Dear RJ:

"RJ" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear RJ:

"RJ" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Mucho Grande:

"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
imagine complet invisible

please read again

You have defined yourself into a corner. How will
you get out?

me!? you mean you

It is clear you are trolling. What remains to be
seen is why. I will listen for shoes...

why trolling, obviously you dont have any answer,
or are afraid to state a answer

I have answered what I perceived each question to be. The
question keeps being moved. First is was "invisible" and
"able
to be touched",

you are lying, you are moving as a pendulum

QUOTE FROM INITIAL POST
wait a minute, lets an object be only visible outside the
visible spectrum, say UV eller IR, so we cant see it

wait a while, we make it simple, suppose that this
object lay on your table, you cant see it so it is
invisible, do not confuse, it is not transparent, because
if it were then you could see it, you don see anything on
your table, your table seems empty

now, if you drag your hand on your table will you sense it,
will you touch and detect its shape?
END QUOTE

Not visible light, yes IR or UV, and can be touched, defines
existance. So *you* cannot read.

OK. *This* was the other shoe. You are simply looking for a
fight. Goobye.
plonk

David A. Smith

"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
oups.com...
i though i understod light, but this is wird, maybe
i forget the explanation, her it comes

our eyes can detect light EM in the visible spectrum,
say lambda 700nm to 400nm, which is very nice

wait a minute, lets an object be only visible outside the
visible spectrum, say UV eller IR, so we cant see it

No entirely transparent object exists.

Bill

Dear Mister Bill

thank you for your feedback, i think you are right

could you elaborate a bit?

the other posters just said that the object still exists

Not from my reading of what at least one of them said.

No known object has zero effect on EM radiation in the visible spectrum.
Even air, which you think may, refracts light differently depending on
temperature. If you are trying to find issues with physics by means of
thought experiments concerning things that do not actually exist; you
will
fail.

Bill

you know what,

You are just a silly, stupid, troll. People tried to treat you a bit
seriously - obviously a waste.

Bill

you been actually the closest understanding tha
situation, than i wold had gave you 10 poings, but you are chiken****,
following the currents and streamlines, therefore you only get 5
poings
for now

be happy, the others only gets between 0 and 2 poings






wait a while, we make it simple, suppose that this
object lay on your table, you cant see it so it is
invisible, do not confuse, it is not transparent, because
if it were then you could see it, you don see anything on
your table, your table seems empty

now, if you drag your hand on your table will you sense it,
will you touch and detect its shape?

would this invisible object be existing?

you cannot say that light is wave and/or particle

light is much more than that

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
oups.com...
i though i understod light, but this is wird, maybe
i forget the explanation, her it comes

our eyes can detect light EM in the visible spectrum,
say lambda 700nm to 400nm, which is very nice

wait a minute, lets an object be only visible outside the
visible spectrum, say UV eller IR, so we cant see it

No entirely transparent object exists.

Bill

Dear Mister Bill

thank you for your feedback, i think you are right

could you elaborate a bit?

the other posters just said that the object still exists

Not from my reading of what at least one of them said.

No known object has zero effect on EM radiation in the visible spectrum.
Even air, which you think may, refracts light differently depending on
temperature. If you are trying to find issues with physics by means of
thought experiments concerning things that do not actually exist; you
will
fail.

Bill

you know what,

You are just a silly, stupid, troll. People tried to treat you a bit
seriously - obviously a waste.

Bill


said whom, a wheelchair disabled schizophren dement fool

when you use "just a" you don't put coma fool,
because "silly, stupid, troll" belongs together

then "silly, stupid" excluds eachother, you brain damaged piece of ****

Smith said that entirely transparent obj exists, another one said
that there will be a black body

NASA videos shows objects outter space only visible using UV cameras

there are invisible inks

you said nothing fool, what was erious in what you said


you been actually the closest understanding tha
situation, than i wold had gave you 10 poings, but you are chiken****,
following the currents and streamlines, therefore you only get 5
poings
for now

be happy, the others only gets between 0 and 2 poings






wait a while, we make it simple, suppose that this
object lay on your table, you cant see it so it is
invisible, do not confuse, it is not transparent, because
if it were then you could see it, you don see anything on
your table, your table seems empty

now, if you drag your hand on your table will you sense it,
will you touch and detect its shape?

would this invisible object be existing?

you cannot say that light is wave and/or particle

light is much more than that

"RJ" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Hobba wrote:
"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
oups.com...
i though i understod light, but this is wird, maybe
i forget the explanation, her it comes

our eyes can detect light EM in the visible spectrum,
say lambda 700nm to 400nm, which is very nice

wait a minute, lets an object be only visible outside the
visible spectrum, say UV eller IR, so we cant see it

No entirely transparent object exists.

