The conference hall debate!

[James R]

theorist-constant12345:

or you simply are already in the light so no reflection of light is needed to see.

That is incorrect. I listed the only two ways you can see. Being "in the light" is not one of them. Light must enter your eye for you to see it.

Not true, we see through the light,light that travels across my path I can see through.

"Seeing" means light entering your eye. You can't/don't see light that doesn't enter your eye.

happens to travel in the right direction, is not logical, a coupling by the light to objects is logical.

Here, you are merely contradicting me. If you think I am wrong, then you ought to provide some evidence that counters what I have said. And if you think something I've said is illogical, then you should clearly explain where the train of logic breaks down.

I have given you a simple statement: you can only see light that enters your eye. If you believe that statement is illogical, then what logical flaw does it suffer from? On the other hand, if you believe it is merely wrong, but not illogical, then please point out an example of something that you can see, even though no light from it enters your eye.

Light travels very well around corners, except less intensity, hence shadows.

No. Light does not travel around corners (caveat: I am ignoring the subtleties of diffraction for now, because you're nowhere near being able to understand that).

Ask yourself: why does the shadow of an object (on a wall or the ground) exist? Why does it have the same outline as the object? If light could go around the corners of the object, there would be no shadow.

No, youre immersed in the light, you are already are connected to the emission, you see an object that reflects light because the surface of the object is different to the emission constant

How does this magical "connection to the emission" happen? What causes it?
Define the term "emission constant".
How can a surface be the same as or different from an "emission constant"? Explain.

The frequency of sight is equal to the wave(s) of the mixture of white light, the mind and eyes are equally tuned in to the frequency(s).

Define "frequency of sight".
Explain how "frequency of sight" is different from "frequency of light".
Explain what "tunes" the minds and eye into the "frequency of sight", or whatever.

I am not arguing the spectrum is not visible light, I am arguing the Suns incident white light entanglement of spectral frequencies is not visible to sight because it is equal to sight.

Do you realise that the statement "The Sun's incident white light entanglement of ... frequencies is... equal to sight" is meaningless nonsense?

Define "sight" for me.

Our brains are in timing sync to em radiation, tuned in to the white light frequency.

This has something to do with timing now, does it? Explain.

Explain how the brain "tunes in" to a frequency.

The Sun has gone , it is night, we can not see, however there is still light present , technically dark is not the absence of light but the absence of sight, and talking about dark on the surface and not pitch black in a cave.

Didn't we clear this up previously? If there's not enough light entering your eye to trigger off the photoreceptors on your retina, you don't see anything.

Why do we see this ''white light'' instead of all different colours? Why do we not see colours in ''white light'' with our eyes?

Google is your friend. Try googling "human vision" to find out how the eye perceives colour. Or perhaps even "colour perception". You can't expect me to teach you everything.

Why is it, that I can reflect light into your eyes using a mirror, and glare your vision by changing the intensity, making you temporary blinded by the light?

If the photoreceptors on the retina receive too much light at once (that is, too much light enters the eye) they can saturate. This accounts for temporary blindness from glare, etc.

This shows your brain is the converter of energy, not enough energy your brain sees dark, to much energy your brain becomes glared.

Not the brain, so much as the retinal cells (although, in many respects the retina and optic nerve is an "outpouching" of the brain). But essentially this is a statement I can agree with. It all depends on the amount of light entering your eye.

You do not see with your eyes, your eyes are detectors, your brain does the seeing. Fact.

Your brain interprets signals from the eyes, certainly.

If light reflects into my eyes to allow me to see objects, why do I not observe in a dark smoke filled room any reflective ray from a laser incident ray being aimed at my wall?

The wall tends to reflect light diffusely. That means the reflected light doesn't form a nice beam after it leaves the wall, but instead spreads out in many directions. Since the light energy is spread over a larger space, it is harder to see. Also, the wall absorbs some of the light from the beam.

Bear in mind that you can only see the beam of the laser in your smoke-filled room at all because parts of it reflect off smoke particles in the air and then come into your eye. Remove the smoke and the beam is invisible as it travels through the air. It will only be visible if you shine the laser into your eye (Don't try this more than once, or you'll risk losing both eyes instead of just one!)

