The conference hall debate!

[Daecon]

Whereas everyone else thinks it's wrong.

The only difference is, they have science to back them up. You don't.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I consider it is big, the idea is a Physics changing idea, an idea that defines true reality and a complete new chapter to science in the way we consider light.

Big is scary to me, so I have being trying to pass on the idea.

How do you convince me that you're just not pulling my leg?

I looked at a prvious thread of your on algebra and it was pretty unbelievable.

 

[Kittamaru]

I have considered the possibility several times that my ideas could be wrong, and I ask myself 1 question every time I personally can not answer meaning a Paradox.


I ask my self - Am I seeing in the dark by the radiation present or am I really seeing light as a thing?

Am I the tiger at night but I need a greater intensity of em radiation to see in the dark?

And that is the questions that make it hard to consider my idea is wrong. I conclude every time, there is no real way to know, but in saying that by looking at what we already know, my reality balance is tipping towards natural temporal night vision.

You are seeing "light" as the radiation in the visible light spectrum that hits your retina... it's pretty damn simple, and has been scientifically PROVEN time and again... unless you can show how years of scientific research is wrong, then all you have is a theory, and a pretty nutty one at that.

 

[paddoboy]

You are seeing "light" as the radiation in the visible light spectrum that hits your retina... it's pretty damn simple, and has been scientifically PROVEN time and again... unless you can show how years of scientific research is wrong, then all you have is a theory, and a pretty nutty one at that.

Nope, it's not a theory by any stretch of the Imagination. I wouldn't even call it an hypothesis....well, OK, an hypothesis, but certainly not a scientific hypothesis! It's not even pseudoscience. Fairy tale?? Maybe, but I don't want to upset the children!

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I think it's more like sci-fi.

 

[zgmc]

I think it's more like sci-fi.

Fantasy might be more like it.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Fantasy might be more like it.

Well, this thread is all about semantics, isn't it.

 

[billvon]

I have considered the possibility several times that my ideas could be wrong, and I ask myself 1 question every time I personally can not answer meaning a Paradox.

The reason you cannot answer is simple ignorance. You will be able to answer a lot of your own questions once you understand a little more physics.

As an example, the question "2 - (-2)" was once a paradox to you. This does not mean that it is a difficult problem, just that you did not understand basic math. Now you understand it a little better. You may get to that point with physics as well.

Am I the tiger at night but I need a greater intensity of em radiation to see in the dark?

You are as much a tiger as you are a physicist.

And that is the questions that make it hard to consider my idea is wrong. I conclude every time, there is no real way to know

There are very easy ways to know, through education.

 

[James R]

theorist-constant12345:

You have moved on an introduced new irrelevancies rather than dealing with the topic we were originally discussing.

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

I previously asked you to explain what this kind of statement means.

As far as I can tell, it's meaningless blather. Even you can't explain it, and they're your words. You're wasting my time.

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.

It is clear that you don't know what the word "frequency" means, or the word "spectrum". If you did, you wouldn't make this kind of self-contradictory statement. You're wasting my time.

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 .

More blather. Surely you must be trolling.

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

From a distance, many sources of light are effectively point sources that emit in all directions. It is both logical and not surprising that you can see some light emitted from something like the Sun or a light blub, both of which emit light in all directions.

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.

Why is it dark when you close 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?

Some sunlight filters through cloud from above. Some is reflected onto the bottom of the cloud from below. (Clouds can also be lit by sources of light on the ground.) Also, the air scatters sunlight. That is why the sky looks blue.

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.

When you see a "ray" of sunlight through a break in the clouds, what you're actually seeing is sunlight reflected from water or dust in the atmosphere where the "ray" is. Some of that reflected light happens to travel towards your eyes, so you see it.

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.

I said I'd ignore interference effects for now, because they are beyond you. Any light you see in the shadow of an object has been reflected from something else. From example, turn on the light in a bedroom and have the corridor outside dark. Light spills out the door of the room. Outside the straight-line shadow of the door edges (in the corridor), the floor is dark. Not completely dark though! Why not? Not because light from the room turned the corner, but because some of the light from the room went out, reflected off floor, ceiling, walls, objects in the corridor etc. and then off the floor in the "shadow" region and to your eyes.

You have to be careful when you do these kinds of experiments to eliminate "stray" reflections. Otherwise, you can get the wrong idea.

Mind you, I thought it would be fairly obvious to most people that light travels in straight lines and doesn't turn corners.

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).

Meaningless.

''The flicker fusion threshold (or flicker fusion rate) is a concept in the psychophysics of vision. ...

A distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.

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.

Nonsense piled on nonsense.

''The phi phenomenon is the optical illusion of perceiving continuous motion between separate objects viewed rapidly in succession. ....

Another distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.

Are Photons not rapid separate objects viewed rapidly in succession?

No.

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

It's nothing of the kind.

''A special case is white Gaussian noise ...

Another distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.

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.

This is pure crap, and you know it.

