Darkness does not exist as thought conventionally.

They are fundamentally the same: they are neither emitting nor reflecting light. Black as a "color" is really just a convention that we use to describe a lack of color. And they both look black, which is what matters according to the logic you just used about a tree falling when no one hears it. If perception is what defines sound (or lack thereof), then perception also defines color (or lack thereof)

We know color does not exist other than by (the interaction of) light by shining a green light on an apple and seeing brown. You have asked others to imagine a universe in which only certain things exist to try to explain your points, so I will do the same. Imagine a universe in which all light is green. Would not everyone in this universe agree that the apple is brown? The only reason you think of the apple as being "inherently" red is because of how it looks under white light. If that kind of light were not the norm, you would not hold such a prejudice.

 

What about when something ripens and changes colour? are we to believe the light is behaving differently of the permeability of the apple has changed? Maybe colour is natural state of the substance. I do know how we could distinguish whether the apple had colour in the dark because with the dimness we can not see if it is coloured. Maybe only intensity of light plays a part.

 

Ok, so you're going to ignore the example of a universe of green light? That pretty much proved the point, if you consider it. Figures.

Your example of ripening fruit and subsequent question is just a strawman of my argument. I never said that light ALONE determines the color of objects, I said it was a function of TWO things: the object AND the light. So when the object changes such that it reflects different frequencies of light, that interaction changes. And if the light changes (for instance, if it is now green light), that also changes the interaction.

 

I didn't ignore it , I provided a counter argument, but your question took me by surprise because I have seen a green Universe with my own eyes and even the space between eye and object was green but translucent. You might think I have just gone mad but I can tell you there is a L.C.D lamp out there on the market, if you look at this lamp while on , then look away , the whole Universe including the space is visible green .

 

Darkness is merely the absence of light. Just as cold is merely the absence of heat.

 

Darkness is not just simply the absence of light. When you perceive it to be dark I can assure you that there is lots of invisible light still surrounding you and of the bodies you are observing.

Darkness is the perception of localised objects without illumination .

 

What we are talking about, I thought, is what we perceive. Sorry. If I was blind, I wouldnt
bother with this discussion

 

Darkness is the perception of objects that are not illuminated, it is also a reality beyond our perception that these objects in darkness are objectively as black as coal. So darkness is a thing , it is the originality of the objects visual.

 

Obviously he meant visible light. Darkness is the absence of visible light.

Except that you aren't perceiving anything. That is the fatal flaw in your definition. There could be a brick wall in front of you, or nothing at all, and you wouldn't know.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perceive

 

Well actual if you walk forward a bit I assure you will realise there is a wall there, there is also the fact that you are standing on the ground. I think you forget we can move about and darkness is generally a situation we are in where we already know the surroundings.

So I beg to differ, we are aware of our surroundings even in the ''dark''. We can feel by the sense of touch.

 

Visual what?

 

People have corrected his misconceptions and insisted on him defining his terms and he persists in the same conversations without doing so. He's trolling and wasting people's time. I've stopped responding to him for the above.

 

Completely irrelevant. Yes, we all know that your sense of touch still works in the dark. It seems you're just trying to muddy the waters at this point. The sense of sight is the only relevant sense when discussing light vs darkness, and you know that.

 

Visual ''colour''. darkness is the visual ''colour'' of an objects originality.

 

Corrected ? HUh? I am having a discussion , do you mind. I have made no absolute claims of truth in this thread, i.e we are discussing it.

 

You know what we mean in this case by perception so why are you now trying to be awkward?

Darkness is the visual of localised objects that are not illuminated . That is far better than the ambiguous darkness is the absence of light.

 

For those who like drawings this is what reality looks like.



Darkness is the visual of localised objects originality state that is without visible light.

 

What is an objects originality?
You are using terms absent from standard scientific nomenclature, which has been standardized for communicative purposes

 

Your creative interpretation of realities indicates ineptitude in understanding of it, or purposeful attempts at stimulating interest through ridiculous persona on an internet forum. If the first is accurate...you have my pity. If the second....thanks for the limited entertainment, but it was short lived.

 

What does originality normally mean?

I see your point now I have checked up the definition of originality. I simply mean the objects original visual state before light shines on it.

 

That statement would be one of arrogance, I am a better than you statement. I do science, most people only memorise science, if you did science then you would understand accurate science. There is no creation in my science, it is based on mainstream information and correct to that information. It is not my fault if you can not understand simple science.




The space that surrounds the moon in this picture is neither dark or light. The darkness you are observing in this picture of the moon is the moons surface ''colour''. Darkness is the localised observation of the original visual state of an object.

 

You're making crap up esp your terminology. This is not science but meanderings of your own imagination bent to fit your agenda. You are creative and have a good imagination though.

 

Is dark matter dark, if it does exist?

Otherwise it seems logically that the absence of any photons is what absolute darkness is. So can one create an environment completely absent of a single photon? If possible, there you have the darkness which you claim does not exist. But being a guy who thinks consciousness is the fundamental and not matter, I would say darkness or light depends upon consciousness in order to exist as light or dark. Otherwise all that exists are probabilities.

 

Much of information in science, has been many times tentative. This is what the history of science shows us. So what you call real science has been filled with inaccuracies, and we called this simple science.

 

In a lot of circumstances there is incompleteness in the thinking and the thoughts involved. This of course leads to inaccurate information , a best guess is still a guess. The history of science does show that things can change. You know, one minute Glutton is a bad thing then the next minute it is not a bad thing type thing.
The problem is science should not be taught , it should be learnt. All children's science lessons should consist of they have to make the theories, scientists will be easily spotted.