The conference hall debate!

[rpenner]

To light outside the visible spectrum, air can be a strong absorber/scatterer. There is a common reason behind why eyes are sensitive to 400nm-800nm radiation, the sun strongly emits 400nm-800nm radiation and the air is mostly transparent to 400nm-800nm radiation.

 

[billvon]

You see nothing but see through space, a value of nothing, you see your palm interacting with the nothing making a something. There is nothing impairing your view, the nothing is already in your eyes, equal to your eyes and sight, the nothing does not need to reflect of your hand into your eyes, you can see through the nothing and observe any change to/of the nothing.
When you catch a glare , that is the nothing reflecting into your eyes from the made something.

Ignoring the word salad and just going with the last line -

When you catch a glare, you see a reflection. If it is a diffuse reflection we call it a reflection, if it is a strong reflection off a good reflector (water, snow, a concrete road) we call that glare. Definitely not a "nothing" - it is a quantifiable "something."

 

[James R]

theorist-constant12345:

I tried reading your replies to what I wrote earlier. It is seldom that I encounter somebody who finds it so difficult to communicate what may well be a very simple idea (for all I know).

If you have something worth communicating to others, then it is up to you to make yourself clear. It shouldn't be up to other people to solve the word puzzles that you set for them. In this thread, you have many people asking you simple and straightforward questions in an attempt to get at what you're actually trying to say. But it all comes to nothing.

As far as I can tell, you seem amazed that light can pass through air, because air has the amazing property of "clear". It's actually quite simple. Visible light passes through air because air does not absorb that light. Compare, for example, a brick. If you put a brick between yourself and a light source, then the brick blocks out the light. The brick doesn't have the property of "clear". The brick has "opaque" instead.

You seem to be very confused about the distinction between the properties of objects (including media like air) and the the properties of light (electromagnetic radiation).

The "clear" is not a thing that travels from place to place in space. Light is what does that.

Also, light is not a property of the human eye or the human brain. You see things because light enters your eye. Other ancient ideas, such as the idea that the eye emits mysterious "rays" that allow us to see, were discredited centuries ago.

Oh, and that thing about pushing on the eyelids. It isn't that light somehow magically "leaks" through closed eyes. It's that when you put pressure on your retina you can stimulate the nerves to fire, even in the absence of light. Your brain interprets all signals from the retina as light, so you "see" flashes, patterns, colours and so on - even in the dark.

When you turn off a light, you're not altering the "clear" of the air. You're just removing the electromagnetic radiation from the space. There is no magical "dark" substance that appears when you switch a light off.

Does any of this help you?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

That "value of nothing" you state contains, in order of highest to lowest concentration, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, Hydrogen, and Xenon, as well as other trace molecules... not to mention dust, dirt, dead skin cells, various bacteria/virii/other pathogens, and other airborne contaminants.

That "value of zero" is actually a value of 100%...

I would not disagree that there is certain gases , I was asking what a person sees, not what is there on a level of unseen, wbere do you get your 100% from?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

[QUOTI ="James R, post: 3278089, member: 4402"]theorist-constant12345:

I tried reading your replies to what I wrote earlier. It is seldom that I encounter somebody who finds it so difficult to communicate what may well be a very simple idea (for all I know).

If you have something worth communicating to others, then it is up to you to make yourself clear. It shouldn't be up to other people to solve the word puzzles that you set for them. In this thread, you have many people asking you simple and straightforward questions in an attempt to get at what you're actually trying to say. But it all comes to nothing.

As far as I can tell, you seem amazed that light can pass through air, because air has the amazing property of "clear". It's actually quite simple. Visible light passes through air because air does not absorb that light. Compare, for example, a brick. If you put a brick between yourself and a light source, then the brick blocks out the light. The brick doesn't have the property of "clear". The brick has "opaque" instead.

You seem to be very confused about the distinction between the properties of objects (including media like air) and the the properties of light (electromagnetic radiation).

The "clear" is not a thing that travels from place to place in space. Light is what does that.

Also, light is not a property of the human eye or the human brain. You see things because light enters your eye. Other ancient ideas, such as the idea that the eye emits mysterious "rays" that allow us to see, were discredited centuries ago.