Bill

Dear Mister Bill

thank you for your feedback, i think you are right

could you elaborate a bit?

the other posters just said that the object still exists

Not from my reading of what at least one of them said.

No known object has zero effect on EM radiation in the visible
spectrum.
Even air, which you think may, refracts light differently depending on
temperature. If you are trying to find issues with physics by means
of
thought experiments concerning things that do not actually exist; you
will
fail.

Bill

you know what,

You are just a silly, stupid, troll. People tried to treat you a bit
seriously - obviously a waste.

Bill


said whom, a wheelchair disabled schizophren dement fool

Obviously from looking in a mirror. But as simply another incarnation of
the dyslexic troll you are not worth my time or energy. I know Dirk reckons
you are poking fun at troll/cranks but I believe it goes beyond that. You
also want to annoy others and engage them in off topic nonsense. Lest I
fall into your oh so obvious trap I will state now this is my last post in
this thread - actually I think I will give your posts a rest for a while.
They are rather predictable.

Bill


when you use "just a" you don't put coma fool,
because "silly, stupid, troll" belongs together

then "silly, stupid" excluds eachother, you brain damaged piece of ****

Smith said that entirely transparent obj exists, another one said
that there will be a black body

NASA videos shows objects outter space only visible using UV cameras

there are invisible inks

you said nothing fool, what was erious in what you said


you been actually the closest understanding tha
situation, than i wold had gave you 10 poings, but you are chiken****,
following the currents and streamlines, therefore you only get 5
poings
for now

be happy, the others only gets between 0 and 2 poings






wait a while, we make it simple, suppose that this
object lay on your table, you cant see it so it is
invisible, do not confuse, it is not transparent, because
if it were then you could see it, you don see anything on
your table, your table seems empty

now, if you drag your hand on your table will you sense it,
will you touch and detect its shape?

would this invisible object be existing?

you cannot say that light is wave and/or particle

light is much more than that

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear RJ:

"RJ" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear RJ:

"RJ" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Mucho Grande:

"Mucho Grande" wrote in message
ups.com...

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
...
imagine complet invisible

please read again

You have defined yourself into a corner. How will
you get out?

me!? you mean you

It is clear you are trolling. What remains to be
seen is why. I will listen for shoes...

why trolling, obviously you dont have any answer,
or are afraid to state a answer

I have answered what I perceived each question to be. The
question keeps being moved. First is was "invisible" and
"able
to be touched",

you are lying, you are moving as a pendulum

QUOTE FROM INITIAL POST
wait a minute, lets an object be only visible outside the
visible spectrum, say UV eller IR, so we cant see it

wait a while, we make it simple, suppose that this
object lay on your table, you cant see it so it is
invisible, do not confuse, it is not transparent, because
if it were then you could see it, you don see anything on
your table, your table seems empty

now, if you drag your hand on your table will you sense it,
will you touch and detect its shape?
END QUOTE

Not visible light, yes IR or UV, and can be touched, defines
existance. So *you* cannot read.

OK. *This* was the other shoe. You are simply looking for a
fight. Goobye.
plonk

David A. Smith

moron, dark matter obj are transparent, huh?

read fool
http://www.physorg.com/news84797343.html

"We know there is much more matter in the universe than what we see.
For instance, the rotation velocity of observed spiral galaxies is much
faster than the visible mass could explain," says Joachim Ripken, a
researcher with the HESS Collaboration. "And we know that it is not
the normal matter that we know." Ripken refers to dark matter, a type
of matter that physicists know must be present in the universe, but
that cannot be seen because it does not interact with light. It is
matter, Ripken tells PhysOrg.com, that "we only know what it is
not."

On Dec 8, 5:36 pm, "Mucho Grande" wrote:
PD wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:23 pm, "Mucho Grande" wrote:
i though i understod light, but this is wird, maybe
i forget the explanation, her it comes

our eyes can detect light EM in the visible spectrum,
say lambda 700nm to 400nm, which is very nice

wait a minute, lets an object be only visible outside the
visible spectrum, say UV eller IR, so we cant see it

wait a while, we make it simple, suppose that this
object lay on your table, you cant see it so it is
invisible, do not confuse, it is not transparent, because
if it were then you could see it, you don see anything on
your table, your table seems empty

now, if you drag your hand on your table will you sense it,
will you touch and detect its shape?

would this invisible object be existing?

Yes, of course it does. Invisibility has nothing to do with existence.

this is an wonderful thing, would this object also be
matterial or imatterial, only matterializin when appearing
into tha visble spectrum?

My definition of "material" does not include visibility as a necessity.
There are many material things that are not visible. Air, for example.




