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

[theorist-constant12345]

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.

To me, my explanation is easy to logically understand. I do understand that individuals will determine any logic, by their own powers of deduction.
Logic is the use and study of valid reasoning. I believe I have shown very valid reasoning.


I am being objective, I have objectively viewed the nature of light, over and over, and certainly know the subject of variation.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

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:
So why even talk about logic? You're right. He doesn't even get common language.

darkness (noun) absence or deficiency of light

Dark, absence of night vision,

Can I ask which part of the word alternative do you not understand?

 

[Cheezle]

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:
So why even talk about logic? You're right. He doesn't even get common language.

darkness (noun) absence or deficiency of light

Just saying that if he defined his logic, the problems with his theory would be easier to trace. Obviously he as some issues.

 

[Cheezle]

To me, my explanation is easy to logically understand. I do understand that individuals will determine any logic, by their own powers of deduction.
Logic is the use and study of valid reasoning. I believe I have shown very valid reasoning.


I am being objective, I have objectively viewed the nature of light, over and over, and certainly know the subject of variation.

Nobody here (in my opinion) understands what the fuck you are talking about. Obviously you are using some non-standard logic and non-standard language. Logic is not open to interpretation. You talk about logic but do not ever specify it. Just saying you should tell us what the hell you are talking about. So far you are just putting out jibberish.

 

[Landau Roof]

Dark, absence of night vision,

Can I ask which part of the word alternative do you not understand?

Just because something is an alternative theory doesn't make it viable.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Please define alternative theory.

An explanation of physical phenomena held to be true by a minority of experts.

What you are posting is just nonsense. To constitute theory it has to at least conform to first principles. All you have here is confused and ignorant errors. But that's to be expected since you never bothered to learn first principles.

It is for me to defend my alternative theory is it not?.

Nonsense is indefensible.

And for you to question my idea, and not start to tell me it is this way or the high way?

See, even a person with just a basic understanding of science smells the bullshit.

A prism, a raindrop, a cd, has no mechanism to partition different frequencies,

"mechanism" and "partition different frequencies" are gibberish. Go find out how a prism works and come back and ask for more discussion based on facts. No one is interested in your dreamlike ideas about how you think things must work.

they only have angular displacement properties,

How do you know that? What evidence and what set of established facts leads to thar conclusion?

which changes the distance light travels.

You seem to think a prism is the same as a mirror. What is the difference? What causes a mirror to reflect light and what causes a prism to refract it? Explain refraction. AlexG gave you a clue - go track down the information instead of recklessly making it all up.

If I could upload , I have this modelled .

Your models are worthless since they are based on nonsense.

Get your facts straight and leave the modelling to qualified experts.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

An explanation of physical phenomena held to be true by a minority of experts.

What you are posting is just nonsense. To constitute theory it has to at least conform to first principles. All you have here is confused and ignorant errors. But that's to be expected since you never bothered to learn first principles.


Nonsense is indefensible.

See, even a person with just a basic understanding of science smells the bullshit.


"mechanism" and "partition different frequencies" are gibberish. Go find out how a prism works and come back and ask for more discussion based on facts. No one is interested in your dreamlike ideas about how you think things must work.


How do you know that? What evidence and what set of established facts leads to thar conclusion?

You seem to think a prism is the same as a mirror. What is the difference? What causes a mirror to reflect light and what causes a prism to refract it? Explain refraction. AlexG gave you a clue - go track down the information instead of recklessly making it all up.

Your models are worthless since they are based on nonsense.

Get your facts straight and leave the modelling to qualified experts.

Firstly my model explains every interaction of light with basic formula. Including the blue sky, a prism,a cd, a raindrop, Doppler red and blue shift.different frequencies <man made>,

Refraction is the index , the resistance, clear glass has less refraction than frosted glass., air has less refraction than glass.

I know what refraction is, and refraction is output or internal forces at work, nothing to do with the properties of an incident ray. And the mechanism for changing a varied into several unvaried.


Laymen terms - you can not put a mixture of colors into a tub , mix them all and then pour them out, and they magically separate themselves back in unison .


Impossible,

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Nobody here (in my opinion) understands what the fuck you are talking about. Obviously you are using some non-standard logic and non-standard language. Logic is not open to interpretation. You talk about logic but do not ever specify it. Just saying you should tell us what the hell you are talking about. So far you are just putting out jibberish.

In my opinion nobody here understands what I am on about, I am not a scientist, like I stated. So if you can not understand it, does that make it wrong?

That makes it misunderstood, I am honestly saying I have spent several years looking at the processes, and I see an alternative that also explains all the work.


If you can understand the shadow example, you will understand what I am saying.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

''You seem to think a prism is the same as a mirror. What is the difference? What causes a mirror to reflect light and what causes a prism to refract it? Explain refraction. AlexG gave you a clue - go track down the information instead of recklessly making it all up.''