Oh, and that thing about pushing on the eyelids. It isn't that light somehow magically "leaks" through closed eyes. It's that when you put pressure on your retina you can stimulate the nerves to fire, even in the absence of light. Your brain interprets all signals from the retina as light, so you "see" flashes, patterns, colours and so on - even in the dark.

When you turn off a light, you're not altering the "clear" of the air. You're just removing the electromagnetic radiation from the space. There is no magical "dark" substance that appears when you switch a light off.

Does any of this help you?[/QUOTE]
Huh..I understanding air and refractive index , you say the visible light passes through air , what visible light?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

''visible
ˈvɪzɪb(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   able to be seen.''

light in space is not seen it is sensed.

Why does everyone keep trying to force a discipline on me, and claim they can not understand when i answer their questions with simple answers.

 

[paddoboy]

''visible
ˈvɪzɪb(ə)l/
adjective

1. 1.
   able to be seen.''

light in space is not seen it is sensed.

Why does everyone keep trying to force a discipline on me, and claim they can not understand when i answer their questions with simple answers.

All people are trying to do is force "common sense" and logic on you.
Light is seen. If there is no light or EMR of any kind it would be dark.
You see the space/air between your keyboard and screen.
You may not see any particular object between the two, but is is visible.
I live in Sydney. The Sydney Opera House has beautiful white shells that house/roof the place.
When any light is shone on it of a particular single colour, it reflects that colour and will appear as red or blue or green, as it did last night for Chinese New Year celebrations.
Light is obviously real. Dark is not. It simply is the absence of light. Just as cold is the absence of heat.
Why are you being so obstructive?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

All people are trying to do is force "common sense" and logic on you.
Light is seen. If there is no light or EMR of any kind it would be dark.
You see the space/air between your keyboard and screen.
You may not see any particular object between the two, but is is visible.
I live in Sydney. The Sydney Opera House has beautiful white shells that house/roof the place.
When any light is shone on it of a particular single colour, it reflects that colour and will appear as red or blue or green, as it did last night for Chinese New Year celebrations.
Light is obviously real. Dark is not. It simply is the absence of light. Just as cold is the absence of heat.
Why are you being so obstructive?

''Light is seen. If there is no light or EMR of any kind it would be dark.'' yes if there was no em energy it would be dark, for this you would need to be in a void. If you are not in a void then light still exists in the background, beyond your sight limitations.

At night outdoors in a forest you can not see, where as other species can see by use of low energy. Your eyes are open so why can you not see if the background light is still there?

You claim light is a thing that we can see, why can I not see light that is low energy then?

If light is a thing, it should not matter how low the energy is or what the frequency is we should be able to see it compared to the dark.

 

[Kittamaru]

People, the long and short of it seems to be this:

TC is unwilling (or, perhaps unable... but I doubt it) to understand the distinction between "visible light spectrum" and the whole of EM Radiation.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

People, the long and short of it seems to be this:

TC is unwilling (or, perhaps unable... but I doubt it) to understand the distinction between "visible light spectrum" and the whole of EM Radiation.

I understand the whole of Em radiation and the spectrum. I am not arguing about the colours, I am arguing that the definition of visible that means is seen, I do not see light in space, I observe clear, you observe clear, everyone observes clear, the spectral range is seen on objects only, light is seen on objects by spectral magnitude, in the space it has no spectral magnitude , it is clear.

What you call visible white light in a space, is invisible spectral magnitude, invisible photons.

 

[paddoboy]

''Light is seen. If there is no light or EMR of any kind it would be dark.'' yes if there was no em energy it would be dark, for this you would need to be in a void. If you are not in a void then light still exists in the background, beyond your sight limitations.

At night outdoors in a forest you can not see, where as other species can see by use of low energy. Your eyes are open so why can you not see if the background light is still there?

You claim light is a thing that we can see, why can I not see light that is low energy then?

If light is a thing, it should not matter how low the energy is or what the frequency is we should be able to see it compared to the dark.

Ever been in under ground caves?? Jenolan for example in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney.....Deep deep down underground...with a guide. He turns out the light...as close as you would hope to be for no EMR and it is blacker then black!
Yet, if I get up at night and go for a piss, I am able to see shadows due to some EMR in the visible spectrum.
You are totally just being obstinate you know, and the reason why you have been banned from so many places.
No one, but no one, could really be that ignorant!

