The conference hall debate!

[Randwolf]

Yes without brains it would always be light

How do you know this?

the light you observe between your eyes and an object in the spacial volume is not visible

To say this another way, "the light that you observe is invisible" - is that correct?

You observe a clarity of light that passes through the air , it is an opacity to sight

That word - "opacity" - I don't think it means what you think it means. Could you define opacity please?

a value of zero spectral magnitude to sight

Does any light have a spectral magnitude that is not zero?

We see nothing in the space, an emptiness, invisible.

If the things we see are not "in space", where are they?

 

[Randwolf]

Snakes I presume have good night vision

Do you suppose snakes use infrared vision to see in the night?

 

[paddoboy]

Because light in the visible range is the spectrum. the spectrum is not what we observe in space.

What does that mean Sir?
I have always thought that light was just a particular wavelength of the EMS.
And Sir, why is it that what I see as the absence of the visible part of the EMS in a dark place, can show up in other parts of the EMS such as infrared or microwave?
Are you saying Sir that the whole world is wrong, through out many centuries, and you have finally come along, revealing the true reality to humanity Sir?
So you are a genuis Sir?
Don't you think that it may possibly just be that you are highly delusional, as I asked before?

 

[paddoboy]

I think I have failed this lesson in how to be illogical, stupid and delusional.
I'm expelling myself.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Absence of neural activity in the sight department would not make you dead.

Correct.
But you didn't state "in the sight department".
What you wrote was "dark is the absence of neural activity" (as I quoted).

wrong , dark is the absence of light because science says so.

And science is right.

You have changed your tune...

Nope.
I'm using (as previously noted) YOUR definitions and showing that even using those you are wrong.

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.

Which is a very long-winded way of saying "dark is the absence of EMR in the visible frequencies", or even "dark is the absence of light".

Dark is not the absence of the emr in the visible range

Uh, yes it is.

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.

What?
In English please.

 

[Randwolf]

I think I have failed this lesson in how to be illogical, stupid and delusional.
I'm expelling myself.

Come on, you just haven't tried hard enough - give it some time. I'm trying the long enough rope to hang one's self approach. OTH, the duck is still trying to be logical, sensible and all scientific like - I have a strong feeling that won't work at all...

 

[theorist-constant12345]

How do you know this?

To say this another way, "the light that you observe is invisible" - is that correct?
That word - "opacity" - I don't think it means what you think it means. Could you define opacity please?
Does any light have a spectral magnitude that is not zero?
Does any light have a spectral magnitude that is not zero?

Yes without brains it would always be light
''How do you know this?''

By use of devices in the dark, I and you would agree that it was dark and we could not see, but we would also agree that other species still can see, and the devices can see, so therefore we must agree it must be still light even when we can not see.

''To say this another way, "the light that you observe is invisible" - is that correct?''

Unless interacting with matter or medium. Like a laser in a vacuum hitting a left over dust particle, we would not see the beam it is invisible to us , but when the particle interacts with the beam we see the particle in the light, lit up by process.




''That word - "opacity" - I don't think it means what you think it means. Could you define opacity please?''

I mean clear, see through , invisible.


''Does any light have a spectral magnitude that is not zero?''

Yes , any light that is in interaction with matter or a medium , the spectral values .

''If the things we see are not "in space", where are they?''

Empty space not occupied space.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Randwolf: So other species can always see outside because it is always light even during a dark night, right?
You: Some species yes.
Randwolf: Which species, exactly?
You: Snakes I presume have good night vision, owls , that all use the ambient light we can not see to see.

So you make a specific claim (TWO, actually) and your "reply" is "I presume" for snakes and a (false) claim about owls?
Owls cannot see if there is no light.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Correct.
But you didn't state "in the sight department".
What you wrote was "dark is the absence of neural activity" (as I quoted).


And science is right.


Nope.
I'm using (as previously noted) YOUR definitions and showing that even using those you are wrong.


Which is a very long-winded way of saying "dark is the absence of EMR in the visible frequencies", or even "dark is the absence of light".


Uh, yes it is.


What?
In English please.

We are talking about sight and light and you could not work out referring to neural activity was based on the sight mechanism and meant nothing else?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Randwolf: So other species can always see outside because it is always light even during a dark night, right?
You: Some species yes.
Randwolf: Which species, exactly?
You: Snakes I presume have good night vision, owls , that all use the ambient light we can not see to see.

So you make a specific claim (TWO, actually) and your "reply" is "I presume" for snakes and a (false) claim about owls?
Owls cannot see if there is no light.

I do not have to know all the species that do what ever to know that some species see in the dark compared to what we call dark by infra red means etc,

 

[paddoboy]

Unless interacting with matter or medium. Like a laser in a vacuum hitting a left over dust particle, we would not see the beam it is invisible to us , but when the particle interacts with the beam we see the particle in the light, lit up by process.

