Even without Photons the Universe would not be dark. It is ostensibly , it appears to be dark , but this is an optical illusion that took me several years to understand correctly. Would you like to read my 2014 attempt of explaining this? I now however have it mastered and can explain it much better. Visible light is only that of objects that are illuminated. Visible darkness is that of objects that are not illuminated. Space itself has no affect on the permeating of electromagnetic radiation, the radiation remains invisible between point sources.
So, when you turn the lights out in a basement, new matter that is dark appears in front of your eyes that wasn't visible before?
No, when you enter your basement you can see the dark walls, dark floor and dark ceiling, this gives you an optical illusion that the space is dark also. Your sense of distance gone , no perspective just a vision of darkness. When you turn the lights on, you can see the walls illuminating, but the space as not changed visually from when you thought it was dark.
Of course I have several different observations/experiments to show this . So if you understand me , you should be able to 'see' with that alone I have just re-wrote the semantics on darkness.
Nope, you haven't explained anything. I see what you mean when you say that turning off the lights makes it appear that the air or space between the walls is dark even though there is nothing dark in front of you. It still seems that you can't see the walls until you illuminate them with with visible light. Do you have experiments or observations which demonstrate that you could see something without the aid of photons?
Of course, just simply look at an eclipse, you can see the dark surface of the moon. Look at a shadow on the ground, the space between the shadow on the ground and the object blocking the light is not dark. Look between the distant stars, it looks dark but there is lots of electromagnetic radiation and if something came within visual range you would see the surface illuminating .
or if you want an actual physical experiment, no problem I have one that proves it without a shadow of doubt.
Should I give my work away so freely? No worries I have lots of more things I could keep hidden. Ok a simple experiment to prove space is neither dark or light at anytime. Equipment 1 big ''dark'' warehouse 1 candle 2 observers method light candle in center of warehouse where one observer stands 2nd observer stands by the walls of the warehouse 1st observer explains they cannot see observer 2 or the walls observer 2 explains they can see observer 1 1st observer explains the space surrounding them is dark, 2nd observer says it cant be
p.s and if you are wondering how the 2nd observer proves to the 1st observer, they simply walk forward.
So, none of these present any difficulty for currently understood theories of light. In fact they are all inevitable consequences of that current theory. We also understand that theory very rigorously and deeply. We can explain all phenomenon that exist currently with that theory, and it has led us to predictions and further theories. It made predictions that we were able to test. Your theories at best, are not fleshed out. When Einstein proposed his theories, he had them understood thoroughly and rigorously, and with mathematical precision. They were able to fully explain all contemporary understood phenomenon, and did not contradict anything that had been discovered previously. Furthermore, he was able to make predictions that were unequivocally verified. His theories led to many new discoveries including the ones that allow us to have this conversation right now. If you intend to overthrow one of the greatest geniuses of all time, you need to have at least your basic ideas flushed out and understood thoroughly at least by you. If it is something that can only be understood loosely by analogy (like quantum mechanics), then you need to have at least a fully understood and logically consistent mathematical framework. You can't have any gaping holes, or large unsupported leaps. Every part of your theory must start from a well understood starting point and proceed with no gaps to the conclusion you have made. Now, realistically, you can't start from a conclusion and work backwards, you have to explain how you went from known to unknown. I'm 99% sure that your problem isn't that other people don't understand your work. This may seem mean, but I mean it seriously and without any malice. I think the problem is with your thinking and that maybe you need psychological help, not scientific. That being said, if you want to make any sense of this. Start with your basic light principle, or maybe, the first principles of your 'new' math. Explain that rigorously and consistently without any holes or leaps. Show how one thing flows logically from another. Start small and see if you can do it. If you can't, then your theory isn't sound. But, I will tell you that what you have explained so far is not rigorous or detailed.
You asked about my first fundamental thought, I was keeping it simple with some basic stuff. You say this does not have any difficulties for present theories of light, completely ignoring that darkness is not the absence of light and is new . If you want me to discuss things much more advanced than present information, I have no problem with that but I think you would because you would not have a clue about quantum field solidity and my N-fields theories. No disrespect intended , you have just not been taught this, yet. I quite clearly have re-written the definition of darkness to the correct semantics, and simplicity doesn't need much vigour, it is very basic stuff really . I wish you goodnight anyway I am tired.
But, if you can't explain your most basic stuff rigorously and logically, then it can't be true. Your theory of light is different, but not logically consistent, it doesn't come logically from other known facts, there is no need for it, so as far as I can tell, it is unsupportable and unnecessary. On top of all of that, if 100% of people tell you that something is nonsense, and it contradicts absolute genius and you have no proof or theory, you are probably just wrong. Sorry, but that's the way the world works.
The Gravity Probe-B experiment is an eloquently designed one using instruments of exceptional precision. Your attempt to discredit it with the use of 'God' theory is disingenuous at best. You haven't given sufficient reason to nullify the experiment. Put your paper forward here beyond nonsensical retorts. There are enough scientists on board to 'peer' review your paper. Until then I suggest we not feed your ridiculous ideations allowing then to dry on the vine. And since you don't believe in what you cannot see then stop using the electrons necessary to have an internet.
These are general guidelines used to format the data and should be used as such, this is not meant to be a worksheet as much as a template. Until submission affiliates and such are not required.
typically theoretical physics requires math, not just abstract interpretation. And near as I can figure your abstractions are certainly right out there.
My theory does not work without ''your'' known facts. We can only observe visible light in the range of 400-700nm , a known fact. Light permeating through space is not 400nm-700nm , it is a mixture of frequencies, known facts. The only things we see illuminated are 400-700nm, if it isn't within that range we can't see it. fact Space has 0 permeability and does not alter the frequencies of light permeating through space, fact. Space is not opaque, fact.
Anybody can speculate. Wish that I could make an extremely lucrative living just by speculating. Speculation is meaningless and unproven guesswork, and in the greater scheme of things is worthless.
One important thing to understand when submitting for peer review, obviously the author considers it compelling or they would not submit. The idea behind peer review is subjecting the data to others so they can tear it apart and point out error. This is the beginning o f the scientific process and leads to refining an hypothesis and gaining community support eventually laying the groundwork for theory. You of course believe in your hypothesis but that is unimportant in this, you must convince everyone else which begins with you creating the "Paper" you keep touting.
I will work on my paper later on, using the paper I already have done and improving it to ''your'' criteria. In confidence in my report I am now going to put my name to it. Title:Inconsistencies with relativity and relative correctness in primary respect to time . Summary:This paper is intended to give a definite structure or shape to relativity in a primary respect to time. Author:S.P.Leese OK how does my start look? is that right?
