## TIME EXPLAINED

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

### TIME EXPLAINED

TIME EXPLAINED

Time is very simple, once you get it. But “getting it” is so very difficult. That’s because your current concept of time is so deeply ingrained. You form a mental map of the world using your senses and your brain. You use this mental map to think, and you are so immersed in it that you can’t see things the way they really are. You are locked into an irrational conviction that clocks run, that days pass, that time flows, and that a journey takes a length of time. It takes steely logic to break out of this conditioning. First of all we need to look at your senses and the things you experience. Let’s start with sight. Look at the picture below:

Now, squares A and B are the same colour. They’re the same shade of grey. Oh no they’re not, I hear you say. Oh yes they are I insist. Oh no they’re not you answer back. We could do this all day, but they really are the same colour. Squares A and B are the same shade of grey. The apparent difference in colour is an illusion. Just look at the screen from a narrow angle to break the illusion. See http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelso ... usion.html for more details. Check it out for yourself. Satisfy yourself. Be empirical, test yourself, then you realise that A and B really are the same colour.

What this tells you is that colour is subjective. It isn’t a real property of things in the world. It’s perception, a "quale", and it’s in your head. A photon doesn’t actually have a colour. It has a wavelength, an oscillation, a frequency. What’s it’s got is a motion.

Let’s move on to sound. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it might even see in colour. But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.

Pressure is related to sound, and to touch. You feel it in your ears on a plane, or on your chest if you dive. This pressure of air or water is not some property of the sub-atomic world. It’s a derived effect, and the Kinetic Theory of Gases tells us that pressure is derived from motion.

You can also feel kinetic energy. If a cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s impacted your chest you would feel it for sure. But apologies, my mistake. It isn't the cannonball doing 1000m/s. It's you. So where's the kinetic energy now? Can you feel it coursing through your veins? No. Because what’s really there is mass, and relative motion.

You can also feel heat. Touch that stove and you feel that heat. We talk about heat exchangers and heat flow as if there’s some magical mysterious fluid in there. And yet we know there isn’t. We know that heat is another derived effect of motion.

Taste is chemical in nature, and somewhat primitive. Most of your sense of taste is in fact your sense of smell. Do you know how smell works? Look up olfaction and you’ll learn about molecular shape. But the latest theory from a man called Luca Turin says it’s all down to molecular vibration, because isomers smell the same. That’s motion again.

The point of all this is there’s a lot of motion out there, and most of your senses are motion detectors. But it probably never occurred to you because you’re accustomed to thinking about the world in terms of how you experience it, rather than the scientific, empirical, fundamental, ontological things that are there.

And nowhere is this more so than with time...
Farsight
Thinker

Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

So, what is time? Let’s start by looking up the definition of a second:

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom...

So, a second is nine billion periods of radiation. But what is a period? We know that radiation is electromagnetic in nature, the thing we commonly call light. We also know that light has a frequency. So let’s look at frequency:

Frequency = 1 / T and Frequency = v / λ

This says frequency is the reciprocal of the period T, and is also velocity v divided by wavelength λ . Combining the two, we can say T = λ / v, which means a period T is a wavelength λ divided by a velocity v. To try to find out more, we can drill down into wavelength and velocity. We know that a wavelength is a distance, a thing like a metre:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second...

And we know already that a velocity is a distance divided by a time. So if a period is a wavelength divided by a velocity, that means a period is a distance divided by a distance divided by a time. So let’s do some simple mathematics. Let’s work it through. We can combine T = λ / v and v = λ / t and write it down as:

T = λ / ( λ / t)

Then we can cancel out the λs to get:

T = 1/(1/t)

Then we cancel the double reciprocal to leave:

T = t

The answer we get is T = t. A period of time is a period of time. This mathematical definition of time is circular. The mathematics tells us nothing about its base terms. So what is its true nature? How do we dig down and get to the bottom of it?
Farsight
Thinker

Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Let’s look at frequency some more. What’s the definition in English?

Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit of time.

Our unit of time is the second. Frequency is the number of events per second. A second is nine billion periods of electromagnetic radiation. A period of radiation is an electromagnetic event, caused by an electromagnetic event happening inside an atom. For an event to happen, something has to move. Some component of the caesium atom has to travel some distance. A hyperfine transition is to do with magnetic dipole movement, a flip-flop interaction between the nucleus and an electron. It’s magnetic, so it’s electromagnetic in nature. Like the electron is electromagnetic in nature. Like the photon is electromagnetic in nature. So in some simple respect, we can consider some vital component of the atom to be electromagnetic just like light.

