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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Nope. I’m right about that too. Light is just an electromagnetic wave with a frequency. The colour is supplied by your brain. This is why the bat is important. Imagine some creature that can see electromagnetic waves across a wider spectrum than we can. Imagine it can see ultraviolet light, and infrared. In its head, it would translate those frequencies into a colour.
The point is that colour is not an attribute of the sub-atomic world. Things are assigned the attribute of colour because light of a given frequency reflects preferentially. Something black absorbs light, something white reflects or emits all frequencies equally, something red reflects or emits Iower frequencies.
This example is to teach you to distinguish between your perception of things and what’s actually there.
You’ve got it. It’s really simple, but people persist in saying “time flows” and “we travel forward through time at one second per second”. Mind you, heat is a function of motion too, and we don’t say heat doesn’t exist. It’s an “emergent property”, and IMHO time is best described in a similar fashion. So time exists, but it isn’t some fundamental thing. We can’t see it, all we can see is space and motion through it.
Thats what Einstein said. I was talking about this elsewhere last night, so I’ll repeat it here:
