Physics and stuff...

[RRjohn]

I meant lack of visible light Destro.

Yeah that was a pretty random conversation there.

[DestroManiak]

Lol I'm just stating the facts in this very confusing conversation. I have no idea if we are in agreement or not due to your slightly erratic typing but that's fine, makes it interesting.

Btw I've split this as it got horribly off topic.

what was the other topics title

al-yankovich

actually if you watched>.
white&nerdy

you would see that he says

"first in my class in MIT" (am I tea, no I am not *horrible joke...)

anyway
Im not arguing, I am just bored and there arent any other topic that are active as this one and I beleive know plenty of things about this subject so :/
I unleashed my ultimate off-topic science

After I see the "another post was posted" I press previev
than here quote comes:

I meant lack of visible light Destro.

Yeah that was a pretty random conversation there.

well whats the problem there
its actually easy to create a room with no visable light

[madmat9]

Technically speaking you can't see through dark because dark is not an object.  Never mind the eyes detecting a narrow spectrum of light that is either reflected off of an object or is coming directly from the source of the light itself.  I am speaking of what darkness is and it is a natural state of the universe in the absence of light. It is not a "thing" to see through like fog, water, glass, rain etc etc etc,  it is either too dark to see or it isn't.  Darkness is a state like hot and cold.

[DestroManiak]

Technically speaking you can't see through dark because dark is not an object.  Never mind the eyes detecting a narrow spectrum of light that is either reflected off of an object or is coming directly from the source of the light itself.  I am speaking of what darkness is and it is a natural state of the universe in the absence of light. It is not a "thing" to see through like fog, water, glass, rain etc etc etc,  it is either too dark to see or it isn't.  Darkness is a state like hot and cold.

darknes is a state like cold which doesnt exist

Anyway

The discussion "seeing through darkness" is foolish
Because:
YOU MAY NOT KNOW
You may not know because in total darkness, there is nothing to see because our eyes doesnt see the object itself, our eyes detect the light being reflected on objects (4th time I repead this )
Also there is no way that we will have a light source as we are in total darkness.
And the things I say PROVES that on a room of total darkness there IS NOTHING to see
As there is nothing to see we may not know if we would see though darkness or not because TO HAVE SOMETHING to see corrups the environment of total darkness which is neccecary for proving the statement "seeing through darkness"

CONCLUSION: *people read the previus paragraph may understand*
In a room of total darkness, there is NOTHIN to see
As there is nothing to see we may not know if we see through darkness, as every condition that creates ANYTHING to see corrupts the environment of darkness, how shall we see though darkness if there is no darkness at all

Which gets to:
We eighter going to have a darkness and nothing to see at all despite the argument we may not or may see through
OR we will have something to see but we arent going to have a darkness that we will test if we see through

the red text is end debate for me (although I WILL answer questions)

please h.a.s.o. say another rondom question so that I can spend some more time

[RRjohn]

I have a question

Quarks are weird aren't they?

.

[madmat9]

darknes is a state like cold which doesnt exist

Anyway

The discussion "seeing through darkness" is foolish
Because:
YOU MAY NOT KNOW
You may not know because in total darkness, there is nothing to see because our eyes doesnt see the object itself, our eyes detect the light being reflected on objects (4th time I repead this )
Also there is no way that we will have a light source as we are in total darkness.
And the things I say PROVES that on a room of total darkness there IS NOTHING to see
As there is nothing to see we may not know if we would see though darkness or not because TO HAVE SOMETHING to see corrups the environment of total darkness which is neccecary for proving the statement "seeing through darkness"

CONCLUSION: *people read the previus paragraph may understand*
In a room of total darkness, there is NOTHIN to see
As there is nothing to see we may not know if we see through darkness, as every condition that creates ANYTHING to see corrupts the environment of darkness, how shall we see though darkness if there is no darkness at all

Which gets to:
We eighter going to have a darkness and nothing to see at all despite the argument we may not or may see through
OR we will have something to see but we arent going to have a darkness that we will test if we see through

the red text is end debate for me (although I WILL answer questions)

please h.a.s.o. say another rondom question so that I can spend some more time

Of course the cold as a state exists.  It's a word that we use to describe a relative state of atomic activity.  Our bodies percieve a lower state of atomic activity as cold and while that is a subjective scale there is a limit to how low atomic activity can go and we choose to call low atomic activity cold... because that is how we sense it. 

As for there being nothing to see - that is inaccurate.  There is no light that we CAN see but that does not mean that there is nothing to see - the objects in the room remain, we just are unable to see them.  There is no light in the visible spectrum to see, but there are objects in the room.  A bat could "see" them using sound.  So now we are going to get into a discussion of seeing, I think - since it is merely an interpretation in the brain of extrnal stimuli.   

