I have loads to say, there is so much, I just need a steady solid conversation with no off puts.
I really understand the nature of light, I understand the several constants of the process and a suggested zero value equalibrium to sight.
The conference hall debate!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
I really understand the nature of light, I understand the several constants of the process and a suggested zero value equalibrium to sight.
dark is the absence of neural activity , when it is dark we are not blind, we can still see but at a low intensity relative to neural activity, when the light increases in the light that is perceived dark, the neural intensity increases, we see at a higher intensity.Um, yes it is.
YOU have already stated that light "is a specific frequency of Em radiation that gives an increased neural activity in the brains sight mechanism to be perceived as being light".
If that SPECIFIC FREQUENCY is not there then it is dark.
If it IS there then it's NOT dark.
No.
Dark is not a thing.
Dark is not transparent.
We cannot see when it's dark.
Oh wait, when it's dark it's actually light?
You have previously been told that our brains do NOT get "coupled to matter".
Dark light?
Pure crap.
(You have ALSO been told why we don't see a beam, and that under certain conditions we CAN see the beam).
If there's light then it's not dark.
Drivel.
What do you mean by "see at a higher intensity"?
The biggest confusion is that behind the light that is perceived dark, is actual dark.
The brains attributes are intensified by the Em radiation allowing opacity of sight through the light in space.
C'mon!
If such a place exists such as a perfect void.
Absence of neural activity in the sight department would not make you dead.
"Dark" is the absence of EMR in the visible range.''
wrong , dark is the absence of light because science says so.
You have changed your tune...
Dark is a perception created by the brain by a lack of stimulant in the range of energy the brains neural mechanism for sight needs to translate the information.
Dark is not the absence of the emr in the visible range, that would suggest that in the day time the clear of light passing through air was dark, because the clear light is clearly not visible it is invisible.
When darkness falls, like in a dimmer switch, the light becomes cloudy, but it is not the light that is cloudy, but the brain that is decreased in activity in the sight mechanism.
An equilibrium to a specific energy range that by change in the energy makes change in the brain at an equal rate, not accounting for pupil dilation that is a secondary factor.
An equilibrium to a specific energy range that by change in the energy makes change in the brain at an equal rate, not accounting for pupil dilation that is a secondary factor.
So if there were no brains there would be no dark, correct? Without brains it would always be light, right?
This is clearly not clear to me, the meaning is invisible. Could you restate?
I am unaware of the experiment of shining bursts of infra red into peoples eyes, this however is not a part of natural process or related to the natural way we see by a common light bulb or sun light.
2. Other species that if they could talk, would think you was insane if you said that it was a dark night. They would argue it was always light outside.
I normalise this to evolution of species and adapting to the perception of dark by survival mechanism. Without this energy in the dark or the dark light or the light, or whatever you want to call it, is a presence of energy that we use to see, without it no sight, this without doubt suggests by the use of this energy to see that it was apart of evolution and we adapted to use this energy.
You think the whole scientific world of the past and present is wrong?
Do you really believe that?
Why would it just be the fact that you are a highly delusional individual?
But science is based on observations....and experiments....It has conclusively been shown that light is a thing. Likewise it has conclusively been shown that pure darkness/blackness, is the absence of any EMR.
We can't bounce darkness/blackness of anything....we don't see darkness reflected....we do see light/EMR reflected and refracted.
Taking all this into account, and then making a scientific deduction, most would say the evidence points to you being delusional.
Or I could also ask the question, are you just trolling and playing games?
Like, you know, trying to take everyone for fools?
What do you think?
So other species can always see outside because it is always light even during a dark night, right?
Yes without brains it would always be light, absolute darkness only can exist in a perfect void.
To re-state , the light you observe between your eyes and an object in the spacial volume is not visible, it is only visible by interactions with matter or a medium.
You observe a clarity of light that passes through the air , it is an opacity to sight, a value of zero spectral magnitude to sight, an equilibrium to sight.
We see nothing in the space, an emptiness, invisible.
Some species yes.
Which species, exactly?
Ummm, I don't understand. Could we have that gem again in English please?
Because light in the visible range is the spectrum. the spectrum is not what we observe in space.
Snakes I presume have good night vision, owls , that all use the ambient light we can not see to see.
- Status