Light by any other name would look as sweet.
The conference hall debate!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
I'm leaning towards trolling and not just lack of education now.
theorist-constant12345:
Or, maybe putting the sheet there stops something from your eyes reaching the screen. What could it be stopping?
Now, turn off your screen and turn off the lights in the room. Shut the blinds. Now you can't see the screen, even though there's nothing in between it and your eyes. So what happened? Did the "clear" go away? What changed about that space between the screen and your eyes? Something? Nothing?
Did anything change about your eyes when you turned the screen off?
Did anything about the screen change when you turned the screen off?
It's a mystery, isn't it? Whatever could have happened that meant you could no longer see the screen?
Got any ideas?
"Clear" just means "transparent", which means that light can pass through unimpeded. "Clear" is a property of a material. Air is "clear". The opposite of "clear" is "opaque".
"Light", on the other hand, is the opposite of "dark".
"Light" and "Clear" are not the same thing. Neither are "dark" and "opaque".
When I push on my eyes in the dark and "see" patterns or colours, there's no em energy entering my eyes. My eyes are closed at the time. And yet I still see something. My neurons for sight are still firing. So, is there "light" involved in this, or not? According to what you said early, there is. Where is the light? Or do you want to change to a different definition of "light" now?
A prism refracts different frequencies of light at different angles. This is due to the fact that light of different frequencies travels at slightly different speeds in glass. This is called dispersion.
If you place something (e.g. a sheet of paper) between your eyes and the computer screen, then you can no longer see the screen. That suggests that the sheet of paper is stopping something from the screen from reaching your eyes. What could it be stopping?
Or, maybe putting the sheet there stops something from your eyes reaching the screen. What could it be stopping?
Now, turn off your screen and turn off the lights in the room. Shut the blinds. Now you can't see the screen, even though there's nothing in between it and your eyes. So what happened? Did the "clear" go away? What changed about that space between the screen and your eyes? Something? Nothing?
Did anything change about your eyes when you turned the screen off?
Did anything about the screen change when you turned the screen off?
It's a mystery, isn't it? Whatever could have happened that meant you could no longer see the screen?
Got any ideas?
Let's try to cut to the chase.
"Clear" just means "transparent", which means that light can pass through unimpeded. "Clear" is a property of a material. Air is "clear". The opposite of "clear" is "opaque".
"Light", on the other hand, is the opposite of "dark".
"Light" and "Clear" are not the same thing. Neither are "dark" and "opaque".
No, the "top squiggle line" is EM radiation, including light. Rayleigh scattering is why the sky is blue.
Constant means unvaried and science also refers to constant as a quantity. I use the unvaried definition, the clear of light in an un-occupied space , is an unvaried constant to all sighted observers.
The spectral content of colour is not seen, a frequency entangled mix is not seen, the sight observes clear , an invisible of energy between sight and an object.
I know the ''squiggle'' is em energy/radiation, when new arrives, other things fall into place. The sky is said to be blue by the Rayleigh scattering, but my idea says it is blue by bottle necking.
''When I push on my eyes in the dark and "see" patterns or colours, there's no em energy entering my eyes. My eyes are closed at the time. And yet I still see something. My neurons for sight are still firing. So, is there "light" involved in this, or not? According to what you said early, there is. Where is the light? Or do you want to change to a different definition of "light" now?''
I did try pushing on my eyes and witnessed no colour patterns, however there must be something to it if other people can observe this. Have you ever put magnet on a screen and made patterns of colours by using a magnet?
Or pushed on a screen and made different colours?
I assume just because your eyes are shut, this does not stop all the energy going to your brain from your eyes, I presume some elements of the Em energy seep through your eyelid filter.
I also assume you are applying energy from your finger, but mainly I think you are just pressing on the ''monitor'' and the colour you see if your own ''light energy''.
''A prism refracts different frequencies of light at different angles. This is due to the fact that light of different frequencies travels at slightly different speeds in glass. This is called dispersion.''
I understand about a Prisms permeability meaning the opacity and resistance force to ''light''.
I know the speed slows down of the frequency(s) , my idea is based on this and speed and exchange rate being the key to the nature of light. COP , center of pressure , is a far better explanation for explaining the mechanism for the untangling of the entanglement of light and the frequency being a singular rather than a multiple mix,
white light is certainly not clear.