[DestroManiak]

darknes is a state like cold which doesnt exist

Anyway

The discussion "seeing through darkness" is foolish
Because:
YOU MAY NOT KNOW
You may not know because in total darkness, there is nothing to see because our eyes doesnt see the object itself, our eyes detect the light being reflected on objects (4th time I repead this )
Also there is no way that we will have a light source as we are in total darkness.
And the things I say PROVES that on a room of total darkness there IS NOTHING to see
As there is nothing to see we may not know if we would see though darkness or not because TO HAVE SOMETHING to see corrups the environment of total darkness which is neccecary for proving the statement "seeing through darkness"

CONCLUSION: *people read the previus paragraph may understand*
In a room of total darkness, there is NOTHIN to see
As there is nothing to see we may not know if we see through darkness, as every condition that creates ANYTHING to see corrupts the environment of darkness, how shall we see though darkness if there is no darkness at all

Which gets to:
We eighter going to have a darkness and nothing to see at all despite the argument we may not or may see through
OR we will have something to see but we arent going to have a darkness that we will test if we see through

the red text is end debate for me (although I WILL answer questions)

please h.a.s.o. say another rondom question so that I can spend some more time

Of course the cold as a state exists.  It's a word that we use to describe a relative state of atomic activity.  Our bodies percieve a lower state of atomic activity as cold and while that is a subjective scale there is a limit to how low atomic activity can go and we choose to call low atomic activity cold... because that is how we sense it. 

As for there being nothing to see - that is inaccurate.  There is no light that we CAN see but that does not mean that there is nothing to see - the objects in the room remain, we just are unable to see them.  There is no light in the visible spectrum to see, but there are objects in the room.  A bat could "see" them using sound.  So now we are going to get into a discussion of seeing, I think - since it is merely an interpretation in the brain of extrnal stimuli.   

answer to second paragraph:
you are mistaken there
what we see, we see light which is reflected, or the light source itself
so THE LIGH is what we see
And it allways will be, not the object itself, but the light which is reflected (also light source is not something we see, light source is light but a light bulb IS AN OBJECT that used as source for light, the tungsten wire the glass tube are the OBJECT and we actually see the light being REFLECTED)

So if there is no light there is nothing to see
Do you undersand or shall I explain further?

[madmat9]

answer to second paragraph:
you are mistaken there
what we see, we see light which is reflected, or the light source itself
so THE LIGH is what we see
And it allways will be, not the object itself, but the light which is reflected (also light source is not something we see, light source is light but a light bulb IS AN OBJECT that used as source for light, the tungsten wire the glass tube are the OBJECT and we actually see the light being REFLECTED)

So if there is no light there is nothing to see
Do you undersand or shall I explain further?

I think we are tripping over semantics.  Actually I meant to say that we see the light from the original source not the source itself.  I understand perfectly well about see light and light only - I meant the difference between reflected light and the light from light sources.  Most of what we see is light reflected off of objects and some light we see is directly from (not reflected off of) the source.  We are in agreement with that.

In one sense you are correct to say if there is no light there is nothing to see in that the is no light for US to see.  Another interpretation of that statement could be that if there is no light then there is nothing there at all, which of course is not necessarily true.

The other thing to make clear is if we are talking about only people and only visible light or all light.  Also we could discuss the nature of "seeing".  Does a bat or a whale see?  Not the way we do and certainly not with visible light, but they do use echo location to form what could be argued a "visible" image in their brains as they interpret the external stimuli (like we do with our eyes and light) into something they can work with. 

So for humans if there is no light whatsoever in a room full of furniture, there is no light for us to see and therefore we will not be able to "see" the furniture. In that framework I agree with you.  But for a bat there is a room full of furntiture to "see", they just do it without light and their eyes.

[DestroManiak]

I just want to state that we see light (reflected or from source itself) and as light is the only thing that organ:eye can see if no ligh there is nothing to see

AND
nothing to see ISNT equal to nothing exists

[madmat9]

I just want to state that we see light (reflected or from source itself) and as light is the only thing that organ:eye can see if no ligh there is nothing to see

AND
nothing to see ISNT equal to nothing exists

I think we are all clear on that light reflection thing 
Be careful how you word things.  Saying "there is nothing to see" actually does mean that "nothing is there" in common parlance.  I understand what you meant, and was really splitting hairs for the sake of argument.  it's FUN and this forum can get boring at times.  You would be fun to have philisophical discussions with.

[RRjohn]

I like philisophical conversations .

[madmat9]

I like philisophical conversations .

They make you think!   

[RRjohn]

Yup, indeed they do. Only problem is sometimes they make you think TOO much. For example the other night I was pondering on how the universe could have existed for eternity, surely everything has a beggining?. Gave me a headache lol.

[madmat9]

Yup, indeed they do. Only problem is sometimes they make you think TOO much. For example the other night I was pondering on how the universe could have existed for eternity, surely everything has a beggining?. Gave me a headache lol.

Or String theory.  I have been trying to wrap my brain around that and it literally gives me a headache.

[DestroManiak]

I like philisophical conversations .

Well lets start with tree falling debate:

On a forest where no man is there
And no sound or video recording device

if a tree falls, WILL there be a noise
if you beleive so prove it

Yup, indeed they do. Only problem is sometimes they make you think TOO much. For example the other night I was pondering on how the universe could have existed for eternity, surely everything has a beggining?. Gave me a headache lol.

there cant be a beginning,
Because there should be something that triggerend the beginning, as the triggering action requires a beginning and triggering being ..............
infinite

and universe is continueing to the eternity (Im not saying you are wrong or nothin, I just am showing who I am talking to ) And if we find the borders of universe what are we going to see. A "wall" Because wall also has a volume and after a wall what are we going to face, or is the wall keeping on till the eternity

Or the space is desiged so that as any human travelles further space creates new planets and galaxy because we never can test that