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

[theorist-constant12345]

Remotely and passively, yes.

No, actually. Over a very wide range your eye and brain compensate for lower levels of light, so it's nothing like just turning down a dimmer.

Woo.

Your eyes do not adjust to the lower light levels, your brain adjusts and compensates . When I explained ''white light'' is an equilibrium to sight, this is apart of what I was trying to explain. Lower intensity of light and our brains become darker and the see through space becomes semi-see through.
Eventually the light fades for the space to be ''opaque'' like to sight.

The light intensity has to equal our sight for our brains to have enough energy input for our Neural receptors to see clearly.
P.s sorry i misread your post slightly

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your eyes do not adjust to the lower light levels

Wrong.
Like Billvon wrote - "your eye and brain compensate for lower levels of light".

When I explained ''white light'' is an equilibrium to sight

Meaningless bollocks.

Lower intensity of light and our brains become darker and the see through space becomes semi-see through.
The light intensity has to equal our sight for our brains to have enough energy input for our Neural receptors to see clearly.

Meaningless bollocks.

 

[paddoboy]

The light intensity has to equal our sight for our brains to have enough energy input for our Neural receptors to see clearly.
P.s sorry i misread your post slightly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1]Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[3] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[4] "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[4] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5]

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications, as well as philosophical and scientific issues.[6] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[7] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[8]

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Wrong.
Like Billvon wrote - "your eye and brain compensate for lower levels of light".


Meaningless bollocks.


Meaningless bollocks.

Hello to you also. I misread the post slightly, realised after that pupils adjust to capture more light.

 

[billvon]

Your eyes do not adjust to the lower light levels, your brain adjusts and compensates .

Your eyes adjust. Your pupils open wider and your eye produces rhodopsin, which increases sensitivity.
Really, you could spend ten seconds on the web and avoid making such silly mistakes.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is falsely presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1]Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[3] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[4] "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[4] Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5]

The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience has ethical political implications, as well as philosophical and scientific issues.[6] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[7] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, and occult beliefs combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[8]

I am well aware of what Pseudoscience is. You are also aware that sometimes things can change.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Your eyes adjust. Your pupils open wider and your eye produces rhodopsin, which increases sensitivity.
Really, you could spend ten seconds on the web and avoid making such silly mistakes.

I messed up sorry, never considered pupil adjustment etc.

 

[paddoboy]

I am well aware of what Pseudoscience is. You are also aware that sometimes things can change.

Sure things change. But what is pseudoscience will remain pseudoscience.
And any changes that do occur, will not come out of left field from some inexperienced, unqualified, lay person, troubled with delusions of grandeur and an over-inflated ego, and who has been kicked out and permanently banned from other science forums.

 

[Seattle]

TC, what you are saying is that if our brain didn't interpret a certain wavelength as a certain color then that color wouldn't exist.

That's true to a degree. If no creature had the ability to interpret a certain wavelength as a certain color then it could be argued that it was only a certain wavelength.

So what?

The biggest "woo" in your argument on this subject is the idea that "dark" is a thing.

 

[billvon]

I messed up sorry, never considered pupil adjustment etc.

No worries. Just please:
1) check your stuff out before you post it and
2) perhaps avoid making any more "postulates" based on stuff that you haven't verified.

 

[billvon]

TC, what you are saying is that if our brain didn't interpret a certain wavelength as a certain color then that color wouldn't exist.
That's true to a degree. If no creature had the ability to interpret a certain wavelength as a certain color then it could be argued that it was only a certain wavelength.

Does that mean there is no such thing as "green" to a French-speaking person? I'd tend to disagree. Just because they call it "vert" doesn't change what it is.

 

[Seattle]

Does that mean there is no such thing as "green" to a French-speaking person? I'd tend to disagree. Just because they call it "vert" doesn't change what it is.

I'm not talking about what it's called, green, vert,verde, etc. If there is no sensor to convert the wavelength to a "color" then, in a sense, there is no color.

Just as there is no sound if there is nothing to "hear". The wave still exists in both cases. This seems to be more of a philosophical question though doesn't it (and not one I'm particularly interested in) ?

 

[billvon]

I'm not talking about what it's called, green, vert,verde, etc. If there is no sensor to convert the wavelength to a "color" then, in a sense, there is no color. Just as there is no sound if there is nothing to "hear".

Well, it sounds more like you are saying "if there is sound but there's no one to hear it there is no sound."

But to the larger point I agree that sensors can detect color.

 

[Seattle]

If a tree falls, a sound wave is generated but if no hearing person was around then there was only the wave and not "sound" as we usually interpret that word.

Again, I have no interest in philosophy but I think you get my point and we agree

I'm not sure what "green" is without some creature with appropriate sensors being around. Actually, I suppose that applies to other characteristic of light as well.

What isn't a philosophical question is whether or not "dark" is a "thing"

 

[theorist-constant12345]

TC, what you are saying is that if our brain didn't interpret a certain wavelength as a certain color then that color wouldn't exist.

That's true to a degree. If no creature had the ability to interpret a certain wavelength as a certain color then it could be argued that it was only a certain wavelength.

So what?

The biggest "woo" in your argument on this subject is the idea that "dark" is a thing.

So what?

That would obtain that the brain perceives colour, and if colour perceived is of spectral waves, and light is said to be the spectral waves, that would be agreeing that light is not really a thing .
We do not actually see light we only see spectral colours.

 

[paddoboy]

So what?

That would obtain that the brain perceives colour, and if colour perceived is of spectral waves, and light is said to be the spectral waves, that would be agreeing that light is not really a thing .
We do not actually see light we only see spectral colours.

Pseudoscience nonsense at its best!
As it says from the link I gave you, [1]Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

Only one way for you to go from here theorist constant...and it ain't up!

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Pseudoscience nonsense at its best!
As it says from the link I gave you, [1]Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

Only one way for you to go from here theorist constant...and it ain't up!

I would not look to deep into that , especially unproven claims which will be proven in time.

 

[Seattle]

So what?

That would obtain that the brain perceives colour, and if colour perceived is of spectral waves, and light is said to be the spectral waves, that would be agreeing that light is not really a thing .
We do not actually see light we only see spectral colours.

"Spectral colors" is light too.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

"Spectral colors" is light too.

My point was, but until it enters yours eyes it is just waves, it is energy waves and not spectral. We see a red object but it is not actually red, we see the energy difference that gives us a perceived imagine of red.

 

[billvon]

My point was, but until it enters yours eyes it is just waves, it is energy waves and not spectral.

It is energy. It has spectral content. A pure red light has a different spectrum than a pure green light.

We see a red object but it is not actually red, we see the wavelength that gives us a perceived imagine of red.

That's the definition of "red." That is why a red light is, actually, red.