First of all, let's examine your hypothetical situation. Unless they
are hot compared to the environment, visible objects *reflect* or
*scatter* light that is incident on them, and so the light that comes
from them is actually due to an external source. There are some objects
that absorb some of the wavelength incident on them and reflect some --
for example, a banana reflects light in the yellow-green portion of the
visible spectrum but absorbs light from the violet and red ends of the
spectrum. Things that absorb all incident light in the visible spectrum
appear black to us --- far from invisible.

you contradict yourself here, you just said it exists

Yes, it does exist. Nowhere in the above did I say that it doesn't
exist.


if not visible is tha object exiting or not

this is wordsalad, has nothen ta do with the situation



What you apparently want to imagine is something that is *transparent*
to all light in the visible spectrum, which means that if the object
were sitting on a table, then all light scattered from the table would
proceed through the transparent object unimpeded, unabsorbed,
unscattered to your eyes. This also is not unusual, as anyone who has
walked into a closed sliding glass door can tell you.

no, how many times do i have to say that i dont mean transparency
whatso any fokn ever

What you describe, though, is precisely that. Transparency. If
something is invisible, it means that you can see the light scattered
from objects behind it. That's what transparency means.




Finally, if you want to probe the true nature of light by considering
hypothetical objects, it's probably best to consider hypothetical
objects that have some bearing to reality.

what reality

are you implaing that objects only detectable outside tha visble
spectrum are not real enuff?

No, I'm not.




you cannot say that light is wave and/or particle

That's right. Light has properties of both.

wrong, i just that it is much more than that

Yes, and that's all you said. If you have something more to say about
the concrete nature of light, then say it.




light is much more than that

Yes, indeed. And much more than that is already understood about light,
if you care to read further. I suggest a small book called QED by
Richard Feynman.

rather you should recomand one for your selv

aparently only hobba sensed the problematics here, maybe
this is becos he is doin qm so intensively

And the book I recommended to you is one about quantum mechanics, which
is why I recommended it to you. That way, you'll know a little better
who knows what they're talking about other than your hunch.

PD






PD

PD wrote:
On Dec 8, 5:36 pm, "Mucho Grande" wrote:
PD wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:23 pm, "Mucho Grande" wrote:
i though i understod light, but this is wird, maybe
i forget the explanation, her it comes

our eyes can detect light EM in the visible spectrum,
say lambda 700nm to 400nm, which is very nice

wait a minute, lets an object be only visible outside the
visible spectrum, say UV eller IR, so we cant see it

wait a while, we make it simple, suppose that this
object lay on your table, you cant see it so it is
invisible, do not confuse, it is not transparent, because
if it were then you could see it, you don see anything on
your table, your table seems empty

now, if you drag your hand on your table will you sense it,
will you touch and detect its shape?

would this invisible object be existing?

Yes, of course it does. Invisibility has nothing to do with existence.

this is an wonderful thing, would this object also be
matterial or imatterial, only matterializin when appearing
into tha visble spectrum?

My definition of "material" does not include visibility as a necessity.
There are many material things that are not visible. Air, for example.

air is very visile, and material

vacum is invisible and imaterial





First of all, let's examine your hypothetical situation. Unless they
are hot compared to the environment, visible objects *reflect* or
*scatter* light that is incident on them, and so the light that comes
from them is actually due to an external source. There are some objects
that absorb some of the wavelength incident on them and reflect some --
for example, a banana reflects light in the yellow-green portion of the
visible spectrum but absorbs light from the violet and red ends of the
spectrum. Things that absorb all incident light in the visible spectrum
appear black to us --- far from invisible.

you contradict yourself here, you just said it exists

Yes, it does exist. Nowhere in the above did I say that it doesn't
exist.


if not visible is tha object exiting or not

this is wordsalad, has nothen ta do with the situation



What you apparently want to imagine is something that is *transparent*
to all light in the visible spectrum, which means that if the object
were sitting on a table, then all light scattered from the table would
proceed through the transparent object unimpeded, unabsorbed,
unscattered to your eyes. This also is not unusual, as anyone who has
walked into a closed sliding glass door can tell you.

no, how many times do i have to say that i dont mean transparency
whatso any fokn ever

What you describe, though, is precisely that. Transparency. If
something is invisible, it means that you can see the light scattered
from objects behind it. That's what transparency means.

not according to my dictionarry

in order ta be transparent it needs first and foremost to be materrial,
and
to see thro it

invisibilty is somthin completly else





Finally, if you want to probe the true nature of light by considering
hypothetical objects, it's probably best to consider hypothetical
objects that have some bearing to reality.

what reality

are you implaing that objects only detectable outside tha visble
spectrum are not real enuff?

