Political leaders need to have a word with science forums.

Yes, I am on about the bright areas , I put shadows in '''' to show I didn't actually mean shadows. The bright area of the wall is the only visible light observed.

 

Incorrect as we disagree as to why "It is not light in space but it is not dark either." My conclusion is based upon scientific experimentation while yours is based upon anecdotal evidence. Science trumps anecdotes in my book.

How does this prove that "light does not really exist"?

Yes, yet this is in line with the wave function.

 

Remove the substance so you are looking out into space between the stars, one solo piece of information does not prove it, several pieces combined do. I can measure the object and the colour of the object to be in its relative position, objectively the measurement is outside of my head and not subjective. [/quote]

Two yes's so far,

Do you agree that if you remove the substance you are observing , it would be relatively ''dark'' to you and there would be no visible light?

 

Do you reject the conclusion of the double slit experiment?

Ad hominem as I am not the topic.

Yes it does as light is invisible previous to it reaching our eyes as it exists as a wave of probability previous to observation. To observe light, light needs to collide with matter, yet previous to that collision it exists as a wave of probability. The double slit experiment proves this.

 

Are you arguing that there is invisible light on the wall too?

 

Do you not mean light is invisible until it is interacting with a substance?

I assume ''EMR'' propagating through space has a frequency of 0, the ''EMR'' permeates without space offering any permeability or permitivity, there is nothing of space to cause a wave function.

A mathematical function hardly summons up EMR passing through space or does a man made interference.

I do not believe light behaves as a particle and a wave if that is what you mean, but neither do we see these photons in invisible space. We only see photons at the point of interaction in my opinion , which can be measured to be so.

 

This does nothing to prove that "light does not really exist". What experiments have you done to prove your theory, and by experiment I mean adhering to the scientific method as opposed to relying upon anecdotal evidence?

See we agree with wave function? If not then zero yes's so far as we would be operating upon two different premises.

Yes as per the wave function.

 

EMR becomes visible light when it makes contact with the wall and wave compression occurs.

 

What do you mean by wave function exactly? we may have different meanings, the wave function of sight is 400nm-700nm, is this what you mean ?

 

There is an experiment with a candle and observation that shows this. Also the use of a laser in one experiment.

 

So again we are in agreement.

Do you agree that darkness does not exist?

Consider your previous answers of yes.

 

My wording and your wording come to the same conclusion that light becomes visible once it collides with matter. What I am still waiting for you to prove is that "light does not really exist".

I seek fact, not assumption. Nothing wrong with assumption but assumption coupled with anecdotes will not sway me... facts will.

Unless you can prove the results of the double slit experiment are incorrect, or atleast provide another experiment that provides a different conclusion then there is really no more to discuss as I am not into a metaphysical discussion, I seek scientifically proven facts.

 

I can tell you that you have already admitted to the facts. For some reason though you still refer to light colliding with matter, what light is this may I ask? The Sun emits emr, the sun does not emit light, remove the substance and space is relatively dark, think about your yes answers.

Please take a step back, it is first easier to prove dark does not exist.. Consider yourself in a ''dark'' cellar, it is not really dark . Your earlier yes answer agreeing with this, this is new science on its own.

 

The following link has a video and at 1:30 into the video wave function is explained. Now I may be mislabeling the term so perhaps a better term would be a wave of probability.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...d-with-science-forums.508508/#post-1067679331

 

Link to a demonstration of the experiment and conclusions?

 

I doubt that we are as our arguments are based upon different premises.

No.

I have and it changes nothing as we are coming to the same conclusion but based upon different premises. You can call that agreement I do not.

 

There is no link to the experiment, however I have a diagram that shows the experiment and why sight does not work how we think it works.

 

Experiment two with a laser, the red dot you see is a laser dot in its exact position, The wall does not have a reflective ray proven by adding a smoke medium.

 

You disagree that darkness does not exist yet you agreed that space is neither light or dark, so why are you now changing the space of the cellar to be dark?

The space in the cellar is the same as the space outside the cellar.

 

Yet we disagree upon the basis of the facts.

Previously explained in the following link.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...d-with-science-forums.508508/#post-1067679331

Source citation needed for the above claim.

Yet my answer is the same as before, that being that the wave of probability explains this as per the double slit experiment.

Baseless claim.

I never agreed that "dark" does not exist". If you believe that I did then please post a direct unedited quote that uses the same context of a dark cellar in which I allegedly agreed that "it is not really dark".

 

How about a peer reviewed study?

 

I know you did not agree that darkness did not exist but you are really not considering your own answer. You agreed that in space it is not dark and neither is it light, in the cellar the same applies. Turn the light on in the cellar, turn the light off, the space stays the same. Only the matter goes dark with the lights out.

 

Have you read the title of this thread? Do you think what I am discussing is worthy of a ban from science forums , especially in psuedo sections or alternative theory which I have been banned for posting this type things.

 

I need objective source citation that is preferably peer reviewed.

 

I understand, but how is a person suppose to get a peer when most science forums ban before a discussion about the idea? You have discussed this idea with me more than most, I applaud you for listening.

The laser experiment is quite simple that anyone can do, a mirror reflects a beam a wall does not. There is no evidence of light needed to reflect into our eyes to see.