The answer comes with a rush. It’s a form of light moving inside the atom, and it causes more light, radiation with a frequency, waves with peaks, We sit there counting them as they go by, and when we get to nine billion, we say its a second. Then we use this second to measure the speed of light. We measure the speed of light in terms of the speed of light. In caesium atoms, in hydrogen atoms, in our own atoms, in the atoms of everything. No wonder it never changes.

And so the penny drops: the interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals. And intervals are frozen timeless moments. But you need events, not frozen timeless intervals to mark out the time. The events aren’t in the time, the time is in the events. Because time is merely the measure of events, of change, measured against some other change. And for things to change, there has to be motion. You don’t need time to have motion. You need motion to have time.

You don’t need regular atomic motion to mark out time. Any regular motion will do. Yes, we counted nine billion oscillations and called it second. One, two, three… nine billion. But you don’t have to count microwave wavepeaks emitted by a caesium atom. You could count beans in a bucket. Ping, ping, ping, chuck them in, regular as clockwork.

You’re sitting there counting beans into the bucket, ping, ping, ping, regular as clockwork. Now, what is the direction of time? The only direction that is actually there, is the direction of the beans you’re throwing, and that direction is the direction of motion through space. A fuller bucket is not the direction of time. More beans is not the direction of time. The direction of time is the direction of your counting, and I could have asked you to count the beans out of the bucket. There is no real direction. It’s as imaginary as the direction you take when you count along the set of integers.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 →

It’s imaginary, so you cannot actually point in this direction. Nor can an arrow. There is no Arrow of Beans, so there is no Arrow of Time. And since there’s no direction, there’s no direction you can possibly travel in. And since you can’t travel, you can’t travel a length, and a length can’t pass you by. It’s all abstraction, a false concept rooted in the language we use to think. Yet we never ever think about what the words actually mean. Instead we say the clock is running slow as if a clock is an athlete. We say the day went quickly but it didn’t go anywhere. We say years pass, but they don’t go by like buses.

The only directions that are there, are the directions of the spatial motions that make the events that we use to measure the intervals between the other events. What’s there is the motion of light, the motion of atoms, and the motion of clocks, buses, and rivers. What’s there is the motion of the earth, and the sun, moon, and stars. And these motions are being counted, incremented, added up. We count regular atomic motion to use as a ratio against some other motion, be it of light, clocks, or buses. All of these things have motion, both internal motion and travelling motion. And all those motions are real, with real directions in space. But the time direction isn't real. It's as imaginary as a trip to nine billion.
Farsight
Thinker

Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

That's why the past is only in your head, in your memory, in your records. It isn’t a place you can travel to. It’s just the places where things were. All those places that are still here in the universe. And while the past is the sum of all nows, now lasts for no time at all. Because there’s no time like the present, and time needs events, and when you take away the events, you take away the time. A second isn’t some slice of spacetime. It’s just nine billion motions of light from a caesium atom. Accelerate to half the speed of light and a second is still nine billion motions of light from a caesium atom. But there's only half the local motion there used to be, because the other half is already doing the travelling motion through space. That’s why time dilates.

It’s easy to understand time dilation. Imagine yourself as a metronome. Each tick is a thought in your head, a beat in your heart, a second of your time. If you’re motionless with respect to me I see you ticking like this: |||. If you flash by in a spaceship, I see you ticking like this: /\/\/\. If you could reach c and we know you can’t, you wouldn’t tick at all. Your time would flatline like this ______ because any transverse motion would cause c to be exceeded. You wouldn’t tick for me, you wouldn’t tick for you, and you wouldn’t tick for anybody else in the universe.

That’s the thing we’re interested in. The universe. That’s the thing that’s out there, the thing we’re a part of, the thing we’re trying to understand. It’s full of motion, and this is what it’s like:

What can you see? What can you measure? You can measure the height. You can measure the width. And if it wasn't just a picture you could measure the depth. That's three Dimensions, with a capital D because we have freedom of movement in those dimensions. What else can you see? What else can you measure? You might imagine a fourth dimension, a time dimension. But the picture comes from the wikipedia temperature page. It’s a gif, a moving image, and in that image, those red and blue dots are moving. The thing you can measure is temperature.

Temperature is an aspect of heat, an emergent property, a derived effect of atomic and molecular motion. When you measure the temperature, you are measuring an aggregate motion. If you were one of those dots, you would not talk of climbing to a “higher temperature”. There is no real height. You can’t literally climb to a higher temperature. Hence we don’t call temperature a dimension. But people did. Temperature used to be called a dimension, but the word has gradually changed from its original meaning of “measure”, and is now assumed to be something that offers a degree of freedom, something you can move through.

