Political leaders need to have a word with science forums.

I manage to get myself banned from every science forum on the internet. Why you may ask? for questioning the integrity of information they provide. They do not discuss , they impose the present information, anything against this dogma is not allowed. They ban you for speaking your mind . In a recent ban, several members agreed with me in principle, that light does not really exist. Then they banned me. I bet Einstein didn't have half this bother to show something.

So how much power does politics have on science? who is science? does the church still rule you all in reality?

Who does science answer too?

I am sick of talking to the monkeys, who is the organ grinder?

 

Well, if you are claiming light doesn't exist, then the science boards don't like dealing with crackpots. Are you also advocating for a flat earth?

 

I can't read anything you say. Light doesn't exist.

 

'Light doesn't exist'

How you mean? You mean that because what we call 'light' is actually our perception of photons, that 'light' doesnt exist because we're not calling it 'photonic radiological sensory input' or something like that?

I get your point about the doctrine of science- that certain feilds of study (like spirituality) are taboo because they're not (as yet) as objectifiable as scientists prefer.

But perhaps 'light doesn't exist' isnt the most effective platform.

 

Are you sure you are banned from the forums? Perhaps they decided you just didn't exist.

 

In terms of light, are you referring to the wave function? If not can you explain your view on the non existence of light?

A huge amount.

People from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Not in my reality.

Often whoever holds the purse strings.

 

According to quantum mechanics light exists as a wave of probability in which previous to observation it exists in all possible locations and yet in none at all. Upon observation the probability wave instantly collapses into a finite point in space time. Counterintuitive yes, but the double slit experiment proves that this is the case, which breaks all known laws of physics.

Now I would not argue that light does not exsist based upon my current knowledge, but at least previous to observation light exsist in all places possible and simultaneously in no single place at all.

A video breakdown and demonstration of the experiment.

 

Tell that to the Climate Change Sharia. They think they're all so *scientific* and *intellectual*......

 

My favorite experiment right there.

The implications are mind-boggling.

 

And most of them can't read a graph.

 

Bravo, Friend. I corrected the fraudulent Keeling Curve, which I have renamed The Scary Graph:



Just add water: (THE dominant greenhouse gas, by far)



Scientific questions from Climate Change Sharia will be answered. Nonsense will be dealt with or summarily dismissed.

 

Mine too! It took me a while to wrap my head around it but once I did it blew my mind!

 

Yeah, it's definitely among the most important and revolutionary experiments of all time.

 

Seems as you are one of the only replies that isn't trolling and asking why, I will explain to you sir. Below I have attached two diagrams, the diagrams are two very different diagrams, one diagram has light and it is black in colour, one diagram has no colour and is clear. One diagram is 2d and one diagram is 3d.
In one diagram there is visible light, in one diagram there is EMR but no visible light.

Putting it simply, visible light does not exist without a substance. We observe visible light in its exact location, things effectively ''glow'' in the relative dark.

Several members of latest ban science forum agreed with me then they banned me.

 

I don't see any difference.

 

Then your intellect is not good enough to engage in the discussion. I explained the difference which is relatively simple to understand.

However, I will help you to see the difference, the diagram on the left is in 3d, it has the dimensions of XYZ, it is a visual of space, the space is not dark or light, the space is clear but the human mind experience perceives it is dark.
The diagram on the right is 2d, the dimensions of XY, it is a visual of an object that is black in colour close up.

If you was to go down a cellar and turn off the ''lights'', you will perceive it to be dark, you would be wrong, you would be experiencing the diagram on the left and your perception of it being relative dark, is actually really clear space rather than a dark space, Darkness does not exist and neither does visible light without substance.

Mr Trump might understand, ask him.

 

I mean like I literally don't see any difference between the images you posted. I don't even see the diagrams you're talking about. Everything is just black in both images. Do I need to adjust the contrast or brightness on my monitor? Maybe the forum image viewer is messed up?

 

Two black images is exactly what you suppose to be viewing, however only one of the images is black, one of the images is an illusion of being black. Look between the distant stars if you are struggling to understand it. Compare your observation to one of the diagrams. Understand that visible light does not exist without substance.

I will also add a little experiment you can try at night, turn the light on , the space around you will seem to be light, turn the light off and the space around you seems to be dark, both of these perceptions is an illusion, the space does not change.

I got banned for showing darkness is an illusion and does not exist.

 

EMR exists everywhere, there is no evidence light exists other than when interacting with something. There is no light between the distant stars, there is most certainly EMR. Space is neither dark or light, it is transparent/clear.

 

That just tells me that the known laws of physics are wrong in some way. There is no doubt that light exists. The current description of what light is may not be accurate, but to say that light doesn't exist is just a specious argument based on flawed knowledge.

 

There is no difference. Equity is a nutcase.

 

Gotcha. So do you not consider the photons that are traveling between the distant stars to be light?

Are you sure it wasn't because you exhibited a condescending tone like how you're acting here? Ya know...the "your intellect is not good enough to engage in the discussion" kind of attitude.

 

In answer to your second question firstly, understand that most science forums generally treat members with their own opinions or notions with contempt, a sort of accept or be banned situation. They never really discuss the idea, they sort of just say you are wrong and sort of ''preach'' the present knowledge to you. Trying to force a discipline rather than considering anything the member offers.
So of course this then leads to a defensive by the member, so forgive me if I seemingly lecture or get seemingly irate when people do not understand or pretend they do not understand simplicity.


Already you have engaged me with your first question and asked my opinion rather than just saying ''you are wrong''. I have considered Photons travelling between the distant stars, however a Photon in reality is subjective, there is no actual real evidence of a Photons existence. A Photon is just a theory in reality , in reality we do not observe Photons travelling from (A) to (B). We assume they ''exist'' .
However in considering whether or not a photon is actually light, my answer would be no, light is only created if EMR makes contact with something. (I prefer to visualise EMR as an intermingled whole rather that individual particles).
At first several year ago, I thought it was dark between the stars, then years later I thought it is light between the stars, now I have concluded it is neither.

 

There is no evidence stupidity exists other than when interacting with something.