TIME EXPLAINED

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

And therefore no intervals at all.

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?

It’s the same color. True story.

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.

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:

…is bogus, you’re also right about that.

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.

Yeah, I edited my post. He’s trying to get into the subjective/objective conversation about color which is a legit argument, but his example doesn’t show what he thinks it does.

Yeah, I saw and agree. But more so I disagree with it being the same colour. In the explanation, they use a gray pillar to show that both squares are the same colour, but that pillar has the same amount of light hitting it in all places unlike the example. In my last post, I explained why this is false to assume.

Actually, Farsight is right about the colour thing:

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_proof.html

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/images/checkershadow/checkershadow_double_med.jpg

EDIT: Sorry, I hadn’t read all the replies yet.

It isn’t. And you did do a runner, and still had no response to my winning argument. See viewtopic.php?f=4&t=170466&start=50#p2117684. Would you like to pick that one up again?

Could you confirm this please, Farsight?

Hmmm… everyone seems to be disagreeing with something else. I have no clue what this is about, except the pretty obvious fact that time as such doesn’t exist, is only a function of motion.

So if a photon is measured near Earth to travel at a speed of 300.000 km/s, where the second (as defined) is x emissions, and then one is measured near Jupiter where a second is also x emissions, but on Earth, during the time of the x emissions at Jupiter, x+y emissions have occurred… what is happening?

If this frequency an atomic clock uses is variable with levels of gravity, then it seems that the speed of light is also variable.

Ha, yes, that’s a runner. For sure. You know lots of things.