We are immersed in time like the dots are immersed in temperature. It’s a different measure, but just as we cannot travel in temperature because there is no real height, we cannot travel in time because there is no real length. Because time is a dimension with a small d. There is no degree of freedom. I can hop backwards a metre but not backwards a second. Because time is a measure of change rather than a measure of place, and it has no absolute units, because you can only measure one change of place against another. It’s a relative measure of motion. The units are relative, and that’s what Special Relativity was telling us all along.

Special Relativity tells us that your relative velocity alters your measurement of space and time compared to everybody else. You increase your relative velocity and space appears to contract while time dilates by a factor of √(1-v²/c²). If you travel at .99c, space appears to contract to one seventh of its former size. So your trip to a star seven light years away only takes you a year. But physics is about the universe, and in that universe it took you seven years. The star didn’t become a disc because you flashed by. The space in the universe didn’t really contract because you travelled through it. But your time did.

Einstein didn’t quite understand the full meaning of relativity until later in life. He started off by saying there is no absolute time, using a postulate that says the the speed of light is always measured to be the same. But when he did general relativity, he said the speed of light varies with position. It it wasn’t until he was with Godel in Princeton that he really got it:

"It is a widely known but insufficiently appreciated fact that Albert Einstein and Kurt Godel were best friends for the last decade and a half of Einstein's life. They walked home together from Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study every day; they shared ideas about physics, philosophy, politics, and the lost world of German-Austrian science in which they had grown up. What is not widely known is that in 1949 Godel made a remarkable discovery: there exist possible worlds described by the theory of relativity in which time, as we ordinarily understand it, does not exist. He added a philosophical argument that demonstrates, by Godel's lights, that as a consequence, time does not exist in our world either. If Godel is right, Einstein has not just explained time; he has explained it away... (Palle Yourgrau, A World Without Time)".

And what he got was this: time exists like heat exists. It’s real because it does things to us. But just like heat it’s an emergent property, a derived effect of motion. It means time is not fundamental. It isn’t a dimension like the dimensions of space. We don’t see four dimensions. We see space and motion through it. The thing called c is a conversion factor, between the measure of distance and the measure we call time, and both are derived from the motion of light. It’s the motion that’s king, the universe is not a block universe, it is a world in motion. The worldlines are only in mathematical space, and in your head. There’s no place that’s the future, and no place that’s the past. There’s only this place, and the time is always now. We don’t travel in time at one second per second. We don't travel in time at all. To travel backwards in time we'd need to unevent events, we’d need negative motion. But motion is motion whichever way it goes. You can’t have negative motion, just as you can’t have negative distance. Just as you can’t have negative carpets. So you can’t travel in time. There are no time travel paradoxes, because there is no time travel, and there is no time travel because time is just a relative measure of motion. And motion is travel. You can’t travel through travel.

So those celebrity physicists who talk earnestly of time machines are wrong. Dead wrong. Not even wrong. And all those folk who puzzle about the beginning of time are chasing the wrong horse. There never was any beginning of time. Time didn’t start thirteen point seven billion years ago. Because time didn’t start in the first place. It was motion that started in the first place. It was a place, not a time. And it’s this place, the place we call the universe, marked out by every light path you can track through timeless space. That’s how far we’ve come. A long long way, in no time at all.

But now we can move on. Because now we’ve got the key that unlocks all the doors in physics.
Farsight
Thinker

Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

I'm John Duffield by the way. Look out for relativity+. It's a synthesis rather than something totally new. There's a heck of a lot of papers out there that don't get noticed.
Farsight
Thinker

Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainst ... ost1099278

So what got you banned?

EDIT: Ah, never mind, they have a handy little thread for their bannings: http://www.bautforum.com/forum-rules-fa ... og-23.html

22 November 2009

Farsight Suspended for 3 days for evasion and refusing to answer questions.

28 November 2009

Farsight suspended for 14 days (from accumulated infractions) for not answering questions, not defending his claims.

14 December 2009

Farsight Permabanned after repeated infractions of the rules culminating in big breach of Civility and Decorum in a Q&A thread.
fundamentals of magnetism

Post Edit by anontiseb: Sadly his lack of decorum was a result of thinking that quantum spin was angular momentum, and frustration as a result.
-anthem

Anthem
Philosopher

Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Farsight wrote:the interval between events is measured in terms of other events. And the interval between those events is measured in terms of other events. Until there are no events left, only intervals.

