How far could you see?

I could put a LED light on the inside of a vacuum. and it would work inside or outside the vacuum, we don't put LED's in vacuums though because they don't need them to work..

I was under the impression that all diodes were sealed in a vacuum?

Can anyone show me ANYTHING that proves that sound does not make light. Show me one thing that does not use sound to create a light we see.
Anything!

A stereo in a dark room?

A bulb in a sound deadened recording studio?

I don't have any videos but I can assure you I've experienced both.

Sokurul and Spank,
Just because you don't hear something doesn't mean it's not creating light and just because you see light doesn't mean there is no sound wave coming from it.  Like I said before, it's all about the frequency.  Human hears do not hear every sound.
PLEASE READ:
http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=36760

Sokurul and Spank,
Just because you don't hear something doesn't mean it's not creating light and just because you see light doesn't mean there is no sound wave coming from it.  Like I said before, it's all about the frequency.  Human hears do not hear every sound.
PLEASE READ:
http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=36760

I'm aware of that, that's why I pointed out the speaker in a dark room which adds tot he dissociation of light and sound.

I can make a noise by folding and snapping paper, it doesn't create light.

Don't be so naïve.  Not all sound creates light.  It must be a certain frequency and strength.  OR....maybe it does and we just can't see it because it's so dim.

Don't be so naïve.  Not all sound creates light.  It must be a certain frequency and strength.

what frequency and strength.

High frequency (as it says in the link I posted) and very strong.

High frequency (as it says in the link I posted) and very strong.

the link you posted was not sound directly turning into light.

It was sound exciting piezoelectric speakers causing the speakers to generate light.

think of it like putting electricity into an electric motor to generate a turning force or turning the motor to generate electricity.

If you think sound can directly create light in normal conditions I'd still like to know the Db and frequency needed.

Just like the tungsten filament in a light bulb gets excited/vibrated, making a high frequency sound wave and turning it into light.

Can anyone show me ANYTHING that proves that sound does not make light. Show me one thing that does not use sound to create a light we see.
Anything!

A light emitting diode (LED).
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/led2.htm

Sci, thanks but those vacuum tubes have gas in them:

Gas-filled tubes

Gas-filled tubes such as discharge tubes and cold cathode tubes are not hard vacuum tubes, though are always filled with gas at less than sea-level atmospheric pressure. Types such as the voltage-regulator tube and thyratron resemble hard vacuum tubes and fit in sockets designed for vacuum tubes. Their distinctive orange, red, or purple glow during operation indicates the presence of gas; electrons flowing in a vacuum do not produce light within that region. These types may still be referred to as "electron tubes" as they do perform electronic functions. High-power rectifiers use mercury vapor to achieve a lower forward voltage drop than high-vacuum tubes. - Wikipedia

Spank,
What makes me think that?  The fact that you seem to be an expert on vacuum chambers, that's what.  You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?

Take it from an old ham radio operator. Old vacuum tubes ....once again I will repeat VACUUM TUBES....do not contain any gas...just by way of definition they are VACUUM TUBES. Same way with common light bulbs. VACUUM. No gas.
I thought that had been made clear by now.

Ancient history : Look up 5Y3GT vacuuum  tube. Commonly used diode tube rectifier used in a lot old ham radio receivers and transmiters. And it did give off a cheery orange-red glow from the filament inside the tube . 
http://www.radiomuseum.org/tubes/tube_5y3gt.html

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on December 20, 2013, 09:01:50 AM

Sci, thanks but those vacuum tubes have gas in them:

Gas-filled tubes

Gas-filled tubes such as discharge tubes and cold cathode tubes are not hard vacuum tubes, though are always filled with gas at less than sea-level atmospheric pressure. Types such as the voltage-regulator tube and thyratron resemble hard vacuum tubes and fit in sockets designed for vacuum tubes. Their distinctive orange, red, or purple glow during operation indicates the presence of gas; electrons flowing in a vacuum do not produce light within that region. These types may still be referred to as "electron tubes" as they do perform electronic functions. High-power rectifiers use mercury vapor to achieve a lower forward voltage drop than high-vacuum tubes. - Wikipedia

Spank,
What makes me think that?  The fact that you seem to be an expert on vacuum chambers, that's what.  You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?

Take it from an old ham radio operator. Old vacuum tubes ....once again I will repeat VACUUM TUBES....do not contain any gas...just by way of definition they are VACUUM TUBES. Same way with common light bulbs. VACUUM. No gas.
I thought that had been made clear by now.

Ancient history : Look up 5Y3GT vacuuum  tube. Commonly used diode tube rectifier used in a lot old ham radio receivers and transmiters. And it did give off a cheery red glow from the filament inside the tube . 

Vacuum tubes do not contain a perfect vacuum.  Therefore, vacuum tubes contain a gas at a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure. 