 

[Kittamaru]

I understand the whole of Em radiation and the spectrum. I am not arguing about the colours, I am arguing that the definition of visible that means is seen, I do not see light in space, I observe clear, you observe clear, everyone observes clear, the spectral range is seen on objects only, light is seen on objects by spectral magnitude, in the space it has no spectral magnitude , it is clear.

What you call visible white light in a space, is invisible spectral magnitude, invisible photons.

If you did not "see light in space", then you would not see anything... you do understand that, right?

That the photoreceptors on the retina, the back of your eyeball, is ONLY capable of responding to light in the visible-light spectrum energy range... that's how the human eye works, simple as that.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I understand the whole of Em radiation and the spectrum.

Obviously not.
For example:

I am not arguing about the colours

You don't understand the use of the word "spectrum" in Kitt's post.

I am arguing that the definition of visible that means is seen,

You apparently don't understand (despite the fact several people have clearly stated it) that what we call light is only a small part of the entire EM spectrum.

I do not see light in space, I observe clear, you observe clear, everyone observes clear, the spectral range is seen on objects only, light is seen on objects by spectral magnitude, in the space it has no spectral magnitude , it is clear.

This is gibberish.
(And another misunderstanding of the word "spectrum").

 

[billvon]

I am arguing that the definition of visible that means is seen

Yes, 'visible' means 'seen.'

I do not see light in space

You see light in space.

I observe clear, you observe clear, everyone observes clear

You cannot see 'clear' by definition. The various humors in your eye, for example, are clear. You can't see them unless something is wrong with them.

the spectral range is seen on objects only, light is seen on objects by spectral magnitude, in the space it has no spectral magnitude , it is clear.

EM radiation does indeed have a spectral magnitude in space, even though space is usually clear.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Ever been in under ground caves?? Jenolan for example in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney.....Deep deep down underground...with a guide. He turns out the light...as close as you would hope to be for no EMR and it is blacker then black!
Yet, if I get up at night and go for a piss, I am able to see shadows due to some EMR in the visible spectrum.
You are totally just being obstinate you know, and the reason why you have been banned from so many places.
No one, but no one, could really be that ignorant!

We are not talking about in caves, but i watched a documentary where the scientist went under ground to one of the deepest points, he monitored by device an energy in the dark.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Obviously not.
For example:

You don't understand the use of the word "spectrum" in Kitt's post.


You apparently don't understand (despite the fact several people have clearly stated it) that what we call light is only a small part of the entire EM spectrum.


This is gibberish.
(And another misunderstanding of the word "spectrum").

The spectrum is the colours, the visible spectrum, hence we see it, radio waves, gamma waves, uv is the invisible Em radiation waves. Of cause I understand it.

Stop trying to flame.

 

[billvon]

We are not talking about in caves, but i watched a documentary where the scientist went under ground to one of the deepest points, he monitored by device an energy in the dark.

Sure, if he monitored far-IR radiation (i.e. heat radiation.) It's pretty warm far underground.

 

[paddoboy]

I understand the whole of Em radiation and the spectrum. I am not arguing about the colours, I am arguing that the definition of visible that means is seen, I do not see light in space, I observe clear, you observe clear, everyone observes clear, the spectral range is seen on objects only, light is seen on objects by spectral magnitude, in the space it has no spectral magnitude , it is clear.

Have you ever seen a laser beam?
Create a laser beam large enough and it, "the clear as you call it" will be the colur of the laser.
Talk about grappling for straws!
Wanna try again?

 

[paddoboy]

Stop trying to flame.

Stop being so obstinate !

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Yes, 'visible' means 'seen.'

You see light in space.

You cannot see 'clear' by definition. The various humors in your eye, for example, are clear. You can't see them unless something is wrong with them.

EM radiation does indeed have a spectral magnitude in space, even though space is usually clear.

Are you considering space as in space where the moon is instead of space in front of your eyes that you can clearly see through?

You do not see light in a space, it is clear, it has no spectral content, it is clear and is not white.