''If you place something (e.g. a sheet of paper) between your eyes and the computer screen, then you can no longer see the screen. That suggests that the sheet of paper is stopping something from the screen from reaching your eyes. What could it be stopping?''
Putting a piece of paper in your line of sight obscures the monitor. The obstruction has several functions,
1. The monitor is obscured
2. The coupling of sight to the monitor has been severed.
3. Your new coupling of sight is now the paper.
4. The papers opacity will not allow your vision to penetrate past the paper
5. If you could expand your paper without it ripping, the opacity level will change to an eventually see through.
6. The process consists of EM energy being between your eyes and monitor in the space.
7. What you call white light, is Energy that has the space to disperse at an incredible rate uninterrupted and reaching its speed limit by un-interfered expansion giving the effect of clear like the expanded piece of paper.
I will answer the others after a brew.
I really like your questions.
''Now, turn off your screen and turn off the lights in the room. Shut the blinds. Now you can't see the screen, even though there's nothing in between it and your eyes. So what happened? Did the "clear" go away? What changed about that space between the screen and your eyes? Something? Nothing?
Did anything change about your eyes when you turned the screen off?
Did anything about the screen change when you turned the screen off?''
The space was changed by an energy decrease but that is not to say that the space is lacking energy still, a other species would argue that they could see if they could talk.
This question from yourself is what shows us clearly my suggestion to a Paradox.
The clear remains for other species, but fades to ''opaque'' from a visual perception from us. By opaque I simply mean the monitor is now obstructed and we can not see it because relative to us it is ''dark'', but only dark because our eyes are lacking ability.
This where a muti-paradox starts to happen in my opinion with different perspective look considering other species that gives us a Paradox.
I will try to explain the best I can the paradox .
Is it dark and the light has gone, light being a thing, or is it the Energy has decreased so our brains become dark because to other species it is still ''light''.
Is it always dark and the energy allows us to see in the dark , a night vision by energy levels allowing our sight to penetrate through the dark, or the dark simply transparent and allows the dark to become illuminated by light allowing sight to see through.
Hopefully you understand the Paradox.
That light could be a thing or not a thing at the same time. Both ways are possible.
I have time on the internet, I do not need a course to show science a Paradox from discourse of information I do know.
People are starting to understand me I feel, they are understanding the clear constant of light and why I suggest an equilibrium to sight.
''It's a mystery, isn't it? ''
It is the best puzzle I have ever come across, to me the whole universe is one big puzzle , except whether intentional or by science process the design was always meant to have paradoxes so the answer would never truly be known about the design.
From what I have read and learnt, I see we are playing some sort of game, with ourselves or maybe even not ourselves. A game where we have to work out what is what, but when we finally find the answers there is always a Paradox answer, and the answers to anything are always down to two choices of any process.
It is really strange, a proper mystery, with a seemingly always two answers from my perspective view.
Example - Were we put here or are we made from the stars, because even if we were made from the stars , that still does not suggest that we were made here, we could of been made elsewhere and put here. We will never know and could never know, a Paradox from the beginning.
My eyes are never closed to knowledge, it is your knowledge that lead me to my ideas.
@ theorist-constant
Is this you'r idea.???
Ther was em energy before ther was eyes... but wit-out eyes ther was no "light"... simply because ther was no eyes to transform the em energy to what creatures wit eyes percieve as light... ie... before eyes ther was only darkness.!!!
Is this you'r idea.???
Ther was em energy before ther was eyes... but wit-out eyes ther was no "light"... simply because ther was no eyes to transform the em energy to what creatures wit eyes percieve as light... ie... before eyes ther was only darkness.!!!
yes that sounds about correct.
Evolution to see in the dark. A wave is just a wave if there is nobody to hear it or observe it to convert the energy into a something.
Now you understand it , hopefully you can now visualise it and see the nature of ''light''. If you can explain it any better than myself please do so. It took me several years to be sure of present information and details, I draw the same conclusion every time.
It has fried my brain thinking so deep, I need a pressure release by someone else understanding who can then explain it and probably a better explanation and proper terminology.
I am defining evolution and seeing in the dark which you have just admitted to by your post.
I am defining it is always dark and light is not a thing.
I am defining dark is the thing.
I am defining an energy constant of clear that is made by sight and the energy being at a perfect equilibrium to the evolution of sight, that is why it has a value of zero .
I am defining a complete paradox to present thought, and you say it it is nothing.....
Don't beat me, please!
- Status