That's OK with me...no skin off my nose and will not have any undue effect on what is accepted as really happening by mainstream science.
In effect, you are pushing shit uphill and making a fool of yourself.
I never suggested a shadow was or had a material body, a shadow is darkness. The absence of certain EM frequencies and Intensity. A shadow proves dark is always there and exists has the natural state of the Universe. And also a shadow shows , that we are seeing in the dark when it is day. Consider that the blocking of ''light'', makes a shadow, this shadow we can see standing within the light, we are seeing the natural state,
Again, quite comically bullshit.....A shadow is not dark.....A shadow is just a region where most of the light is prevented from hitting. It still receives plenty of reflected/refracted light off other surfaces etc...eg: a total eclipse of the Moon....or a cloudy day.
You are not being objective , Consider a sheet of cardboard held out, you see a shadow has an observer in the light. Then add 4 sides, inside the made box it is now dark, the dark is always there.
Can you not objectively view this...
Landau Roof
Registered Senior Member
Is this me not understanding, or is it TC1-5 once again not making any sense whatsoever?
See post 143......
Although I'm beginning to think nuts...peanuts, brazil nuts, hazel nuts, walnuts, nuts, nuts, nuts!
That is not being constructive. It is not me, an alternative theory is alternative, so of cause my idea is different to conventional thought.
In no way in this thread has my idea been deterred or logical pulled apart and questioned.
Temporal night vision on the planet surface, is a possibility. We would never know , the term of light came before science. Science walked right into it.
I am not here to discuss present knowledge in an alternative theory thread, that makes little sense, and to keep referring back to present knowledge about the nature of light, is not been objective to yourself.
My explanation of a prism input, a shadow, the unvaried, is logic.
Your explanation of a varied frequency being white light, then entering a prism, has no mechanism in the explanation, to make a varied frequency an unvaried several frequencies.
Where as my model explanation , f=0, changed by F over distance, by angular time displacement, explains the work.
Last edited:
My theory also adds that EM radiation is a linearity and only a wave by interaction. This explains satellite carrier signals delay time, and also wave-particle duality.
Logic is the glue that binds any theory together. Your posts about the logic of your ideas imply the logic is very simple. If so then then you should be able to explicitly define the logic. Then people can examine your theory and ask more specific questions.
Also, the problem with logic is that it is not intuitive. There is a reason that people take classes in logic. It can be hard. Your average person might define OR incorrectly. Some people think OR is XOR while other use the correct definition. Others have problems choosing one definition and use XOR and OR randomly and interchangeably. Another problematic relation is "implication". Few uneducated people can correctly fill in the truth table for implication. Other logical relations are quite mysterious to the uneducated. I have seen many people on this forum use the term tautology incorrectly. Few know all the logical relations.
But if you do understand logic and think your theory is logically correct, then you should be able to use explicit logic to define your ideas. So far you have not done that. Once you have defined the logic, then people can address the components of the logic. From what I have seen, your problem here will be using a common language. Often you use terms in very uncommon ways. Fuzzy definitions of words. If you can't express your self in a common language, your message is sure to fail.
Landau Roof
Registered Senior Member
First of all. Hab SoSlI' Quch! So she does. What's it to you!? ...As someone said earlier TC (top cat?) thinks darkness is a thing. He will not understand/admit that darkness is merely the absence of light. He says in chapter 153 verse 2 of his blathering:
darkness (noun) absence or deficiency of light
So why even talk about logic? You're right. He doesn't even get common language.
darkness (noun) absence or deficiency of light
Last edited:
- Status