Yes that is correct except the energy conversion/activation, in the brain needs the energy of EM radiation of a specific frequency to become activated. Intensity not has important as a specific frequency(s),
The conference hall debate!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
Members are asked not to post meaningless content to sciforums.
The word salad represents a passive exchange rate, a passive exchange rate of light in space that is zero, we are submerged in the radiation, the exchange rate is instant of light in space to the brain it is constantly connected to our brains network.
We see matter and mediums by them having a different exchange rate to sight and the light invisible constant.
The constant visible invisible light in a space is equal to sight, a suggested f=0 of both visible invisible light and sight.
Matter and mediums are a suggested change to the constant f=0, and by a passive exchange rate constant of f=0 onto the matter or medium, f=xyz variable from the f=0 invariant, xyz that are also constants by a constant exchange rate.
Last edited:
''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...''
Because sight is also f=0 you are unaware you are observing it, you know it is there by fact, but you also know it is a fact you can not see it until it interacts.
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...''
Because sight is also f=0 you are unaware you are observing it, you know it is there by fact, but you also know it is a fact you can not see it until it interacts.
If any of you now understand the f=0 constant, you can now look around your room and see how the matrix of light works with object interaction a different value from f=0 that you can clearly see.
A difference that does not really need light reflecting into your eyes from the object, although I will say that the object projects itself onto and through the constant f=0 by another invisible constant f=0 through the f=0.
A difference that does not really need light reflecting into your eyes from the object, although I will say that the object projects itself onto and through the constant f=0 by another invisible constant f=0 through the f=0.
method - wave your hand really really fast and observe the residual trailers of the hands motion and also observe the TFR displacement of sight to t=0 and f=0
TC I would venture to say there is not a single member of this forum that believes your ideas have any merit what-so-ever.
Then you are all deluded for sure , are you really suggesting we can see light in space, we see any spectral range? are you suggesting it is not constant?
You can not argue with the truth.
In signal processing of sight , sampling is the reduction of a continuous signal of f=0 to a discrete signal 0f f=xyz by timing frequency rates and rate being the instigator of the force applied and radiation pressure that creates the xyz variable constants to the f=0 constant.
''A sample is a value or set of values at a point in time and/or space.
A sampler is a subsystem or operation that extracts samples from a continuous signal.''
''An analog-to-digital converter (ADC, A/D, or A to D) is a device that converts a continuous physical quantity (usually voltage) to a digital number that represents the quantity's amplitude.
The conversion involves quantization of the input, so it necessarily introduces a small amount of error. Instead of doing a single conversion, an ADC often performs the conversions ("samples" the input) periodically. The result is a sequence of digital values that have been converted from a continuous-time and continuous-amplitude analog signal to a discrete-time and discrete-amplitude digital signal.''
The conversion involves quantization of the input, so it necessarily introduces a small amount of error. Instead of doing a single conversion, an ADC often performs the conversions ("samples" the input) periodically. The result is a sequence of digital values that have been converted from a continuous-time and continuous-amplitude analog signal to a discrete-time and discrete-amplitude digital signal.''
Its all about the amperage .
''Ampere is a measure of flow rate of electric charge. If we increase the number of charged particles, the charge on the particles, or the speed at which the particles are moving past a specified point, the amperes at that point will also increase.''
''Ampere is a measure of flow rate of electric charge. If we increase the number of charged particles, the charge on the particles, or the speed at which the particles are moving past a specified point, the amperes at that point will also increase.''
I think people are wondering if you actually have a point to make.
If you understand this , you should be able to see several points,
''Um, if "the speed of sight" is equal to the speed of light then it's NOT affected by the observer.''
huh,, the speed of light observed constants of spectral colours in the invisible colourless constant of f=0 are blurred by motion of the object or observer,
Timing constant rates of the equilibrium altered by relative motion, creating a timing offset of the equilibrium.
Understand what, that there is only a small portion of EM radiation that we call visible light?
I am not suggesting we can see light in any wavelength.
What is it?
You have been do just that and failing, miserably.
Gibberish
Thats nice.
I am pretty sure he has no idea where this is going or if he has a point to make...
Oh, great more words devoid of meaning.
And why not end our post with just a series of random words that do not convey a coherent thought.
Another dandy post by TC.
There is a large portion of Em radiation we can detect by device or sight, that does not say it is light.
You can understand English you are not stupid.
You want try to read the other posts posted instead of just looking at the last page, then you may understand it what we have been discussing in this thread.
- Status