Political leaders need to have a word with science forums.

It is you who changed the context, I changed nothing. In open space light exists as a wave of probability, in a dark cellar there is no light thus no wave of probability. Light needs a source and in a dark cellar with walls that block light no light is present thus the darkness.

Incorrect as outside the cellar light can reach you while whithin the cellar it cannot. You are making a false equivalency if you argue that deep space is the same as a cellar.

 

Quite clearly you have not understood.


Let me try to simplify and look for agreement.


In the cellar with the source of emr turned on,

you see visible light only of the cellar wall, you do not see visible light in the space?

When the emr source is turned off , the wall is no longer ''lit'' , the space is still clear although it looks dark?

added- The space as not gone dark, the wall as.

 

Ok, I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at. Let me describe the following thought experiment so that everyone is on the same page.

Consider two stars A and B. They are close enough together that you can view them both while still facing the same direction. Since they are stars they emit photons in all directions. The photons we are concerned with are those with a frequency that our eyes can detect (the visible part of the EM spectrum). We (the observer) will receive a steady stream of photons from both stars and because those photons interacted with matter (specifically our eyes in this case, but it could be an electronic detector or whatever) you call that light. Now these stars (both A and B) are also sending photons into the void between them in a direction that is completely orthogonal to the direction that points toward Earth. So, we know there are visible spectrum photons in the void between A and B and yet that void still appears dark to us because those photons are not interacting with matter and thus we cannot see them. But, we KNOW they're there. That's the situation you are describing right?

So, to me this is boils down to semantics. You are not necessarily arguing against the existence of visible spectrum photons. You are not claiming that there is a different set of physical laws in play than what I claim. You are just defining visible spectrum photons as light only if something is there to detect it. I really don't have a beef with this viewpoint except that I think you'll find it frustrating if you decide to use this definition knowing that other people use a different definition. Namely, that light is visible spectrum photons regardless of whether anything is there to detect them. That's just my viewpoint.

 

You explained that very well, to the exact physical definition that explains the exact the nature of light to strict definition without any dogma. I describe Photons as visual points of contact. There is a lot more to this than just this, it opens up gateways to other things, that then start to fail, such as relativity and time dilation.
To imagine a photon travelling (A) to (B) would be subjective and not a real observation. Darkness does not exist, many other things can be viewed differently, thank you for explaining my notion in better words than I could.
Regards

Steve

I am not sure if this is semantics, I feel it is to more to be precise and accurate in our interpretation, I believe present information shows I am interpreting the Universe correctly. I think emr has to enter your eyes to allow you to see dark and illuminated substance , we do not really see anything else because the entirety of space must be logically ''invisible'' even without emr present.

 

Read the book "Now: The Physics of Time" by Richard Muller. It's an expose on what "now" actually is. He explains that there must be some incredibly profound and deep principals to the universe that we know have to be there, but that we can't quite explain yet. One of these is the concept of "measurement". What is "measurement"? And I mean at a very fundamental level. A level so low and so deep that this seemingly simple word may reveal a fundamental feature of the universe that have so far been missing. He even links this concept with time (which is actually the focus of the book).

This thought experiment with the stars and the void between them has implications on this "measurement" problem because most physicists agree that when a force carrying particle interacts with a matter particle that interaction embodies a "measurement"...maybe. So, if these photons aren't interacting with matter then they aren't being "measured". So during the time they are not interacting with matter what are they? Do they embody the quantum probability wave? Or does the quantum probability wave embody them? How can we even know if we can't "measure" them? The author thinks a new revolution in physics may ensue if we could only precisely define what it means to "measure" something. And in a somewhat amusing way he says that if you think you understand his point then you've probably misunderstood it. And that if you are confused by all of this then you probably understood his point.

 

To be honest and I am not being arrogant when I say this, I am probably the worlds most leading expert on time and measurement, maybe even more of an expert than Albert himself. To be honest though , not many people can comprehend much of it but maybe you would understand because you understood my last ''query''.

I do not see myself as having great ideas, I see myself that I query present information and the information does not add up so I think about that information and find one answer that has no flaws.

For example time dilation is not a real change of time! the reason is that any measurement greater than 0, no matter how small of an increment or speed of the increment, becomes immediate history .

The speed of time is infinitely fast, you can try to move away from 0 at any speed you wish and you cant do it without leaving an immediate past/history.

Now is always 0.

I am tired now, will reply to the other on your post tomorrow.

regards

steve
Thanks for the great chat

 

Source citation needed for the above bolded claim.

Incorrect, it goes from light to dark. When the light is on a wave of probability exists, when the light is off no wave of probability exists.

The matter goes dark because the light source is not on.

 

I do not have a problem with the title. I have a problem with your claim at light and dark do not exist.

 

I am talking a scientific peer review which starts by someone writing a scientific paper, doing the math that backs the claim, presenting to a scientific journal, and see if it is accepted. Is the theory that you have been arguing your own? If so no one will take you seriously if all you have is anecdotal evidence. Have you worked out the math behind your theory? If not no one is going to take you seriously as math is the language of science.

