0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Is there a forum where that's a worthwhile post?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2017 15:54:44Is there a forum where that's a worthwhile post?I see it as a valued question, I do not see it to be a theory or a speculation. I posted it on the wrong forum to be honest. Without substance there can be no light as far as the human mind experiment is concerned. Also objectively there can be no observable light without substance.The Sun emits EMR, but does it really emit light?
Quote from: Thebox on 25/06/2017 17:20:25Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2017 15:54:44Is there a forum where that's a worthwhile post?I see it as a valued question, I do not see it to be a theory or a speculation. I posted it on the wrong forum to be honest. Without substance there can be no light as far as the human mind experiment is concerned. Also objectively there can be no observable light without substance.The Sun emits EMR, but does it really emit light? Looking out of the window, I can verify that the answer to the question is "Yes".
I looked at the sun.There's nothing(relevant) between me and it. I saw the light it emitted.So, strictly, I saw that it was emitting light about 8 minutes before I observed it.If I was in the unfortunate position of being in space with no helmet and lookig in the direction of the sun I would see light from it- not for long... This thing's job is to be in space looking at the light from the sun.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_and_Heliospheric_Observatory
Yes, I saw the light emitted by the sun.I did this by looking at it- as any normal person would understand from what I said."I looked at the sun.""The EMR emitted from the Sun is not observable"It very plainly is observable."You have also changed the ''question'' "NoYou did that.I pointed out that I could look out of the window and verify that the sun emits light. I could only do that by looking at the sun.You talking about other stuff was you "changing the question".However, that sort of change is called argument by analogy. It's perfectly legitimate to do so."but the only light you are seeing is that of the sun at the sun"Obviously nonsense, it's the light at my eye that I see. " you can only see the colour of substance, "I's not clear that is true, but it's not important.The sun is made of substance. I can see light emitted by that substance. (About 8 min later and 93 million miles distant)"p.s I have no idea of what your link was meant to show?"It's a link to a page about a satellite.The purpose of that satellite is to observe the light from the sun.There really is nothing between the sun and the satellite.And the satellite measures light. "there is still EMR but no light! Why do you think this is? "For the same reason that all German Shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German Shepherds.
>Posts the exact same image (clear.jpg) twice.>Assures us that the image is not the same as itself.These threads have a reached a new low in logic...
Do you still think they look the same now?
Quote from: Thebox on 28/09/2017 14:35:01Do you still think they look the same now? Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.
Quote from: Kryptid on 28/09/2017 17:00:10Quote from: Thebox on 28/09/2017 14:35:01Do you still think they look the same now? Yes, because they are literally the exact same image. I can't help but wonder if you are trolling these forums.Huh/ Other people understood the original with simplicity on here and elsewhere so why do you seem to be having difficulty understanding something so simple as two observations that look the same but are indeed very different? If you can't see any difference in looking at a piece of coal close up (localised) and looking between the distance stars, then we really have no business to discuss between us because the observations are simple to understand.
space.jpg (110.68 kB . 1600x900 - viewed 8634 times)I have zoomed out on both drawings just for you. coal.jpg (52.84 kB . 450x300 - viewed 8593 times)