Darkness does not exist as thought conventionally.

Darkness as in dim, does not exist in reality. If you were in a box with no windows or light source you may explain that it is dark inside the box. However your perception would be telling you ''porkies''. Only the walls of the box would be in darkness, the space inside the box would not be dark but it would neither be visible light, the space would be transparent and remain constant in transparency with the lights on or off.


Any questions?

 

I dunno, but if there is light, I can see the walls. If there is no light, I can't see ****. When we cannot see ****, we call it darkness. I think that has worked so well for us for so long, I see no need to dissect it, to use other metaphors.

I don't think the universe as we know it exists, in the form that we know it, until consciousness is present. I think there is only information of probability distribution, and consciousness decodes it, or manifests it. I think reality the universe is, to use a metaphor, a virtual reality, created by another metaphor, a computer outside of the universe. So what does that do to your idea of darkness and light?

 

I think so therefore I am. My random nature tells me I exist and my consciousness is my own consciousness.

It does nothing to my idea, my idea is entirely objective reasoning to reach a logical conclusion based on the rudiment of evidence. Do you know the difference in the terms light and visible light?

Visible light is what we see, we see visible light of ''objects'' , we do not see visible light between eye and object and we neither see darkness between eye and ''object''. The darkness you perceive is of the walls and not of the space.

 

These are two different artists impressions. One of these pictures is of the inside of a box and the box walls are in darkness. The other impressions is of the space between distance stars , in this impression it is ''light''.

Do I have your attention yet?

In both impressions you are observing , you are observing transparent.

 

Too smart for you all? How about I make it a bit more simple? The one on the left is the wall, the wall is 10 meters into the cave entrance. Outside the cave entrance it is daylight, the walls of the cave are dark, the 10 meters of space to the wall is not dark , it is transparent.

 

The Nobel Prize Wannabe provides another installment of comic relief.

 

Quite clearly it is well beyond your level of understanding, I know you do not have the right attributes to understand it or you would not be calling it such as an instalment of comic relief. If you are not smart enough to understand it , you could ask questions about it or ask for clarification, But quite clearly you have no humbleness in your nature which resorts to yourself trying to insult.
I am beginning to wonder if anyone on the planet actually uses their own brains to think for themselves as it seems the subjective brainwashing runs deep in peoples minds.

I suppose you must think then that the space also goes dark when the light is off, you would be quite plainly wrong . It is constant in transparency . Do you even understand what the word transparent means?

 

Yes, darkness is just the absence of light. A lot of our contrasts are between something and the lack of something while others are between two opposite things and a middle ground.

 

Dark is the absence of a detectable number of photons.

The walls of your box may or may not be reflective, but they aren't likeky to be a source...
... unless it is on fire.

The air in the box is not likely to be a source of photons either, if you are in the box and also alive.

 

Darkness is the absence of visible light between 400nm-700nm. (colour)


I never suggested the walls were a source although with a different detection device other than eyes , we could observe the wall by this device i.e IR (infra-red) which our eyes can not detect.


Do you or could you accept that if I by magic could remove all the visible matter from the Universe, leaving a void, do you agree that this void would be neither dark or light but would be perceived to be dark although transparent.?

In evidence to the question I offer the space between the distance stars, although it looks dark it is not dark .

 

Do you or could you accept that if I by magic could remove all the visible matter from the Universe, leaving a void, do you agree that this void would be neither dark or light but would be perceived to be dark although transparent.?

 

In reality space looks like the above , darkness and visible light only being that of objects .

 

If you are talking what we see there is a threshold of photons to see light. You can close your eyes and press on your eye and 'see' light. You're not seeing photons but you are stimulating the retina to fire which the brain perceives as 'light'.

You need to carefully define what you mean so others can understand what you are trying to say. Right now it appears you are playing gotcha and trying to be clever. For a human in a box shielded from outside photons it is as dark as it gets. A cave, a box, and outer space are all differing environments.

If you have light coming into a cave then whether you see it or not there are photons in that cave. There needs to be definition as to what you are measuring, the level of sensitivity of the instrument, how long you are going to measure, etc.

 

It would be dark since dark is defined as the lack of light.

 

Ok, you do not understand either. Visible light is only that of substance/objects. There is no visible light between eye and object. When it goes relative dark, the substance/object you are looking at turns dark in appearance. The space between your eye and object doesn't do anything , it remains the same always in appearance with the lights on or off. I understand this may be hard to get your head around , but I assure you I know what I am discussing.
Our perception is that the space between eye and object is also dark, sort of from see through to ''opaque'' in appearance. However this appearance is a visual illusion, the space is never dark or visible light, the space is constant in transparency.

