The conference hall debate!

[paddoboy]

We are not talking about in caves, but i watched a documentary where the scientist went under ground to one of the deepest points, he monitored by device an energy in the dark.

I was giving an example of near total darkness compared to partial or near total darkness.
You know, like waving your hand in front of your face,.
Just not the answer you wanted to hear.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Have you ever seen a laser beam?
Create a laser beam large enough and it, "the clear as you call it" will be the colur of the laser.
Talk about grappling for straws!
Wanna try again?

You are interfering by adding a huge laser, a huge laser is not sun light the subject we are discussing.

 

[billvon]

Are you considering space as in space where the moon is instead of space in front of your eyes that you can clearly see through?

I am considering space as space.

You do not see light in a space, it is clear, it has no spectral content, it is clear and is not white.

Most empty space is clear. It has no spectral content. It has no color because color is an aspect of light, not space. You might as well ask what color middle C is.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I was giving an example of near total darkness compared to partial or near total darkness.
You know, like waving your hand in front of your face,.
Just not the answer you wanted to hear.

I know the difference between absolute dark and dark, that still does not excuse the fact that your brain sight mechanism darkens quicker than a snakes.

 

[paddoboy]

You are interfering by adding a huge laser, a huge laser is not sun light the subject we are discussing.

It is light!!!!! One particular wavelength of light!
Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.

You are again being stubbornly obstinate.
Is this why you were banned elsewhere?

 

[Dywyddyr]

The spectrum is the colours, the visible spectrum, hence we see it, radio waves, gamma waves, uv is the invisible Em radiation waves. Of cause I understand it.
Stop trying to flame.

And wrong again.
The word "spectrum" in Kitt's post refers to the portion of the entire EMR spectrum that is visible.
I.e. the RANGE OF FREQUENCIES (390 to 700 nm) [1].
It has little to with "seeing the colours" separately as such.
White light is (by definition) that spectrum.

1 Which also shows how ridiculous your claim "If light is a thing, it should not matter how low the energy is or what the frequency is we should be able to see it compared to the dark" is.
What we call light is ONLY the frequencies that we see by, therefore it DOES matter "how low the energy is or what the frequency is" - by definition.

 

[paddoboy]

I know the difference between absolute dark and dark, that still does not excuse the fact that your brain sight mechanism darkens quicker than a snakes.

No you do not, sorry.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

I am considering space as space.

Most empty space is clear. It has no spectral content. It has no color because color is an aspect of light, not space. You might as well ask what color middle C is.

Colour is an aspect of sight and observing a change in the light that is travelling through space , light in space has no colour so how can it have a spectral magnitude?

What in space can cause light to propagate?


No interference, no propagation and a linearity rather than a wave.

 

[paddoboy]

 

[billvon]

Colour is an aspect of sight and observing a change in the light that is travelling through space , light in space has no colour so how can it have a spectral magnitude?

White light has spectral magnitude. So does any light. Light in space has just as much color as light through glass, or light through air.

What in space can cause light to propagate?

Start with Maxwell's Equations. They explain it quite well.

No interference, no propagation and a linearity rather than a wave.

Space is a linear medium that exhibits EM propagation. EM radiation is a wave and a flux of particles.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

And wrong again.
The word "spectrum" in Kitt's post refers to the portion of the entire EMR spectrum that is visible.
I.e. the RANGE OF FREQUENCIES (390 to 700 nm) [1].
It has little to with "seeing the colours" separately as such.
White light is (by definition) that spectrum.

1 Which also shows how ridiculous your claim "If light is a thing, it should not matter how low the energy is or what the frequency is we should be able to see it compared to the dark" is.
What we call light is ONLY the frequencies that we see by, therefore it DOES matter "how low the energy is or what the frequency is" - by definition.

I know white light is said to be that range, what the eck, why do insist on trying to make me look stupid , why do i fall for it every time and start to let you troll me trying to flame me always.
again quoting back things anyone can look up, present information I know.

Back on ignore before i start to swear at you.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No you do not, sorry.

stoptrying to tell me what i know or do not know, i know the difference , on ignore for you as well troll.

 

[paddoboy]

stoptrying to tell me what i know or do not know, i know the difference , on ignore for you as well troll.

Sorry, I'm a nice bloke and will always help when I can.
The fact is that you no nothing about light/physics or science.
That is why you have been banned everywhere else and have all your threads here in the fringe section.
Just trying to help you to realise your delusions.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

White light has spectral magnitude. So does any light. Light in space has just as much color as light through glass, or light through air.

Start with Maxwell's Equations. They explain it quite well.

Space is a linear medium that exhibits EM propagation. EM radiation is a wave and a flux of particles.

''Light in space has just as much color as light through glass, or light through air.''

Really , and we see this colour of light in space ?

or we see white light the mixture of frequencies?