You are reflected onto a mirror, the mirror does not reflect you.

If you can imagine yourself submerged in this ocean of energy, and your eyes are apart of the energy ocean , connected like a circuit to any object.

Then you will understand the interactions, ripples in the unvaried.

 

[Cheezle]

 

[Landau Roof]

You are reflected onto a mirror, the mirror does not reflect you.

Congratulations, now you have reached a level that even your fellow non-scientists can see your ideas are sheer nonsense.

 

[krash661]

In no way in this thread has my idea been deterred or logical pulled apart and questioned.

except there is 9 pages doing so.
on another note-
if everyone would just ignore this idiotic nonsense, then it will be forgotten and go away.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Firstly my model explains every interaction of light with basic formula.

what formula? You wouldn't know a formula if it hit you over the head. You'be already admitted ignorance.

Including the blue sky, a prism,a cd, a raindrop, Doppler red and blue shift.different frequencies <man made>,

Just state the facts explaining refraction.

Refraction is the index ,

Index of what? What does that mean?

the resistance,

Wrong. It's called impedance, and that error in understanding physics is what has you confused.

clear glass has less refraction than frosted glass., air has less refraction than glass.

That's irrelevant. You are evading the question.

I know what refraction is,

No, you got lost back on impedance.

and refraction is output

Gibberish.

or internal forces at work,

Irrelevant nonsense.

nothing to do with the properties of an incident ray.

Until you factor in impedance. Then your little world collapses.

And the mechanism

Meaningless gibberish.

for changing a varied into several unvaried.

Gibberish.

Laymen terms -

No it's not. Go to an elementary school text introducing refraction. Or Jr high. That's in a lay person's language.

you can not put a mixture of colors into a tub , mix them all and then pour them out, and they magically separate themselves back in unison .

So what? I can pass light through a prism and witness the effect of an impedance mismatch on the incident rays.

Now the question is, are you going to explain the link AlexG gave you or are you going to just keep bullshitting?

Impossible,

Yes, your approach to learning is.

 

[krash661]

Nobody here (in my opinion) understands what the fuck you are talking about.

unfortunately this is incorrect.

 

[Cheezle]

unfortunately this is incorrect.

Sorry, but I gave up talking to illiterate space aliens a year or so ago.

 

[krash661]

illiterate

quite amusing
again, unfortunately incorrect.
remember, it is you who can not understand TC's nonsense.
my question is why is it difficult for you to understand this so called kindergarten hypothesis.
which speaks volumes.
again amusing.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

what formula? You wouldn't know a formula if it hit you over the head. You'be already admitted ignorance.

Just state the facts explaining refraction.

Index of what? What does that mean?


Wrong. It's called impedance, and that error in understanding physics is what has you confused.


That's irrelevant. You are evading the question.


No, you got lost back on impedance.



Gibberish.

Irrelevant nonsense.

Until you factor in impedance. Then your little world collapses.


Meaningless gibberish.


Gibberish.

No it's not. Go to an elementary school text introducing refraction. Or Jr high. That's in a lay person's language.


So what? I can pass light through a prism and witness the effect of an impedance mismatch on the incident rays.

Now the question is, are you going to explain the link AlexG gave you or are you going to just keep bullshitting?


Yes, your approach to learning is.

Explain Refraction, and the propagation of light, light slowing down through transparent or translucent, or a medium etc, really?. My theory is not to explain present knowledge.

Not a single person yet, has said anything to disprove my idea.

Dispersion , refraction, are internal to the external,
impedance - so now light has a net charge?

resistance, or opposing, is the same context.

It is simple logic, the red wave is when light is stretched, the blue wave is when it is being compressed.

My simple experiments show you this, nothing else needed.

 

[Cheezle]

quite amusing
again, unfortunately incorrect.
remember, it is you who can not understand TC's nonsense.
my question is why is it difficult for you to understand this so called kindergarten hypothesis.
which speaks volumes.
again amusing.

Capitalization and complete sentences are an alien concept on your planet?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Capitalization and complete sentences are an alien concept on your planet?

We have temporal night vision on the surface of earth, is easy to understand.

 

[Cheezle]

Explain Refraction, and the propagation of light, light slowing down through transparent or translucent, or a medium etc, really?. My theory is not to explain present knowledge.

Not a single person yet, has said anything to disprove my idea.

Dispersion , refraction, are internal to the external,
impedance - so now light has a net charge?

resistance, or opposing, is the same context.

It is simple logic, the red wave is when light is stretched, the blue wave is when it is being compressed.

My simple experiments show you this, nothing else needed.

If you watch the video I posted above you will see that light from distant stars can tell us what elements are in its atmosphere by the spectrum of the light it emits. It is not just a local stretching of frequencies of light.