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Are you sure white light is not similar to white noise?

''In signal processing, white noise is a random signal with a constant power spectral density.[1] The term is used, with this or similar meanings, in many scientific and technical disciplines, including physics, acoustic engineering, telecommunications, statistical forecasting, and many more. White noise refers to a statistical model for signals and signal sources, rather than to any specific signal.''

''The term is also used for a discrete signal whose samples are regarded as a sequence of serially uncorrelatedrandom variables with zeromean and finite variance. Depending on the context, one may also require that the samples be independent and have the same probability distribution (in other words i.i.d is a simplest representative of the white noise). In particular, if each sample has a normal distribution with zero mean, the signal is said to be Gaussian white noise.[2]''

''The samples of a white noise signal may be sequential in time, or arranged along one or more spatial dimensions. In digital image processing, the pixels of a white noise image are typically arranged in a rectangular grid, and are assumed to be independent random variables with uniform probability distribution over some interval. The concept can be defined also for signals spread over more complicated domains, such as a sphere or a torus.''

 

[James R]

I'll wait until you respond to my post before answering further questions.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

theorist-constant12345:


That is incorrect. I listed the only two ways you can see. Being "in the light" is not one of them. Light must enter your eye for you to see it.


"Seeing" means light entering your eye. You can't/don't see light that doesn't enter your eye.


Here, you are merely contradicting me. If you think I am wrong, then you ought to provide some evidence that counters what I have said. And if you think something I've said is illogical, then you should clearly explain where the train of logic breaks down.

I have given you a simple statement: you can only see light that enters your eye. If you believe that statement is illogical, then what logical flaw does it suffer from? On the other hand, if you believe it is merely wrong, but not illogical, then please point out an example of something that you can see, even though no light from it enters your eye.


No. Light does not travel around corners (caveat: I am ignoring the subtleties of diffraction for now, because you're nowhere near being able to understand that).

Ask yourself: why does the shadow of an object (on a wall or the ground) exist? Why does it have the same outline as the object? If light could go around the corners of the object, there would be no shadow.


How does this magical "connection to the emission" happen? What causes it?
Define the term "emission constant".
How can a surface be the same as or different from an "emission constant"? Explain.


Define "frequency of sight".
Explain how "frequency of sight" is different from "frequency of light".
Explain what "tunes" the minds and eye into the "frequency of sight", or whatever.


Do you realise that the statement "The Sun's incident white light entanglement of ... frequencies is... equal to sight" is meaningless nonsense?

Define "sight" for me.


This has something to do with timing now, does it? Explain.

Explain how the brain "tunes in" to a frequency.


Didn't we clear this up previously? If there's not enough light entering your eye to trigger off the photoreceptors on your retina, you don't see anything.


Google is your friend. Try googling "human vision" to find out how the eye perceives colour. Or perhaps even "colour perception". You can't expect me to teach you everything.


If the photoreceptors on the retina receive too much light at once (that is, too much light enters the eye) they can saturate. This accounts for temporary blindness from glare, etc.


Not the brain, so much as the retinal cells (although, in many respects the retina and optic nerve is an "outpouching" of the brain). But essentially this is a statement I can agree with. It all depends on the amount of light entering your eye.


Your brain interprets signals from the eyes, certainly.


The wall tends to reflect light diffusely. That means the reflected light doesn't form a nice beam after it leaves the wall, but instead spreads out in many directions. Since the light energy is spread over a larger space, it is harder to see. Also, the wall absorbs some of the light from the beam.

Bear in mind that you can only see the beam of the laser in your smoke-filled room at all because parts of it reflect off smoke particles in the air and then come into your eye. Remove the smoke and the beam is invisible as it travels through the air. It will only be visible if you shine the laser into your eye (Don't try this more than once, or you'll risk losing both eyes instead of just one!)

No, youre immersed in the light, you are already are connected to the emission, you see an object that reflects light because the surface of the object is different to the emission constant

How does this magical "connection to the emission" happen? What causes it?
Define the term "emission constant".
How can a surface be the same as or different from an "emission constant"? Explain.