But but Sir, if light interacts with anything, that would logically [oops sorry] mean it must be real?

''That word - "opacity" - I don't think it means what you think it means. Could you define opacity please?''

I mean clear, see through , invisible.

Sir, we have a problem. My dictionary says that opacity means....
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opacity
"the quality of a material that does not allow light to pass through it : the quality of being opaque"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opacity

Why is my dictionary wrong Sir?
Before you answer that Sir, I would kindly suggest you check out the meaning of "tongue in cheek" Sir.

 

[Dywyddyr]

We are talking about sight and light and you could not work out referring to neural activity was based on the sight mechanism and meant nothing else?

If you can't say EXACTLY what you mean (on the few occasions when you do know what you mean) how are we supposed to tell what you're saying the rest of the time?
Half of your statements are near-impenetrable gibberish - if you're not specific then how do we know what you're saying?

I do not have to know all the species that do what ever to know that some species see in the dark compared to what we call dark by infra red means etc

You made SPECIFIC claims.
And when asked to support those claims your reply was a supposition and an error.
In other words you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Randwolf]

''To say this another way, "the light that you observe is invisible" - is that correct?''

Unless interacting with matter or medium. Like a laser in a vacuum hitting a left over dust particle, we would not see the beam it is invisible to us , but when the particle interacts with the beam we see the particle in the light, lit up by process.

OK, so would that be an axiom? Have we established clearly that you can only observe invisible light?

''That word - "opacity" - I don't think it means what you think it means. Could you define opacity please?''

I mean clear, see through , invisible.

That's interesting. Any reason why you have assigned the exact opposite definition to opacity from all the English dictionaries?

''Does any light have a spectral magnitude that is not zero?''

Yes , any light that is in interaction with matter or a medium , the spectral values .

So all light has a nonzero spectral value when it is in a medium or when it strikes matter, is that correct?

''If the things we see are not "in space", where are they?''

Empty space not occupied space.

So the things we see are in empty space only? Why can't we see things that actually occupy space? Can you give me an example of a "thing" (by "thing" I mean an object made of physical matter) that does not occupy space?

By use of devices in the dark, I and you would agree that it was dark and we could not see, but we would also agree that other species still can see

What type of device will tell me if another species can see?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

If you can't say EXACTLY what you mean (on the few occasions when you do know what you mean) how are we supposed to tell what you're saying the rest of the time?
Half of your statements are near-impenetrable gibberish - if you're not specific then how do we know what you're saying?


You made SPECIFIC claims.
And when asked to support those claims your reply was a supposition and an error.
In other words you don't know what you're talking about.

Yes of cause you do not understand, strange how others do,

 

[Randwolf]

Snakes I presume have good night vision

Do you suppose snakes use infrared vision to see in the night?

I think you forgot to answer this one TC.

 

[Randwolf]

I do not have to know all the species that do what ever to know that some species see in the dark compared to what we call dark by infra red means etc,

Maybe not, but it would seem that you would have to know of some species that see in the dark "to know that some species see in the dark", wouldn't you? Do you know any species that can see in the dark? Cause owls ain't one...

 

[theorist-constant12345]

OK, so would that be an axiom? Have we established clearly that you can only observe invisible light?
That's interesting. Any reason why you have assigned the exact opposite definition to opacity from all the English dictionaries?
So all light has a nonzero spectral value when it is in a medium or when it strikes matter, is that correct?
So the things we see are in empty space only? Why can't we see things that actually occupy space? Can you give me an example of a "thing" (by "thing" I mean an object made of physical matter) that does not occupy space?


What type of device will tell me if another species can see?

''OK, so would that be an axiom? Have we established clearly that you can only observe invisible light?''

It is an axiom that you can not observe light in an empty space, you can not observe it because it is invisible.

''So all light has a nonzero spectral value when it is in a medium or when it strikes matter, is that correct?''

NOT CORRECT, the other way around, light has a spectral value of zero when not in an interference stage.


''So the things we see are in empty space only? Why can't we see things that actually occupy space? Can you give me an example of a "thing" (by "thing" I mean an object made of physical matter) that does not occupy space?''

I think you misunderstand . We do not see anything in empty space that is still empty, we only see things that occupy space.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I think you forgot to answer this one TC.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that snakes use infra red to see at night.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Maybe not, but it would seem that you would have to know of some species that see in the dark "to know that some species see in the dark", wouldn't you? Do you know any species that can see in the dark? Cause owls ain't one...

''But a growing number of species are proving us all wrong. From nocturnal geckoes to moths, lemurs and bats, animals of all shapes and sizes are turning out to have colour vision even in near-total darkness. Some researchers now think that colour vision at night might be quite common.''

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141128-these-animals-see-colour-at-night

 

[theorist-constant12345]

If you must know why this process for animals is possible it is something to do with energy signature of Em radiation that is different to the zero constant(s).