No, I'm not.

real bu not material?





you cannot say that light is wave and/or particle

That's right. Light has properties of both.

wrong, i just that it is much more than that

Yes, and that's all you said. If you have something more to say about
the concrete nature of light, then say it.

light is an artifact, not particle, nobody knows how a particle should
look like, nor a wave, a wave need to be material nd have density





light is much more than that

Yes, indeed. And much more than that is already understood about light,
if you care to read further. I suggest a small book called QED by
Richard Feynman.

rather you should recomand one for your selv

aparently only hobba sensed the problematics here, maybe
this is becos he is doin qm so intensively

And the book I recommended to you is one about quantum mechanics, which
is why I recommended it to you. That way, you'll know a little better
who knows what they're talking about other than your hunch.

PD

happy to know that you know everything and you dont need that book







PD

On Dec 11, 3:28 pm, "Dubois" wrote:
PD wrote:
On Dec 8, 5:36 pm, "Mucho Grande" wrote:
PD wrote:
On Dec 7, 3:23 pm, "Mucho Grande" wrote:
i though i understod light, but this is wird, maybe
i forget the explanation, her it comes

our eyes can detect light EM in the visible spectrum,
say lambda 700nm to 400nm, which is very nice

wait a minute, lets an object be only visible outside the
visible spectrum, say UV eller IR, so we cant see it

wait a while, we make it simple, suppose that this
object lay on your table, you cant see it so it is
invisible, do not confuse, it is not transparent, because
if it were then you could see it, you don see anything on
your table, your table seems empty

now, if you drag your hand on your table will you sense it,
will you touch and detect its shape?

would this invisible object be existing?

Yes, of course it does. Invisibility has nothing to do with existence.

this is an wonderful thing, would this object also be
matterial or imatterial, only matterializin when appearing
into tha visble spectrum?

My definition of "material" does not include visibility as a necessity.
There are many material things that are not visible. Air, for example.

air is very visile, and material

Air is visible? Perhaps you'd like to point out where you can see it.


vacum is invisible and imaterial







First of all, let's examine your hypothetical situation. Unless they
are hot compared to the environment, visible objects *reflect* or
*scatter* light that is incident on them, and so the light that comes
from them is actually due to an external source. There are some objects
that absorb some of the wavelength incident on them and reflect some --
for example, a banana reflects light in the yellow-green portion of the
visible spectrum but absorbs light from the violet and red ends of the
spectrum. Things that absorb all incident light in the visible spectrum
appear black to us --- far from invisible.

you contradict yourself here, you just said it exists

Yes, it does exist. Nowhere in the above did I say that it doesn't
exist.

if not visible is tha object exiting or not

this is wordsalad, has nothen ta do with the situation

What you apparently want to imagine is something that is *transparent*
to all light in the visible spectrum, which means that if the object
were sitting on a table, then all light scattered from the table would
proceed through the transparent object unimpeded, unabsorbed,
unscattered to your eyes. This also is not unusual, as anyone who has
walked into a closed sliding glass door can tell you.

no, how many times do i have to say that i dont mean transparency
whatso any fokn ever

What you describe, though, is precisely that. Transparency. If
something is invisible, it means that you can see the light scattered
from objects behind it. That's what transparency means.
not according to my dictionarry

in order ta be transparent it needs first and foremost to be materrial,
and
to see thro it

Really? What dictionary are you using?


invisibilty is somthin completly else

Really? What dictionary are you using?
Or are you making it up as you go along?




Finally, if you want to probe the true nature of light by considering
hypothetical objects, it's probably best to consider hypothetical
objects that have some bearing to reality.

what reality

are you implaing that objects only detectable outside tha visble
spectrum are not real enuff?

No, I'm not.


real bu not material?

I didn't say that either. What are you considering the definition of
"material"?




you cannot say that light is wave and/or particle

That's right. Light has properties of both.

wrong, i just that it is much more than that

Yes, and that's all you said. If you have something more to say about
the concrete nature of light, then say it.

light is an artifact, not particle, nobody knows how a particle should
look like, nor a wave, a wave need to be material nd have density

Uh, no, a wave does NOT need to be material and have density. Some
waves have a material medium, but not all waves. I don't know where you
got the idea that a wave required a material medium. That is certainly
not how a wave is defined.








light is much more than that

Yes, indeed. And much more than that is already understood about light,
if you care to read further. I suggest a small book called QED by
Richard Feynman.

rather you should recomand one for your selv

aparently only hobba sensed the problematics here, maybe
this is becos he is doin qm so intensively

And the book I recommended to you is one about quantum mechanics, which
is why I recommended it to you. That way, you'll know a little better
who knows what they're talking about other than your hunch.

PD


happy to know that you know everything and you dont need that book

I've read the book, which is why I recommended it to you. Now, do you
want to read it, or continue to troll?

PD