It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
No, but I have stereotypical on my list, you know nothing so why pretend you do?
This is a light thread and you try to change it for your troll purposes.
Mods can you tell him stop wrecking my thread he is an obvious god troll.
So why bring Honey & Mumford into it?
Rather difficult to be a "god" troll when I'm an atheist.
But still, it fits with the rest of your delusional crap.
You said learning styles was false.
I for example could not get my head around the maths, then other forum got me doing shapes and dimensions, volume etc,then for some reason the maths clicked i got it.
Oh dear...
If you were going to use your own classification then why bother mentioning H&M?
(People whose theories haven't been shown to be valid).
are they between eight and fifteenth years old ? or are they the drop dead fred crew ?
People from various walks of life, of various ages,
you accept dark has the base line under the light, consider that when it is light, you are seeing in the dark, it is not hard to ask yourself or say,
it would be hard to show validation because the main style is stereotypical learning, often the other sets of learners are the ones whom refuse to learn or did not learn in school, these are not stupid people but instead have a different style of learning, example a person who did not want to learn maths, could of been learnt maths by doing joinery instead, dimension involved, then after learning this they would understand the maths and understand the science.
Turn the light switch on and off, consider the dark has opaque to sight and transparent to light, I have a dimmer so can see translucent of the dark.
And if you bothered to do the last two observations you will clearly understand my idea is not that deluded after all.
Unsupported claim.
And isn't it funny how your classification "justifies" people not agreeing with you?
At least one of them is...
But not you.
Your "observations" rely on deeply flawed understanding and ignoring definitions (and actual, validated, science).
No they do not, my science is proper science with experimental observation of axiom truth, you admit that dark is always there and it is only by the emitting of ''light'' that you see in the dark that is always under the light, you have to admit that dark is opaque to your sight and transparent allowing light to pass through that allows our sight to penetrate through the dark.
This is all simple true science , undeniable to anyone.
I know opaque has solidity, but I refer to opaque to sight, meaning dark is a solid to vision, but not a solid with physical presence.
Further thought observation- consider with the light on that you are submerged in an energy constant, your eyes are also submerged, your eyes are also coupled to all matter by the invisible energy in the empty space, and you observe from all matter, interaction of the invisible energy making contact with that matter, hence spectrum.
Arrant nonsense.
If "your science" was actually proper science you wouldn't have keep resorting to claims like science understanding of science , is completely wrong.
It's not an axiom.
Nope.
Stop making up things I agree with - especially things I've never said.
Incoherent crap.
It's neither true nor science.
No it doesn't.
In other words you're resorting to meaningless word salad again and inventing your own definitions.
Dark isn't a solid, nor a "solid to vision" and ALL solids have a physical presence - they couldn't be solid otherwise.
Brainless idiot is a brainless idiot.
You are a brainless idiot , you never even considered what I just offered in thought and observation , others who do try it, will get it and see the matrix i refer too.
For example, tonight while you Mr Duck are sleeping, I drug you and make a surgical operation on your retinas and add a tapetum lucidum, can you please explain to all the viewers what you will observe tomorrow night outside?
if you are going to use the word opaque, then i will direct you to the physics meaning.
opaque,physics- impenetrable by radiation: impenetrable by a specific form of radiation.
think about this.
if you are referring to not transparent or translucent: impervious to light, so that images cannot be seen through it
then it is massively obvious you have no clue about what you state. it's that simple.
refer to my above comments^^^^
I know Krash it is a word I have problems defining, maybe I should just state dark is impenetrable to sight? and light makes dark penetrable to sight?
But in either instant dark is transparent because it allows light to pass through?
Last edited:
I have transparent - allows light to pass through, glass, clear water, air.
I have translucent -frosted like
I do not see why I can not use these words in this context of dark been transparent or translucent to sight by intensity of light?
I have translucent -frosted like
I do not see why I can not use these words in this context of dark been transparent or translucent to sight by intensity of light?
- Status