In experiment I would like you to observe the walls of your room, the visible light you are observing is of the walls and not of the space between your eyes and the walls.

I now would like you to please imagine the light off i.e darkness

The space between your eye and the wall as not changed in appearance, it just looks dark because of the dark background of the wall. Only the wall changes in illumination not the space .

So when you say inside a box it is dark, that would be an incorrect presumption, only the walls of the box are in darkness. not the volume of space .

 

Darkness is the lack of visible light from the human perspective. Why do you think it would be dark in a void? If the space is neither dark or light , wouldn't the void like space objectively remain ''invisible'' in appearance although the human mind subjective would observe darkness?

I will refer to the earlier impression of between the distance stars.

Do you think it is dark in this picture?

 

It's not that magical. We detect photons. The wall reflects photons. Again, the wall is a source of very few photons, unless it is on fire, or whatever. If there are enough photons around, our brains can make sense of their patterns of reflection - like recognizing a wall or what ever.

Your comments about "transparent" just means photons aren't being stopped.

If you are in a box and there are photons, you might ask where they came from.

Darkness means not enough photons.

 

You're confused. You need to define how and what is measuring the photons. A human in a box closed to outside light will be in total darkness. There's nothing mythical or mystical about photons. There is no 'ether' for photons to move in. There is however a great disparity of how we collect and measure photons. The human eye is mediocre at it. The Hubble is pretty good at it. Others like it are even better. However, a box with no outside light will eventually have no photons moving around in it and it will be dark in the box.

If there are photons moving inside the box and the box is not 'large enough' then there is light inside the box; wherever the photons are. One merely has to perceive the light. So you can do a thought experiment and imagine all the photons inside illuminating the space and the walls but unless you are omnipresent and still able to perceive the photons omnipresently (sic) then you must position your collection device in the box (although that could be the entire inside of the box).

You need to define your experiment better if you wish others to understand. And stop telling us we just don't understand. That's not debate.

 

what is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

I perceive things that are in-perceivable, this is not easy to explain, it is not easy to get people to ''see'' my thoughts like I ''see'' Einsteins thoughts etc.

Imagine being inside an infinite size block of glass, that is what space really looks like , it is never dark in the block, only bodies are light or dark inside the block.

I will think hard how to explain better.

 

Quite clearly you are posting the present thinking and information back. You are not thinking about the new information on its own merit.

Space has no permeability is why photons are not stopped. A photons existence is not even proven fact.

 

In the below picture, if the space was dark I would not be able to see the laser dots on the wall.


I can measure the laser dots geometrical exact position relative to me, even in the ''dark''. So understand that darkness is relative to perception and is subjective of this perception. Objectively it is neither dark or light between your eye and observation.



Below is a photo I just took, the space is the same between dark and light, dark and light is of the objects not of the space.



Below visible light and dark matter. (I need get the hoover out lol, might of missed the shot if I had at the time).

The space remains constant in either instant of dark or light .



Relative darkness is absolute shadows.

 

Well, true, because science can not use proof to create a fact. Math can. Natural scienc can not. That is, in science a fact is a documented observation. If logic of any kind is used, then the result is not a fact. It may be a theory that has never been disproven, but science has no way of creating a fact through logic or testing.

There is a reason for that. Humans are not smart enough to imagine and eliminate all possible problems that a theory might have. We just don't know all the places to look.

We were happy with Newtoni's idea of gravity- until Einstein pointed out the hole in it. Are there other such holes? How could we prove that we thought of and tested absolutely everything?

 

When logic becomes an axiom, no documentation or maths is really needed to accept a theory to be fact. There is lots of holes in science, science is incomplete and existing theories that are not axioms are there to be challenged . If somebody is challenging existing theories with such as axiom logic, then the premise as been presented and science should take note and be concerned that their present information could be incorrect.

I look in all the places and if something is not quite right, I will look for and try to explain the error with the eventuality of looking for a fix to the error.


I believe gravity is polarity related and the space-time curvature is just imaginable patterns .

 

And infinite sized box changes the experiment drastically. It would take an infinite amount of time less 1 to have no photons therefore the infinite sized box would be 'transparent' given sufficient measuring/recording ability.