The conference hall debate!

[theorist-constant12345]

In one last effort to try to get an understanding of EM radiation nature passed over to science, I have decided an approach to this might be best by an imaginary conference where all viewers of the thread are audience participants and after hearing the lecture by the Theorist, ask questions about the idea being presenting instead of saying it is wrong because it is not presently written that way.
This is what professionals and a professional approach to ideas are, a debate that has to over rule the actual debate and consist of any values why the idea is wrong.
So if any members comment in a trolling nature, they are automatic deemed un-professional , and have no business talking science.

Please do not reply to this post, I will prepare my lecture for debate .

 

[theorist-constant12345]

The stage is set, a huge venue with a night time arrangement for the debate, a huge black chalk board , lights on a dimmer switch, blacked out windows and a capacity audience.

Good evening everyone and thank you all for coming, this evening I would like to discuss the observational nature of Em radiation and a nature of light and dark interactions, observable comparisons that I suggest is an equilibrium to sight.

Firstly I will just ask the attendant to turn off the lights , so do not be alarmed when the light goes off and it is darkness.


Ok, you are now all in the dark, can any of you see me on the stage any more?

Can any of you see through the dark, is the dark of now, not obscuring your vision?

 

[Ophiolite]

As dark is understood to be the absence of photons then my vision is not obscured, but comprehensively impaired.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

As dark is understood to be the absence of photons then my vision is not obscured, but comprehensively impaired.

A good reply thank you, but if you place your hand under your seat, you will find a pair of thermal googles, if you look through the goggles you can clearly see ''Photons'' and my presence on the stage.
You will also notice a red laser dot on your chest, you can not see the infra red beam but you can see the dot.

So are we agreed that darkness is the lacking of intensity and frequency of Em radiation that is equal to observable sight, that in affect impairs sight, but not an absoluteness of the absence of light, and if we could see by low intensities such as infra red,thermal detection or a cosmic microwave background it would never be dark and always perceived light?

Darkness is the absence of certain light that is needed for sight but not an absence of all light?

 

[Ophiolite]

Please offer a clear definition of light as you will use it in this talk. That will avoid many fruitless arguments later.

If your main point is that (almost) everywhere there will be some photons present, then I agree.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So are we agreed that darkness is the lacking of intensity and frequency of Em radiation that is equal to observable sight

What does "equal to observable sight" mean?

but not an absoluteness of the absence of light

Define "light".

Darkness is the absence of certain light that is needed for sight but not an absence of all light?

That depends on how you're defining "light" for the purposes of this ridiculous thread..

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Please offer a clear definition of light as you will use it in this talk. That will avoid many fruitless arguments later.

If your main point is that (almost) everywhere there will be some photons present, then I agree.

My clear definition of light in this debate is Em radiation, I do consider light to be a thing in this debate but will refer to it has being a bi-product in the later stages.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

What does "equal to observable sight" mean?


Define "light".


That depends on how you're defining "light" for the purposes of this ridiculous thread..

Light is Em radiation ,all that can be observed by the eyes or device.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

What does "equal to observable sight" mean?


Define "light".


That depends on how you're defining "light" for the purposes of this ridiculous thread..

Equal to observational means clear, you are still in the dark at the moment I have not turned the light up by the dimmer to explain translucent and then clear yet.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Please offer a clear definition of light as you will use it in this talk. That will avoid many fruitless arguments later.

If your main point is that (almost) everywhere there will be some photons present, then I agree.

Yes to your second point, so we have agreed that dark is not the absence of the light it is the absence of sight by impaired means.?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Light is Em radiation ,all that can be observed by the eyes or device.

Then ALL EM radiation is, by your definition, light.

Equal to observational means clear

This is meaningless.

you are still in the dark at the moment

Yet you previously stated that using thermal goggles shows that EMR is present and that that EMR is "observable" by those goggles.
Therefore, by your own definition, it's NOT dark.

I have not turned the light up by the dimmer to explain translucent and then clear yet.

Then your "lecture" is badly set out.
What's the point of using terms you haven't yet explained?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Then ALL EM radiation is, by your definition, light.


This is meaningless.


Yet you previously stated that using thermal goggles shows that EMR is present and that that EMR is "observable" by those goggles.
Therefore, by your own definition, it's NOT dark.


Then your "lecture" is badly set out.
What's the point of using terms you haven't yet explained?

Sorry I should of stated without the goggles we all perceive it to be dark when there is still unseen light present. A dark constant with an eye observable value of nothing.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Then ALL EM radiation is, by your definition, light.


This is meaningless.


Yet you previously stated that using thermal goggles shows that EMR is present and that that EMR is "observable" by those goggles.
Therefore, by your own definition, it's NOT dark.


Then your "lecture" is badly set out.
What's the point of using terms you haven't yet explained?

''Then your "lecture" is badly set out.
What's the point of using terms you haven't yet explained?''


It went of track when you joined in, I asked if you can see me in the dark when the light went off.

Your reply should of been , not with my eyes but by device yes, where I then reply then this shows darkness is the absence of sight because you have just proved light is still present by device in the perceived dark by our eyes,

 

[Dywyddyr]

Sorry I should of stated without the goggles we all perceive it to be dark when there is still unseen light present.

Then please define "light" and "dark".

A dark constant with an eye observable value of nothing.

This is meaningless.

It went of track when you joined in

Then, as stated, your "lecture" is badly set out - you should be prepared for ALL questions.

I asked if you can see me in the dark when the light went off.

Like I said, by YOUR OWN DEFINITION it's not dark when the light is off.

