Through the dark? No, light travels throught space.
Yes, time exists in the dark.
Time cannot be dark, that makes no sense.
If there is no energy in space it will be dark. It is not that hard to understand.
Paper help.
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
If there is no energy in space it will be dark. It is not that hard to understand.
Light travels through dark space to make it light, if there is no energy, no mass, time still exists in that space, but has no value, like I said time and space is not light, matter and space.
Light , and matter travel through time and space being darkness with the absolute value of zero.
Consider the thought experiment I offered with the wire frame box .
Light travels through space: whether it's dark or not.
"Dark" (as I have told you more than once) is not a thing.
Utter crap.
Also crap.
And, as previously pointed out a "value of zero" means non-existence therefore if the "value of time [whatever that means in English] is zero" time doesn't exist.
It wasn't a thought experiment it was a completely inane, but entirely typical, example of the way you "think" - badly, illogically and without regard to science, rationality or reality.
Nice to see you say time does exist, after arguing that it did not in the other thread. There maybe some hope.
You still remain confused though....Light travels through spacetime...origin has already told you that.
Darkness is simply the absence of light. Light is real...Darkness is just the absence of light. Ever heard of Occam's razor? You are totally raping it with your unecessarilly complicated and irrationally stupid hypothesis.
See model ,
We move with the sun, and the sun moves with us, and we both move in time and space , time and space being the dark.
Why try to deny axioms?
Meaningless crap.
Too many unsupported (and unfounded and incorrect) assumptions.
See previous comment.
As I said before, that rubbish will forever remain just rubbish, and gradually fading away along with yourself in the course of time.
It's quite simple: they're NOT axioms.
They're simply incorrect claims of your own.
Making shit up doesn't make an axiom.
Again you have no argument except to say what you say. You are trying to deny a logical axiom, try all you want, any one in the right mind knows if the sun vanished, it would be dark, showing that light travels through the dark.
You are trying to say that if it was dark, there would be no matter, and that is not true, there would be matter we can not see is the truth,
You are deluded, are you trying to say it will be still light with no sun, it certainly sounds that is what you are suggesting!.
I offer the evidence of night time, and the ambient light from stars being so weak that only other species can see in the low energy provided over the extreme distance. Also this type of ambient light will fade completely in time with Universal expansion. Are you going to try to deny this too?
Are you going to deny that over distance light lessens?
Are you going to deny that unless you are within range of enough spectral magnitude, you can not see?
Are you going to deny that over distance light lessens?
Are you going to deny that unless you are within range of enough spectral magnitude, you can not see?
Wrong.
You persist that your claim is both "logical" and "axiomatic" while failing, entirely, to show that either is anywhere near supportable let alone true.
"Dark" is not a thing.
Therefore your claim is meaningless.
No I'm not. I neither tried to say it nor implied it.
I also offer this logical argument in diagram form. Both Suns are moving in opposite velocity. The angled lines represent the inverse square law. Eventually the distance will exceed a sufficient spectral intensity and range, creating a dark boundary of time and space.
This can be done by observational experiment form with two flash lights.
This can be done by observational experiment form with two flash lights.
Attachments
Are you suggesting that dark is an illusion and is not there?
Dark is lacking strength and solidity but has an obscurity to our vision.
Our sight see's an oblivion.
Dark is a thing, dark is time and space, dark is a stupefaction to life.
Last edited:
Dark is SFA, period.
I'm saying that no human would ever accept such nonsense, and as confident as you are in it, it will go to the grave with you when your time comes.
No wonder you were banned elsewhere!Not sure how long they'll put up with your nonsensical crap here but you only have two steps from here....Pseudoscience and cesspool.
In actual fact they may skip pseudoscience and send this straight to the cesspool.
Dark is - as has been pointed out both here on this forum AND the one you got banned from - the LACK OF LIGHT.
It's not a thing. It has no actual existence (i.e. you can't measure it, bottle it, weigh it or anything else).
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
But, given the *cough* quality of your posts (and the *cough* thought processes which engender those posts) I can certainly understand why you think stupefaction arises - it appears to be your normal condition.
This is the typical response I expected, denying obvious axioms, insisting on science discipline and all those who oppose are disciplined.Dark is SFA, period.
I'm saying that no human would ever accept such nonsense, and as confident as you are in it, it will go to the grave with you when your time comes.
Not sure how long they'll put up with your nonsensical crap here but you only have two steps from here....Pseudoscience and cesspool.
In actual fact they may skip pseudoscience and send this straight to the cesspool.
Stereotypical un-objective thinking. I have offered observation experiments, but like normal, science wants to keep all those who oppose them in the bin.
I am writing this paper like it or not, I will show my abstract to be true.
This theory stands, and my diagrams are accurately true.
You are being obtuse to the truth, and encouraged me to write a paper at the beginning, now you try to deter.
I smell god trolls everywhere. Stop trying to hinder progress.
What you mean is nocturnal animals can see in low light INTENSITIES not that they see low ENERGY photons. The energy of the photons from those distant stars has not decreased, the number of photons has decrease by 1/r^2.
This may or may not happen. The ambient light is from stars in the milky way. The milky way is not expanding due to the expansion of the universe. The gravity of the milky way is overcoming the expansion. So in all likelyhood the ambient light will not fade untill all the stars in the milky way die. However, if the acceleration of the expansion continues it may go to the point of tearing apart the milky way or even tearing apart all matter.
This is the problem with not having an education in science you do not use the correct terms. What you mean is that the intensity of light deceases with distance. Specifically the intensity decreases by the square of the distance.
No one has disputed that light must be in the visual range to see.
- Status