It is not a magical connection, it is a development by evolution. The emission constant is the Sun, that emits light at a constant speed that is a constant one frequency because the visible spectrum is mixed into one frequency. A constant see through emission.


Light is ejected from the sun at a constant speed, a constant that changes by making contact with a surface , an exchange rate that is constant but different to the emission constant, a bottle necking of the constant, a stop pass filter that allows propagation of light to the wavelength .

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I'll wait until you respond to my post before answering further questions.

I was writing it lol.

 

[Kristoffer]

Insert gameshow host quote from Billy Maddison here.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

happens to travel in the right direction, is not logical, a coupling by the light to objects is logical.

Here, you are merely contradicting me. If you think I am wrong, then you ought to provide some evidence that counters what I have said. And if you think something I've said is illogical, then you should clearly explain where the train of logic breaks down.

I have given you a simple statement: you can only see light that enters your eye. If you believe that statement is illogical, then what logical flaw does it suffer from? On the other hand, if you believe it is merely wrong, but not illogical, then please point out an example of something that you can see, even though no light from it enters your eye.

I gave a simple statement, we are immersed in the light so why would light have to enter our eyes when the light is constantly in your eyes.

It is not logical that when I look across the horizon that all matter and mediums are all reflecting rays of light equal to the shape of the objects in all directions and to my eyes, the underneath of a cloud for example, are you saying that light hits the ground and reflects back up to the clouds underneath then back off the cloud at an angle to me eyes?

A bit far fetched I feel when we can clearly observe an actual white light ray through a cloud on an overcast day where there is a break in the cloud and it allows the congestion pass through at a slower rate allowing you to see white light through the clear light.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Light travels very well around corners, except less intensity, hence shadows.

No. Light does not travel around corners (caveat: I am ignoring the subtleties of diffraction for now, because you're nowhere near being able to understand that).

Ask yourself: why does the shadow of an object (on a wall or the ground) exist? Why does it have the same outline as the object? If light could go around the corners of the object, there would be no shadow.

I disagree a wave will create an interference pattern around an object, a shadow is the obstruction of light but not without light, the dark passive space becomes more observable in a shadow, a translucency of the dark by a decrease in the volume energy.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

The frequency of sight is equal to the wave(s) of the mixture of white light, the mind and eyes are equally tuned in to the frequency(s).

Define "frequency of sight".
Explain how "frequency of sight" is different from "frequency of light".
Explain what "tunes" the minds and eye into the "frequency of sight", or whatever.

''The flicker fusion threshold (or flicker fusion rate) is a concept in the psychophysics of vision. It is defined as the frequency at which an intermittent light stimulus appears to be completely steady to the average human observer. Flicker fusion threshold is related to persistence of vision. Although flicker can be detected for many waveforms representing time-variant fluctuations of intensity, it is conventionally, and most easily, studied in terms of sinusoidal modulation of intensity. There are seven parameters that determine the ability to detect the flicker:

1. the frequency of the modulation;
2. the amplitude or depth of the modulation (i.e., what is the maximum percent decrease in the illumination intensity from its peak value);
3. the average (or maximum-these can be inter-converted if modulation depth is known) illumination intensity;
4. the wavelength (or wavelength range) of the illumination (this parameter and the illumination intensity can be combined into a single parameter for humans or other animals for which the sensitivities of rods and cones are known as a function of wavelength using the luminous flux function);
5. the position on the retina at which the stimulation occurs (due to the different distribution of photoreceptor types at different positions);
6. the degree of light or dark adaptation, i.e., the duration and intensity of previous exposure to background light, which affects both the intensity sensitivity and the time resolution of vision.
7. physiological factors such as age and fatigue.[1]''

Sight is equal to the ''white light'' flicker threshold, a timing synchronisation , time-variant fluctuations of intensity and time varying exchange rates of light with matter.


added - 8. relative to motion and the observation of an objects motion relative to the observers motion having effect on the threshold timing.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I am not arguing the spectrum is not visible light, I am arguing the Suns incident white light entanglement of spectral frequencies is not visible to sight because it is equal to sight.
Do you realise that the statement "The Sun's incident white light entanglement of ... frequencies is... equal to sight" is meaningless nonsense?