Your reply should of been , not with my eyes but by device yes

No.
I'm not following your pre-formed (and inane) script or conclusions.
I'm asking genuine questions - as happens in science.

where I then reply then this shows darkness is the absence of sight

So you're using your own peculiar definition of "darkness".
If I close my eyes it's therefore dark? (Regardless of what anyone else thinks).
If I'm stood next to a blind guy (who has an absence of sight) is it dark or is it light?

because you have just proved light is still present by device in the perceived dark by our eyes

I "proved" nothing, I just pointed out that this is YOUR definition.

 

[Ophiolite]

'....I asked if you can see me in the dark when the light went off.

Your reply should of been , not with my eyes but by device yes, where I then reply then this shows darkness is the absence of sight because you have just proved light is still present by device in the perceived dark by our eyes,

By my definition of see i cannot see you when the lights are off. You are using a more inclusive definition of light than I am accustomed to. I typically take light to refer to the visible portion of the em spectrum. I do not object to the wider definition, but my remarks up until this point were based on the more restricted usage.

Therefore, in the example you have given, I am unable to see because no photons with the frequency associated with visible light were present. Dark = no detectable photons. The photons were undetectable because I was using my eyes alone for detection.

Using your definition of light the lecture room is not in darkness and therefore I am able to see, if I employ suitable detectors. Indeed, using your definition of light there is no such thing as darkness.

 

[rpenner]

Standard experimental techniques shows that only light with a wavelength in air of between about 400 nm and 800 nm gives rises to visual perception, thus the portion of light with this property is called visible light. Some infrared radiation can be sensed as a warming of affected skin, but that is not visible to unaided human perception so we don't label such radiation as visible light. High intensity microwave, radio or ultraviolet make heat, denature or lyse proteins in the skin giving rise over time to painful sensations, but that is not visible to unaided human perception so we don't label such radiation as visible light.

The human perception of dark is used to describe non-useful quantities of radiation with a wavelength in air of between about 400 nm and 800 nm. Cats have vision that effectively functions under lower levels of illumination than the human perception of absolute dark and technological innovations like photomultiplier tubes and IR scopes may substitute for human vision but they too have perceptual limits which would render certain rooms dark to their instrumentation.

It seems without a firm declaration that you are going to limit your talk to light visible to unaided human perception, your definition of a dark room is nebulous and your point unclear.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Then please define "light" and "dark".


This is meaningless.


Then, as stated, your "lecture" is badly set out - you should be prepared for ALL questions.


Like I said, by YOUR OWN DEFINITION it's not dark when the light is off.


No.
I'm not following your pre-formed (and inane) script or conclusions.
I'm asking genuine questions - as happens in science.


So you're using your own peculiar definition of "darkness".
If I close my eyes it's therefore dark? (Regardless of what anyone else thinks).
If I'm stood next to a blind guy (who has an absence of sight) is it dark or is it light?


I "proved" nothing, I just pointed out that this is YOUR definition.

''Then please define "light" and "dark".


Dark is the lack of neural activity in the brains sight mechanism,

Light is an increased neural activity in the brains sight mechanism.


''So you're using your own peculiar definition of "darkness".
If I close my eyes it's therefore dark? (Regardless of what anyone else thinks).
If I'm stood next to a blind guy (who has an absence of sight) is it dark or is it light?''

Close your eyes it is truly dark, dark being a disconnect of your sight mechanism and neural activity of that mechanism.

A blind man is always in the dark, the sight mechanism and Neural activity is a broken link.

Darkness has a perceived image by what we can see, and a separate image of what a device can see.

A device can see unseen light that the eyes can not detect, dark is a perceived view by visual impairment.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

By my definition of see i cannot see you when the lights are off. You are using a more inclusive definition of light than I am accustomed to. I typically take light to refer to the visible portion of the em spectrum. I do not object to the wider definition, but my remarks up until this point were based on the more restricted usage.

Therefore, in the example you have given, I am unable to see because no photons with the frequency associated with visible light were present. Dark = no detectable photons. The photons were undetectable because I was using my eyes alone for detection.

Using your definition of light the lecture room is not in darkness and therefore I am able to see, if I employ suitable detectors. Indeed, using your definition of light there is no such thing as darkness.

Very good, you are clearly understanding.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Standard experimental techniques shows that only light with a wavelength in air of between about 400 nm and 800 nm gives rises to visual perception, thus the portion of light with this property is called visible light. Some infrared radiation can be sensed as a warming of affected skin, but that is not visible to unaided human perception so we don't label such radiation as visible light. High intensity microwave, radio or ultraviolet make heat, denature or lyse proteins in the skin giving rise over time to painful sensations, but that is not visible to unaided human perception so we don't label such radiation as visible light.

The human perception of dark is used to describe non-useful quantities of radiation with a wavelength in air of between about 400 nm and 800 nm. Cats have vision that effectively functions under lower levels of illumination than the human perception of absolute dark and technological innovations like photomultiplier tubes and IR scopes may substitute for human vision but they too have perceptual limits which would render certain rooms dark to their instrumentation.

It seems without a firm declaration that you are going to limit your talk to light visible to unaided human perception, your definition of a dark room is nebulous and your point unclear.

''Standard experimental techniques shows that only light with a wavelength in air of between about 400 nm and 800 nm gives rises to visual perception, thus the portion of light with this property is called visible light. ''

I now ask the attendant to turn the light on and ask you to observe the dark is now see through , clear, the light in the air is not visible , a speed can not be seen, a spectral colour or colours we can not see , the total values are zero, it is clear.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Very good, you are clearly understanding.

You can clearly see the laser dot through the dark.