It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seattle said:
TC, you say you need to visualize things. Is there some learning disorder that causes you to not be able to read a book or an article and understand what is meant by that book or article?

As others have mentioned, it would help you and anyone trying to read your posts if you left out nonsense words or phrases.

After you and I discussed the inverse square law the other day suddenly you began inserting "inverse square law" into every post.

Why do you do that? You don't need to insert ....gravity, 3D space, constant, see through, etc into every post. Just say what you mean rather than adding terms you've just been exposed to but don't really understand.
Click to expand...
I have tried to explain my idea in simple terms, I haver tried to communicate using google definitions and science words to those definitions.

I feel you are all being purposely obtuse, I do not know how clearer and more simply sounding I can make it than I have already tried.

I will try again and see if we can agree on something, can we just try to agree or if you do disagree just say back where the logic fails back in simple words.

Dark allows light to pass through , by definition transparent is allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen.

Does anyone disagree that by definition dark is transparent?
 
"Dark" isn't a thing. It's just a state which is the absence of light. Why do you insist on making it something else?
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Dark allows light to pass through
Click to expand...
No.

by definition transparent is allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen.
Click to expand...
Please provide a link to, or source for, this "definition" with regard to "dark".

Does anyone disagree that by definition dark is transparent?
Click to expand...
I disagree. Vehemently.
Dark is NOT transparent.
Dark CANNOT be "transparent".
Dark is not a thing.
 
Seattle said:
"Dark" isn't a thing. It's just a state which is the absence of light. Why do you insist on making it something else?
Click to expand...
That does not answer the question. I insist on making dark something else because it is something else, it is the natural state, light is added, can you please reconsider the question and associate with the definition of transparent, we are making new science.
Already if you can agree ,

Dark is the absence of light
Dark is transparent by definition.

The dark is transparent being new to science.
 
Dywyddyr said:
No.


Please provide a link to, or source for, this "definition" with regard to "dark".


I disagree. Vehemently.
Dark is NOT transparent.
Dark CANNOT be "transparent".
Dark is not a thing.
Click to expand...
Ok, you disagree , so what is your reason you think dark does not allow light to pass through ? what is your reason you think that the definition of transparent is wrong?
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
Ok, you disagree , so what is your reason you think dark does not allow light to pass through ?
Click to expand...
Let me try again: DARK IS NOT A THING.
Therefore there is nothing for light to "pass through".
What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming that "cold" is permeable to heat.

what is your reason you think that the definition of transparent is wrong?
Click to expand...
Will you ever learn to read?
What I wrote was: Please provide a link to, or source for, this "definition" with regard to "dark".
Can you do that? No...
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
I will try again and see if we can agree on something, can we just try to agree or if you do disagree just say back where the logic fails back in simple words.

Transparency allows light to pass through , by definition transparent is allowing light to pass through so that objects behind can be distinctly seen.
Click to expand...
Fixed it for you.
 
Let's get some reality into this thread, after the child like fairy tales our little friend is spreading.
An Interesting article....

Chandra celebrates the International Year of Light:

The year of 2015 has been declared the International Year of Light (IYL) by the United Nations. Organizations, institutions, and individuals involved in the science and applications of light will be joining together for this yearlong celebration to help spread the word about the wonders of light.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-chandra-celebrates-international-year.html#jCp

Enjoy!!!
 
TC, if "darkness" is a thing...how do we determine its mass?

Just saying something doesn't make it "science". There is a method to go though and you won't be able to do that.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Let me try again: DARK IS NOT A THING.
Therefore there is nothing for light to "pass through".
What you're doing is the equivalent of claiming that "cold" is permeable to heat.


Will you ever learn to read?
What I wrote was: Please provide a link to, or source for, this "definition" with regard to "dark".
Can you do that? No...
Click to expand...
Fixed it for you - dark is not a thing with a Physical body.
 
Seattle said:
TC, if "darkness" is a thing...how do we determine its mass?

Just saying something doesn't make it "science". There is a method to go though and you won't be able to do that.
Click to expand...
Dark is massless the same as light, darkness has no physical body, darkness is the emptiness of light that is filled by light to make the darkness see through.

I am not just saying so, I am using postulates.
 
theorist-constant12345 said:
If a room is filled with dirt and the whole volume of space is taken by the dirt, then the room will not allow light to pass through.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The darkness will not be transparent. Hence you have demonstrated that your postulate, "Dark is transparent by definition," is false.
Now that we've cleared that up . . . .
 
One cannot 'observe' a 3D space, because the fourth dimension, time, is required in order to allow anything to actually be observed. In a hypothetical space limited to only three dimensions, nothing at all moves, including light.

3D space would be perfectly static, never changing, and therefore, the concept is entirely in the minds of mathematicians.

I don't think 'real' 3D space is anything other than the superposition of random directed virtual energy coupled with the single dimension of time either, but that's a longer story to explain.
 
billvon said:
Exactly. The darkness will not be transparent. Hence you have demonstrated that your postulate, "Dark is transparent by definition," is false.
Now that we've cleared that up . . . .
Click to expand...
No, the other way around, you are arguing that transparent is not to allow light to pass through, you are arguing that darkness does not allow light to pass through, you are in affect arguing that dark is a solid that allows no light through.
 
danshawen said:
One cannot 'observe' a 3D space, because the fourth dimension, time, is required in order to allow anything to actually be observed. In a hypothetical space limited to only three dimensions, nothing at all moves, including light.

3D space would be perfectly static, never changing, and therefore, the concept is entirely in the minds of mathematicians.

I don't think 'real' 3D space is anything other than the superposition of random directed virtual energy coupled with the single dimension of time either, but that's a longer story to explain.
Click to expand...
One can observe 3 dimensional space, extend your hands apart palm facing palm, you observe 3 dimensional space in the space between your palms.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Wrong again.
Dark is not a thing. FULL STOP.
Dark is an absence of light.
Click to expand...
Dark is not a thing, so you must cease to exist then in the dark, what is the thing you are existing in when there is no light?

You exist in dark space by any chance?

Dark is transparent by definition, you are intentionally being obtuse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top