Define "sight" for me.

The induced images in the brain by electrical chemical impulses, that are a conversion received via the network detection process of the eyes capture of energy process.

simply to see.

I think I have answered them all now thanks.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

''The phi phenomenon is the optical illusion of perceiving continuous motion between separate objects viewed rapidly in succession. The phenomenon was defined by Max Wertheimer in the Gestalt psychology in 1912[1] and along with persistence of vision formed a part of the base of the theory of cinema, applied by Hugo Münsterberg in 1916.[2] It is part of a larger process called Motion perception.''


Are Photons not rapid separate objects viewed rapidly in succession?

Is the white light mixture not a white noise phi phenomenon?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I offer more evidence that white light is seen through the constant of clear, in this instant a constant translucent, we can clearly observe the ''white light''.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

''A special case is white Gaussian noise, in which the values at any pair of times are identically distributed and statistically independent (and hence uncorrelated). ''

Matter interaction of light and my meaning to exchange rate.

''In probability theory and statistics, two real-valued random variables, X,Y, are said to be uncorrelated if their covariance, E(XY) - E(X)E(Y), is zero.''

''In probability theory and statistics, covariance is a measure of how much two random variables change together. If the greater values of one variable mainly correspond with the greater values of the other variable, and the same holds for the smaller values, i.e., the variables tend to show similar behavior, the covariance is positive.[1] In the opposite case, when the greater values of one variable mainly correspond to the smaller values of the other, i.e., the variables tend to show opposite behavior, the covariance is negative. The sign of the covariance therefore shows the tendency in the linear relationship between the variables. The magnitude of the covariance is not easy to interpret. The normalized version of the covariance, the correlation coefficient, however, shows by its magnitude the strength of the linear relation.

A distinction must be made between (1) the covariance of two random variables, which is a population parameter that can be seen as a property of the joint probability distribution, and (2) the sample covariance, which serves as an estimated value of the parameter.''



My process formula F=P/ab/t=f

where F is the covariance force and P is the pressure applied from the force that is equal to the spectral magnitude frequency, (a) being the covariance xyz, and (b) being the object with constant exchange rate value and where t is time and f is frequency.

 

[Dywyddyr]

20 pages of tc12345 reinforcing the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Isn't it time this was laid to rest permanently?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

20 pages of tc12345 reinforcing the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Isn't it time this was laid to rest permanently?

Hello Dy , nice to hear from you today has well, why not think about the points I am making instead of being stuck in the past with your methods and practices.

I am talking some good physics here if you can understand it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Hello Dy , nice to hear from you today has well

Am I on ignore yet?

why not think about the points I am making instead of being stuck in the past with your methods and practices.

I have thought about them.
I'm not "stuck in the past" - but I AM sticking with verifiable science rather than pure crap.

I am talking some good physics here

No you're not.
You don't know physics.

 

[origin]

20 pages of tc12345 reinforcing the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Isn't it time this was laid to rest permanently?

Agreed this is ridiculous. I really hope TC is trolling and that he is not really this lost.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Am I on ignore yet?


I have thought about them.
I'm not "stuck in the past" - but I AM sticking with verifiable science rather than pure crap.


No you're not.
You don't know physics.

It is your choice to stick to what you know and never venture out of your safety comfort zone, I have respect for you practice what you preach. My ideas are good thinking like it or not, and you know very well I know my own ideas very well , conveying the ideas is a different story, that is why often I will quote wiki with intent for you to understand what I am getting at.


Stop posting if you do not like what I say in an ideas and psuedo section. Ideas are just that ideas........someone with more knowledge may understand and take this information and ideas to a whole new level, that is the idea of ideas to pass on.

The visible spectrum is several real-valued variables that are uncorrelated to their covariance clear light which has a zero value.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Well, this is the pseudo section.

I don't know exactly what standards it has.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Well, this is the pseudo section.

I don't know exactly what standards it has.

It is really simple my idea in simple terms is that the white light value is zero, since the image of X is countable, the probability mass function fX(x) is zero for all but a countable number of values of x.