Show me the derivation of your "process formula", or admit you are a troll.

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.

Meaningless blather.

 

[Ophiolite]

Obfuscate

 

[theorist-constant12345]

How do you convince me that you're just not pulling my leg?

I looked at a prvious thread of your on algebra and it was pretty unbelievable.

How can I convince you/ with my spag I probably never will. I am not a mathematician or neither am I a scientist, I have no need to pull legs. You understand my idea, if you know science you yourself can convince you by looking at the fundamentals.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

theorist-constant12345:

You have moved on an introduced new irrelevancies rather than dealing with the topic we were originally discussing.


I previously asked you to explain what this kind of statement means.

As far as I can tell, it's meaningless blather. Even you can't explain it, and they're your words. You're wasting my time.



It is clear that you don't know what the word "frequency" means, or the word "spectrum". If you did, you wouldn't make this kind of self-contradictory statement. You're wasting my time.


More blather. Surely you must be trolling.


From a distance, many sources of light are effectively point sources that emit in all directions. It is both logical and not surprising that you can see some light emitted from something like the Sun or a light blub, both of which emit light in all directions.


Why is it dark when you close your eyes?


Some sunlight filters through cloud from above. Some is reflected onto the bottom of the cloud from below. (Clouds can also be lit by sources of light on the ground.) Also, the air scatters sunlight. That is why the sky looks blue.


When you see a "ray" of sunlight through a break in the clouds, what you're actually seeing is sunlight reflected from water or dust in the atmosphere where the "ray" is. Some of that reflected light happens to travel towards your eyes, so you see it.


I said I'd ignore interference effects for now, because they are beyond you. Any light you see in the shadow of an object has been reflected from something else. From example, turn on the light in a bedroom and have the corridor outside dark. Light spills out the door of the room. Outside the straight-line shadow of the door edges (in the corridor), the floor is dark. Not completely dark though! Why not? Not because light from the room turned the corner, but because some of the light from the room went out, reflected off floor, ceiling, walls, objects in the corridor etc. and then off the floor in the "shadow" region and to your eyes.

You have to be careful when you do these kinds of experiments to eliminate "stray" reflections. Otherwise, you can get the wrong idea.

Mind you, I thought it would be fairly obvious to most people that light travels in straight lines and doesn't turn corners.


Meaningless.


A distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.


Nonsense piled on nonsense.


Another distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.


No.


It's nothing of the kind.


Another distraction. I am not interested in pursuing this tangent with you.


This is pure crap, and you know it.

Show me the derivation of your "process formula", or admit you are a troll.


Meaningless blather.

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

I previously asked you to explain what this kind of statement means.

As far as I can tell, it's meaningless blather. Even you can't explain it, and they're your words. You're wasting my time.

Hi James, earlier on in the thread I explained the words i need to use are already in use such has immersed, submerged all being related to liquids,
it is not me explaining badly , it is the words that are confusing you all that I am trying to use to explain, because they mean something else but I can only use them as a comparison without making up new words, new words that have no definition I would have to invent.

I will try you are surrounded by the light rather than immersed, and you are connected to the light when surrounded by the light.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

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.
This is pure crap, and you know it.

Show me the derivation of your "process formula", or admit you are a troll.

The derivation of the process formula is from my brain, using my brain and observing what I am witnessing.

There is no other sources because it is new.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

countable, the probability mass function fX(x) is zero for all but a countable number of values of x.

Meaningless blather.

It may be meaningless blather, I am simply trying to direct science to what I perceive by my observations , the mass function and explantion of the mass function seemed the example I needed to explain.

X been a variable matter constant , variable by properties of the matter, and the light in space being of a mixture with a un-countable value xyz that means zero according to the mass density function.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

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.
This is pure crap, and you know it.

Show me the derivation of your "process formula", or admit you are a troll.

Does anyone deny that the force of the light makes the radiation pressure by (a) being light and (b) being a surface, (a) applying the force and (b) opposing the force?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

F=P/ab

divided by ab might not be the correct denotation, a combination of ab by a timing rate = P

any maxwells on care to help out?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

This is how I see the process, please tell me where I see it wrong.

Light starts from the Sun, travels an isotropic velocity at the speed of 299792458 m/s known as (c).

Momentum (p) whilst the light is un-interfered with in space is equal to (P) pressure = 0 and (R) resistance = 0 and (f) frequency = 0


p=R=P=f


So far?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Then I get , the Earth's magnetic field (Alpha)(R) to light (Gamma)(p) = P = (f)approx 530nm

The resistance of Alpha opposing Gamma's speed creating (P) that is equal to (f).

(p) is equal to change by (R)/t (time) that is equal to (P) that is equal to (f)

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Analogy- Water will fall at a water fall as a linearity and propagates when there is resistance force from the ground.

Only is a wave a wave when there is a resistance force, a surfer at sea loves the swell that makes the waves.

 

[origin]

You must be trolling and just having a laugh at our attempts to help you. Is this the only interaction you have with people or something?