The conference hall debate!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
We are talking about outside at night, huh...............
If you could evolve your eyes to see by use of CMBR , which is recorded even under ground, then you would see .
And what dark? I thought we had established it is always light and never dark.
Can we call it dark energy?
and to the opacity question, I took it from this -
and to the opacity question, I took it from this -
- ''First we will show you how to create a transparent image with CSS. IE9, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, and Safari use the property opacity for transparency. The opacity property can take a value from 0.0 - 1.0. A lower value makes the element more transparent.''
TC: the light you observe between your eyes and an object in the spacial volume is not visible
Randwolf: To say this another way, "the light that you observe is invisible" - is that correct?
TC: 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.
Randwolf: ''OK, so would that be an axiom? Have we established clearly that you can only observe invisible light?''
TC: It is an axiom that you can not observe light in an empty space, you can not observe it because it is invisible.
That's very odd, TC, that you would say "you can not observe it because it is invisible". You know why I think that is odd? Because you earlier said "the light you observe ... is not visible". How can the light that I observe be "not visible" and yet I "cannot observe it because it is invisible"? Is "not visible" different than "invisible"? Or does "visible" = "invisible"?
TC: 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.
Randwolf: ''Does any light have a spectral magnitude that is not zero?''
TC: Yes , any light that is in interaction with matter or a medium , the spectral values .
Randwolf: ''So all light has a nonzero spectral value when it is in a medium or when it strikes matter, is that correct?''
TC: NOT CORRECT, the other way around, light has a spectral value of zero when not in an interference stage.
That's very odd, TC, that you would say "light has a spectral value of zero when not in an interference stage". You know why I think that is odd? Because earlier you said "You observe a clarity of light ...[with]... a value of zero spectral magnitude". How can I observe light with a "a value of zero spectral magnitude" when "light has a spectral value of zero when not in an interference stage"? Wouldn't that mean I can only see light that is NOT "in interaction with matter or a medium"? Or is a spectral value of zero = a spectral value of NOT zero? As in 0=1? Is that what you are saying TC, that 0=1? You've said it before, no reason to back down now...
Randwolf: To say this another way, "the light that you observe is invisible" - is that correct?
TC: 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.
Randwolf: ''OK, so would that be an axiom? Have we established clearly that you can only observe invisible light?''
TC: It is an axiom that you can not observe light in an empty space, you can not observe it because it is invisible.
That's very odd, TC, that you would say "you can not observe it because it is invisible". You know why I think that is odd? Because you earlier said "the light you observe ... is not visible". How can the light that I observe be "not visible" and yet I "cannot observe it because it is invisible"? Is "not visible" different than "invisible"? Or does "visible" = "invisible"?
TC: 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.
Randwolf: ''Does any light have a spectral magnitude that is not zero?''
TC: Yes , any light that is in interaction with matter or a medium , the spectral values .
Randwolf: ''So all light has a nonzero spectral value when it is in a medium or when it strikes matter, is that correct?''
TC: NOT CORRECT, the other way around, light has a spectral value of zero when not in an interference stage.
That's very odd, TC, that you would say "light has a spectral value of zero when not in an interference stage". You know why I think that is odd? Because earlier you said "You observe a clarity of light ...[with]... a value of zero spectral magnitude". How can I observe light with a "a value of zero spectral magnitude" when "light has a spectral value of zero when not in an interference stage"? Wouldn't that mean I can only see light that is NOT "in interaction with matter or a medium"? Or is a spectral value of zero = a spectral value of NOT zero? As in 0=1? Is that what you are saying TC, that 0=1? You've said it before, no reason to back down now...
Maybe, but then wouldn't snakes think that it was dark if they were placed somewhere that had no infrared available? So without light and / or infrared that particular species would agree that it was dark, right? Doesn't that contradict your earlier statement that "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." - always light outside - yet a snake would not think "you was insane if you said that it was a dark night", so long as there was no infrared energy about. Agree or disagree TC?
Well of course TC. Everyone knows you cannot see through something that is transparent. Because transparent can take a value from 0.0-1.0. A lower value makes the element more opaque.
So now you have shown that transparent = opaque.
Remember, we had this conversation before - we determined that the answer is 0. Everything = 0, remember? Because 0=1=3=999, remember?
I really need to go get some sleep, it is 3 am here.
I will answer you tomorrow on the other questions but will answer the first part.
''That's very odd, TC, that you would say "you can not observe it because it is invisible". You know why I think that is odd? Because you earlier said "the light you observe ... is not visible". How can the light that I observe be "not visible" and yet I "can not observe it because it is invisible"? Is "not visible" different than "invisible"? Or does "visible" = "invisible"?''
Yes , visible = invisible, the equilibrium to sight, the exact same frequency as sight, a constant, a constant speed through air which has zero opacity and any opacity change , changes the constant of zero to a spectral magnitude/frequency.
Visible light that is invisible , that is made visible by interference.
I have an idea TC. What if we call it (infrared energy and light) EM energy? Or even EM radiation? Can we call it that? Maybe we can add other things that we can also call EM radiation as we go along... Does that seem reasonable to you?
Then how do you explain a creature such as bats, which use sonic location, or ones like the star nosed mole, which are basically blind?
See, I knew we could come to an understanding here TC. We just have to be patient. Tomorrow we will finish establishing that visible=invisible, a spectral value of zero = a spectral value of NOT zero, transparent = opaque, 0=1 and 0=999.
Maybe we can even make progress on agreeing to call light and infrared EM radiation - that would make me very happy, if it's alright with you. Get some sleep now...
I lock you in a solid steel box, walls 4 inches thick.
It is not a void nor a vacuum, but there is no light - Night Vision Goggles would not help you see, nor would InfraRed goggles, but Thermal Goggles (radiative heat) would.
If I sit in a room at night with the blinds pulled and the lights turned off, I can't see anything. According to theorist's definition of mental activity in the visual cortex (assuming that is the definition he's using now, because it changes every post or two), then it is "dark".
But, if I close my eyes and then push gently on my eyelids with my fingers, I see all kinds of flashes and patterns. This must mean that my visual cortex now has neural activity.
By theorist-constant's definition, I can make it go from "dark" to "light" by pushing on my eyelids.
That is, "light" and "dark" actually have nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation under this definition. They are states that only depend on the human brain.
Is that correct?
But, if I close my eyes and then push gently on my eyelids with my fingers, I see all kinds of flashes and patterns. This must mean that my visual cortex now has neural activity.
By theorist-constant's definition, I can make it go from "dark" to "light" by pushing on my eyelids.
That is, "light" and "dark" actually have nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation under this definition. They are states that only depend on the human brain.
Is that correct?
I have moonshine so I can make it dark even when the lights are on.
You can use instruments to observe light you cannot see. A basic digital camera, for example, will let you see near infrared.
1=0
good=bad
up=down
Word salad again.
What if we call Em radiation, EM radiation and we call light and dark a figment of the imagination?
Because when it is perceived dark by one species, another species will perceive it to be light, so to me that is a simple paradox like Shroedlingers cat.
Bats use sonar has a way to see other than their eyes, a sensory perception using sonar that is has good as sight. A star nosed mole, I have never heard of, will have to look them up.
Sigh does have a speed, a speed that is equal to the light, a speed of sight that is clearly shown to be offset by motion of the observer. This is called motion blur, because the TFR is offset by motion to the constant(s).
- Status