Thanks. It is an area of interest for me.

A mirror reflects, a wall absorbs some light and refracts the rest, unless the wall is glassy smooth then it may reflect.

 

This does not mean that the light is not traveling through the space. The light exists within the space as a wave of probability.

It is dark because there is no source of light ergo no probability wave.

The space cannot be light while the wall remains dark... not for long anyway as the probability wave moves at the speed of light.

 

Hello again, I had great hopes that you had understood correctly, but by this post I can ''see'' you haven't. This is my own idea, I have tried to explain this idea for several years, I have not wrote a scientific paper for it that I would post for peerview yet, my reason is that it seems very pointless unless somebody understands it to begin with.
Another reason is that I am humble and do not really want any sort of recognition.

The space is not light to begin with and it is not dark either. Do you have a dimmer switch available to use? Turn the ''light'' on and slowly turn down the dimmer, the space does not go dark, the object starts to go dark. In reverse turn the dimmer switch, the space does not get light, the object does.

Dark and light only exist of objects not of space.


This is the only part you seem to be failing on understanding. EMR does not affect the look of space whether emr is present or not. I hope you continue with this with me and try to understand.

Regards

Steve

p.s putting it another way, when you perceive it to be dark space you still have a clear line of sight. You have explained this yourself when you explained the 2 stars next to each other, think about beyond those stars, it is not dark, it is not light, it is clear space.


Is it dark in my diagram? no

is it light in my diagram? no

Remember we are discussing visible light. Darkness is the perception of not seeing any visible light of substance.

 

I would write a paper, work out the math behind my conclusions and then send it to scientific organizations and objectivity listen to what they have to say. If you give the scientific community anecdotes they will never take you seriously.

Probability wave explains this.

Baseless claim.

Probability wave explains is.

Have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

Probability wave explains this.

You drew a pic and made a claim, that is not science!

There is really nothing more to discuss. Get back to me when you have something more than anecdotal evidence.

 

Present information supports this claim.

I made an observation, observation is the best evidence we can have. Enough said, come back to me when you understand.

 

Presented information was anecdotal.

Observation is the weakest form of evidence as our senses are fallible and easily fooled. This is why scientists rely upon the scientific method.

 

The evidence was not anecdotal, it was personal statement , relative agreement (modus podus) and present information.(evidence).

Your yes answers in the beginning of thread agreed I am correct but you just can't understand why yet. I was asking a series of questions, your answers of yes were an answer bases on present information.

You agreed you do not see visible light in space.

You agreed substance is needed for visible light.

Then you disagree with that dark does not exist even though your first two answers confirms it does not. You even explained it with the two stars .

Observation is not just with the eyes .

You are not thinking about the science I have involved.

Let me try this another way , look across your room and observe an object, we will say the object is 400nm in wavelength, 400nm is the only visible light you see, you do not see 400nm visible light in the space between your eye and object. The space is not visible light , the space does not ''reflect light'',


Do you agree with this?

 

The 2 star thought experiment was mine. I get what you're saying. The paradox (if you will) is that it doesn't matter if there are photons traveling between the stars or not. Maybe those two stars have advanced civilizations that built Dyson Spheres in which they can turn on/off the flow of photons between them at will. Either way that void still "looks dark" regardless of whether there is "light" (visible spectrum photons) in that space or not. By the way, I see no reason to limit ourselves to the visible spectrum of EMR. It's the same effect if it were radio or gamma rays. No?

 

Probability wave explains this. Rejecting the conclusions of the double slit experiment is not proof that it is wrong.

 

My apologies for mixing you up with robini with the post. We could look at this as a Paradox or we could look at this an optical illusion. I have not really thought about radio waves because they are not visible light , I will get back to you on that one.
Can you yet understand why darkness in a cellar does not exist?

 

The problem is, you keep defending the present information and just saying I am wrong because you accept that to be true. If you answer the question with yes and no answers, you may then realise why it is not dark in a cellar. I understand this goes beyond most peoples ability to think, I know it sounds quite insane, but it is true, space is neither dark or light even when EMR is not present. There is no other answer.

Look at your object, dim your light, is the space going dim or is the objects wavelength going ''dim''?

I have removed your surrounding so you can just see the object.


Would you like me to red shift the object?

 

Asked, answered and rejected. Why continue to beat that dead horse?

 

Saying that "There is no other answer" reveals your bias as an objective person keeps an open mind and understands that they can be wrong.

 

I know you are not understanding or you would agree that light and dark only exists of substance and darkness of space does not exist, we perceive it to be dark space when it is not. Perhaps you should just read my paper when it is finished .

 

Not when the mind narrows it down to a single answer that leaves no room for other answers, when there is no other answer. Look at an eclipse, you can see dark and light substance at the same time through space. Space is not opaque . You observe light and dark substance, you do not observe anything of space.

 

I look forward to it.

 

Why have you ruled out the conclusions of the double slit experiment if other than they refute your conclusions? Tell me what causes the interference pattern if light does not travel as a wave of probability through space? If you cannot debunk the double slit experiment then you got nothing.