Quote from: Googleotomy on December 20, 2013, 08:26:42 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on December 20, 2013, 09:01:50 AM

Sci, thanks but those vacuum tubes have gas in them:

Gas-filled tubes

Gas-filled tubes such as discharge tubes and cold cathode tubes are not hard vacuum tubes, though are always filled with gas at less than sea-level atmospheric pressure. Types such as the voltage-regulator tube and thyratron resemble hard vacuum tubes and fit in sockets designed for vacuum tubes. Their distinctive orange, red, or purple glow during operation indicates the presence of gas; electrons flowing in a vacuum do not produce light within that region. These types may still be referred to as "electron tubes" as they do perform electronic functions. High-power rectifiers use mercury vapor to achieve a lower forward voltage drop than high-vacuum tubes. - Wikipedia

Spank,
What makes me think that?  The fact that you seem to be an expert on vacuum chambers, that's what.  You have the time to debate this with me so why don't you have time to prove what you say?

Take it from an old ham radio operator. Old vacuum tubes ....once again I will repeat VACUUM TUBES....do not contain any gas...just by way of definition they are VACUUM TUBES. Same way with common light bulbs. VACUUM. No gas.
I thought that had been made clear by now.

Ancient history : Look up 5Y3GT vacuuum  tube. Commonly used diode tube rectifier used in a lot old ham radio receivers and transmiters. And it did give off a cheery red glow from the filament inside the tube . 

Vacuum tubes do not contain a perfect vacuum.  Therefore, vacuum tubes contain a gas at a lower pressure than atmospheric pressure.

There is really no such thing as a perfect vacuum. But the old vacuum tubes were as close as possible. Look up post on the "getter" which enabled the tube to get  even more vacuum inside the tube than that from the vacuum pump used in the manufacture. Besides, any residual gas in the tube was miniscule and immaterial to the operation . Of course this is purely from a practical sense. Of course mercury vapor and other type tubes do have gas, but for all practical purposes vacuum tubes are vacuum tubes. And of course you can see the glow of the filament inside the tube from the outside of the tube which proves light does penetrate a vacuum.

Vacuum simply means an area of lower pressure.  The word is not synonymous with a perfect or even near perfect vacuum.  However, you are trying to portray it as such. 

Please find me a resource that says that vacuum, in terms of tubes or bulbs, means the absolute absence of gas.

Vacuum simply means an area of lower pressure.  The word is not synonymous with a perfect or even near perfect vacuum.  However, you are trying to portray it as such. 

Please find me a resource that says that vacuum, in terms of tubes or bulbs, means the absolute absence of gas.

You are picking at straws. I am speaking from a practical standpoint. Besides I think the original debate was whether light could penetrate a vacuum, which of course it can and does.

In the real world (the so-called "Round Earth" world) we use devices that we either call the "gas filled tubes" or "vacuum tubes" and the difference is whether the inside of the tube is a vacuum or has some gas.

I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct. 

I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.

You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.

Quote from: jroa on December 20, 2013, 09:18:19 PM

I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.

You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.

You do realize how far apart atoms are at sea level pressure, right?  Yet, sound has no trouble at all traveling through this medium, now does it?

Quote from: sokarul on December 20, 2013, 11:01:58 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 20, 2013, 09:18:19 PM

I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.

You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.

You do realize how far apart atoms are at sea level pressure, right?  Yet, sound has no trouble at all traveling through this medium, now does it?

Is that a serious question? Atoms themselves cause us to hear a noise, whereas electromagnetic waves are separate from atoms.

Quote from: jroa on December 20, 2013, 11:09:48 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 20, 2013, 11:01:58 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 20, 2013, 09:18:19 PM

I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.

You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.

You do realize how far apart atoms are at sea level pressure, right?  Yet, sound has no trouble at all traveling through this medium, now does it?

Is that a serious question? Atoms themselves cause us to hear a noise, whereas electromagnetic waves are separate from atoms.

The subject is about energy traveling through a medium or a vacuum.  I think we have confirmed that a vacuum tube does in fact contain a medium.  You can try to derail this thread all you want to, sokarul, but you can not change facts. 

Quote from: sokarul on December 20, 2013, 11:23:55 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 20, 2013, 11:09:48 PM

Quote from: sokarul on December 20, 2013, 11:01:58 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 20, 2013, 09:18:19 PM

I do not subscribe to the sceptimatic model of the flat Earth, but it would seem to me that you are admitting that there is a medium for light to travel through in a vacuum tube, if his model is in fact correct.

You do realize in between atoms there is nothing? How can a light photon atom hop if it needs a medium? Oh that's right, it's an electromagnetic wave, whereas sound is a pressure wave.