I see clear , I see through the dark by the energy increase in the passive dark space, making the dark clear, a dimmer switch makes the dark translucent,

 

[Dywyddyr]

I know white light is said to be that range

No, it's not "said" to be in that range, it IS that range.

what the eck, why do insist on trying to make me look stupid

I don't.
You make yourself look stupid, I just point out that you're doing so.

again quoting back things anyone can look up, present information I know.

You obviously DON'T know - and either haven't bothered to look up or have looked up and not understood - since you persist in saying stuff like "light in space has no colour so how can it have a spectral magnitude?".

Back on ignore before i start to swear at you.

Does this mean that I can point out your ignorance without you replying to me?
Thanks.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

Sorry, I'm a nice bloke and will always help when I can.
The fact is that you no nothing about light/physics or science.
That is why you have been banned everywhere else and have all your threads here in the fringe section.
Just trying to help you to realise your delusions.

You apologise then take the mick and make an assumption again in the same post. Of cause

I KNOW LIGHT SO STOP TRYING TO WIND ME UP

Mods , again thread destroyers, full of personal attacks and presumptions.

 

[theorist-constant12345]

No, it's not "said" to be in that range, it IS that range.


I don't.
You make yourself look stupid, I just point out that you're doing so.


You obviously DON'T know - and either haven't bothered to look up or have looked up and not understood - since you persist in saying stuff like "light in space has no colour so how can it have a spectral magnitude?".


Does this mean that I can point out your ignorance without you replying to me?
Thanks.

We are talking about observation with our eyes you are the one being daft to try and get the thread closed, colours in space really, try reading properly.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I KNOW LIGHT SO STOP TRYING TO WIND ME UP

No, you don't.

We are talking about observation with our eyes

And?

you are the one being daft to try and get the thread closed

Nope.
You're the one being daft.
And I'm hoping you get banned.

colours in space really, try reading properly.

YOU mentioned colours in space.

Am I on ignore yet?

 

[theorist-constant12345]

If you did not "see light in space", then you would not see anything... you do understand that, right?

That the photoreceptors on the retina, the back of your eyeball, is ONLY capable of responding to light in the visible-light spectrum energy range... that's how the human eye works, simple as that.

You are not understanding that visible light spectrum energy range is by device and not by sight. By sight visible white light is not visible it is clear,invisible, the perceived image is because of a device making a visible wave and value, this is where and why science is making this confusing. Forget your device read outs.

 

[James R]

Huh..I understanding air and refractive index , you say the visible light passes through air , what visible light?

This is the best you can do? I wrote you a lengthy post, and you've got a one-line reply about something I didn't mention. Are you trolling?

You only "see" something when light enters your eye. You don't see any light that crosses in front of your eyes (e.g. from left to right between your eyes and your computer screen). Light must hit your retina for you to see something.

light in space is not seen it is sensed.

Sensed how? With a magical sixth sense?

Why does everyone keep trying to force a discipline on me, and claim they can not understand when i answer their questions with simple answers.

You seem incapable of explaining yourself clearly. Is English your first language?

''Light is seen. If there is no light or EMR of any kind it would be dark.'' yes if there was no em energy it would be dark, for this you would need to be in a void. If you are not in a void then light still exists in the background, beyond your sight limitations.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Are you saying that there's still some light in a dark room? Nobody is arguing with that.
Are you saying that there are other types of EM radiation other than visible light? Nobody is arguing with that.
Are you saying something completely different? If so, then why can't you explain what you're saying?

At night outdoors in a forest you can not see, where as other species can see by use of low energy. Your eyes are open so why can you not see if the background light is still there?

Human eyes are not as sensitive as, say, the eyes of a cat or an owl. Is this a big mystery to you?

You claim light is a thing that we can see, why can I not see light that is low energy then?

The photoreceptors on your retina will not fire with very low energy light.

If light is a thing, it should not matter how low the energy is or what the frequency is we should be able to see it compared to the dark.

Why do you think that?

I understand the whole of Em radiation and the spectrum. I am not arguing about the colours, I am arguing that the definition of visible that means is seen, I do not see light in space, I observe clear, you observe clear, everyone observes clear, the spectral range is seen on objects only, light is seen on objects by spectral magnitude, in the space it has no spectral magnitude , it is clear.

You do not observe "clear". "Clear" is not light. Clear is a property of an object or medium. You can't see air because light passes through it. That's not you observing "clear". Anything you see through the air is a result of light passing through the air and entering your eye.

As for the spectrum, that is clearly seen through the use of a prism, or even in a rainbow.

What you call visible white light in a space, is invisible spectral magnitude, invisible photons.

Photons are "invisible" until they hit your retina. Then they dump their energy and you can see them. Nobody is arguing against that.