How is that?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Anthem wrote:http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/65487-relativity-3.html#post1099278

So what got you banned?
A winning argument. I was warned early on that when people at Baut can't handle some guy, the trick is to hurl a barrage of specious questions then ban him for not answering questions. I answered over a hundred, check it out. Another trick is to hurl abuse, then ban a guy for answering back. Shameful.
Farsight
Thinker

Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Sauwelios wrote:How is that?
If nothing moved in the whole wide universe, there wouldn't be any time. If you were there no light would move to stimulate your retina, no nerve impulses would move within your brain, et cetera. You couldn't see and you couldn't think. Clocks wouldn't move either. When you freeze the frame or stop the clock you stop motion, not time.
Farsight
Thinker

Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Farsight wrote:
Anthem wrote:http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/65487-relativity-3.html#post1099278

So what got you banned?
A winning argument. I was warned early on that when people at Baut can't handle some guy, the trick is to hurl a barrage of specious questions then ban him for not answering questions. I answered over a hundred, check it out. Another trick is to hurl abuse, then ban a guy for answering back. Shameful.

Hard to believe considering you did the same thing here that they accused you of: not defending yourself.

I did check it out. You only answered questions of people who either agreed with you or were too stupid to know the difference.

I see you also got pwned on PhysForum: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9493&st=15

Do I need to go find more?

EDIT: Another: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/show ... hp?t=28836

EDIT: Another:
http://hypography.com/forums/physics-and-mathematics/9504-time-explained-v2-1-a-23.html wrote:He supplements that with his "Motion: Explained" paper... another one with no maths and no testable predictions. Farsight has pretty much been debunked as a crackpot on every single science site on which he's participated across the web.

EDIT: Another:
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=45280&start=240 wrote:That is all Farsight does. He criticizes all physicists for being too dumb to see the truth of his nonscientific, hand wavy "explanations" for the way the universe really works. And when anyone complains about his complete lack of mathematical rigor he either tells them to do the math themselves and prove him wrong or that his approach is merely qualitative as if that is supposed to make his lack of any mathematical evidence for his ideas OK. He has even been quoted as thinking that his nonsense should be rewarded with a Ph.D in physics.

He is a classic example of a crackpot. He clearly suffers from a delusion of grandeur as anyone who reads his opening post of this thread can clearly diagnose. His logic is just as twisted as his non mathematical knots are and his instant dismissal of any criticism shows beyond a doubt that he is not a scientist. After all isn't half of what we scientist due is deal with critiques of our ideas, be them from a colleague or from ourselves?
-anthem

Anthem
Philosopher

Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Here's a funny recent response from Farsight, http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=235 :
Thanks. I do accept your point. But actually, I don't want to cast this as a coherent mathematical model myself. That might sound odd, but think about it. If I locked myself away and came up with something that really flew, every theoretical physicist in the world would then be redundant. It's too late for them to get involved once it's finished. Moreover they'd look like crystal-sphere fools, and the public would feel betrayed. There would be a backlash, and the upshot would be a disaster. I'm trying to help physics, not destroy it.
PhysBang
Thinker

Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Farsight wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:How is that?
If nothing moved in the whole wide universe, there wouldn't be any time. If you were there no light would move to stimulate your retina, no nerve impulses would move within your brain, et cetera. You couldn't see and you couldn't think. Clocks wouldn't move either.

So then there would be no intervals either, right?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Farsight wrote:If nothing moved in the whole wide universe, there wouldn't be any time. If you were there no light would move to stimulate your retina, no nerve impulses would move within your brain, et cetera. You couldn't see and you couldn't think. Clocks wouldn't move either. When you freeze the frame or stop the clock you stop motion, not time.

Actually it would be quite the opposite. Time does not require motion. If an object is at complete rest, then, in theory, the time experienced by the object should be at it's highest. And for an object moving closer to speeds of c, time experienced should be little to none.

You say time is simple, yet have no idea at what it actually is.

Xilivai Ferozix

Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Chatham, IL - USA

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

As to your colour example, you are going to have to define colour. Just because one area is being stricken by light and the other doesn't does not by any means make them the same colour. Perhaps you could shine some light on square B and then we will determine what colour it is.

Xilivai Ferozix

Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Chatham, IL - USA

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Farsight wrote:Let’s move on to sound. Imagine a super-evolved alien bat with a large number of ears, like a fly’s eye. This bat would “see” using sound, and if it was sufficiently advanced it might even see in colour. But we know that sound is pressure waves, and when we look beyond this at the air molecules, we know that sound relies on motion.

A bat does not "see", it senses objects using something similar to sonar.

Xilivai Ferozix

Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Chatham, IL - USA

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Sauwelios wrote:So then there would be no intervals either, right?
Like I said, the interval between events is measured in terms of other events. With no events, you've got nothing to measure an interval with.