You do realize how far apart atoms are at sea level pressure, right?  Yet, sound has no trouble at all traveling through this medium, now does it?

Is that a serious question? Atoms themselves cause us to hear a noise, whereas electromagnetic waves are separate from atoms.

The subject is about energy traveling through a medium or a vacuum.  I think we have confirmed that a vacuum tube does in fact contain a medium.  You can try to derail this thread all you want to, sokarul, but you can not change facts.

Please look up ether theory. You will notice that ether in ether theory is actually everywhere. You can pretend that atoms in a vacuum cover everywhere, but facts will not change.

So, are you claiming that ether theory is the correct theory?  I am just trying to figure out what you are saying here, as your posts give no definitive statements.  You almost seem to do that on purpose, sokarul.  If I was not a professional, I would even accuse you of being purposely obtuse in your posts. 

So, are you claiming that ether theory is the correct theory?  I am just trying to figure out what you are saying here, as your posts give no definitive statements.  You almost seem to do that on purpose, sokarul.  If I was not a professional, I would even accuse you of being purposely obtuse in your posts.

I make shorts post as to no waste my time on stupid subjects like this one.
No, i do not believe in ether theory. I was getting at ether would be a proper medium for electromagnetic waves. Instead of air molecules, where would be a poor medium for electromagnetic waves.

So, you are saying no, it is not true, but you are using it to prove your point anyway?  I am really having a hard time understanding you, sokarul, between your poor grammar and pointless posts.  Please tell me what you are trying to say in one short sentence, so you are likely to make the least amount of spelling and grammar errors.  I really do want to know what is going on in your mind.

So, you are saying no, it is not true, but you are using it to prove your point anyway?  I am really having a hard time understanding you, sokarul, between your poor grammar and pointless posts.  Please tell me what you are trying to say in one short sentence, so you are likely to make the least amount of spelling and grammar errors.  I really do want to know what is going on in your mind.

You have shown time and time again that you do not understand simple math, science, and physics. I cannot dumb down my argument enough for you to understand. 

Quote from: jroa on December 20, 2013, 11:49:15 PM

So, you are saying no, it is not true, but you are using it to prove your point anyway?  I am really having a hard time understanding you, sokarul, between your poor grammar and pointless posts.  Please tell me what you are trying to say in one short sentence, so you are likely to make the least amount of spelling and grammar errors.  I really do want to know what is going on in your mind.

You have shown time and time again that you do not understand simple math, science, and physics. I cannot dumb down my argument enough for you to understand.

Yes, well, your simple math, science, and physics seem to be lost in your ramblings.  Would you mind, please, pointing them out again?  I usually reserve the drunk jokes for markjo; however, I am seriously questioning your sobriety right now.  Maybe I am just over-thinking, or possibly under-thinking, your posts. 

Just like the tungsten filament in a light bulb gets excited/vibrated, making a high frequency sound wave and turning it into light.

again, at what frequency and what Decibel level does this occur in your hypothesis?

The subject is about energy traveling through a medium or a vacuum.  I think we have confirmed that a vacuum tube does in fact contain a medium.  You can try to derail this thread all you want to, sokarul, but you can not change facts.

We've already seen a video of a bell going muffled and silent as a vacuum tube is evacuated.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on December 20, 2013, 06:06:36 PM

Just like the tungsten filament in a light bulb gets excited/vibrated, making a high frequency sound wave and turning it into light.

again, at what frequency and what Decibel level does this occur in your hypothesis?

Quote from: jroa on December 20, 2013, 11:31:57 PM

The subject is about energy traveling through a medium or a vacuum.  I think we have confirmed that a vacuum tube does in fact contain a medium.  You can try to derail this thread all you want to, sokarul, but you can not change facts.

We've already seen a video of a bell going muffled and silent as a vacuum tube is evacuated.

It doesn't matter what frequency or decibel level. The fact is that everything that gives off light HAS to start from vibration/friction/sound to create light.
Light just does not magically appear and if it does, then tell me how.

It doesn't matter what frequency or decibel level. The fact is that everything that gives off light HAS to start from vibration/friction/sound to create light.

of course it matters, it's self evident that not all vibration/friction/sound creates light. So if you're saying some does then there must be properties specific to certain types of it to allow this.

Without that your theory falls down.

Light just does not magically appear and if it does, then tell me how.

You want to know how something magically appears?

doesn't that sort of answer itself?

It doesn't matter what frequency or decibel level.

Really? Every sound has a frequency and dB level, so I think they might be kind of important.

The fact is that everything that gives off light HAS to start from vibration/friction/sound to create light.

Nope.

Light just does not magically appear and if it does, then tell me how.

Did that, you ignored me.

Try this (again): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioluminescence

Keep in mind, these interactions are at an atomic level, and are not mechanical, so nothing that could be called sound is produced.