Xilivai Ferozix wrote:Actually it would be quite the opposite. Time does not require motion. If an object is at complete rest, then, in theory, the time experienced by the object should be at it's highest. And for an object moving closer to speeds of c, time experienced should be little to none.
Imagine that object is a man. Why does a man experience time? Because things move. Light moves to his eyes, nerve impulses move through his brain, hence he can see the hands of his clock move. Hence he can experience time, and tell the time. Now make everything stop.

Xilivai Ferozix wrote:As to your colour example, you are going to have to define colour. Just because one area is being stricken by light and the other doesn't does not by any means make them the same colour. Perhaps you could shine some light on square B and then we will determine what colour it is.
Colour is what you see. And those two squares are the same colour. Click the link and check it out.

Xilivai Ferozix wrote:A bat does not "see", it senses objects using something similar to sonar.
The word see was in quotes to signify that it doesn't literally see with its ears.

Anthem wrote:Hard to believe considering you did the same thing here that they accused you of: not defending yourself.
You disappeared when I pointed out your frequency tautology. The physforum ban was when I was starting out, on Baut I answered over a hundred questions from all comers, Dawkins had issues with RDF, and two bans in three years is good going... and ad-hominems are no substitute for discussion.
Farsight
Thinker

Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

It's not an ad hominem. See my thread on the fallacy of accusation of false fallacy, specifically ad hominem.

If the whole world is against you, it's probably not a conspiracy. Showing other peoples' dissent of your argument is just research, something you've done very little of.

I didn't disappear, go check that thread, and you're so mistaken about period, frequency, and time it's funny. The fact that little 't' equals big 'T' is no surprise and not anything to get excited about, just for an example.
Last edited by Anthem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
-anthem

Anthem
Philosopher

Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Farsight wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:So then there would be no intervals either, right?
Like I said, the interval between events is measured in terms of other events. With no events, you've got nothing to measure an interval with.

And therefore no intervals at all.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)

Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist

Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Farsight wrote:Imagine that object is a man. Why does a man experience time? Because things move. Light moves to his eyes, nerve impulses move through his brain, hence he can see the hands of his clock move. Hence he can experience time, and tell the time. Now make everything stop.

It's not because "things move". Where are you getting this conclusion from?

Colour is what you see. And those two squares are the same colour. Click the link and check it out.

Colour is a thing that we see yes, but it's how we see it. Square B simply has a different shade then square A and that's because light is shining on square A. The colour of each square is still different and I think it is quite obvious to everyone.

The word see was in quotes to signify that it doesn't literally see with its ears.

But then you suggest that an advanced bat would see in colour using a similar thing to sonar. So which is it?

Xilivai Ferozix

Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Chatham, IL - USA

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Hey Xil, before you get all bent out of shape on the color thing, it's just an optical illusion and, for once, farsight is right. Paste it into MS Paint and do it; I did for funsies.
-anthem

Anthem
Philosopher

Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Anthem wrote:Hey Xil, before you get all bent out of shape on the color thing, it's just an optical illusion and, for once, farsight is right. Paste it into MS Paint and do it; I did for funsies.

What?

Xilivai Ferozix

Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Chatham, IL - USA

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

It's the same color. True story.
-anthem

Anthem
Philosopher

Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

The colour example shows how our vision is capable of determining colour in different circumstances. They are different colours if the same amount of light is shown on them. If you haven't, read the explanation to the example he has given.

Xilivai Ferozix

Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Chatham, IL - USA

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

Right right, that's true, and that's why the optical illusion works. I get what you're saying, believe me. But since this is an illustration and not a picture, he's technically right.

When you take away the surrounding colors, the true color of B stands out.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, this:

farsight wrote:What this tells you is that colour is subjective. It isn’t a real property of things in the world. It’s perception, a "quale", and it’s in your head. A photon doesn’t actually have a colour. It has a wavelength, an oscillation, a frequency. What’s it’s got is a motion.

...is bogus, you're also right about that.
Last edited by Anthem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
-anthem

Anthem
Philosopher

Posts: 2257
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Undisclosed

### Re: TIME EXPLAINED

If you turn out the lights in your room, does that mean that all objects in the room have the colour attribute black? No, we have no means to judge the colour. Think about it, how do we judge what the colour of something is? If what we use to judge the colour of something is absent, does that mean it is a different colour than what it actually is when light is reflecting off of it?

I understand the illusion in full, but what he is using it for differs from the actual purpose of the image, which is to show how advanced our vision system is.

Xilivai Ferozix

Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: Chatham, IL - USA

Next