Time

[usernamehere]

Thought i would post this here as it might interest some people. it's a document i produced discussing time and it's implications.

 

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1VRTIzMrgSsNGZlMDNiOGMtNTg2ZS00OGNkLWFlMTMtNTYzNDNlNzZhMjE5&hl=en

[Boerseun]

Hi there.

 

From your document's cover page:

“And this is to be a collection without order, taken from many papers which I have copied here, hoping to arrange them later

each in its place, according to the subjects of which they may treat.

If it's a collection without order, we can't do much with it.

 

From your document's very first page:

"Light can be defined as electromagnetic radiation that ranges a large spectrum of intensities a photon is the smallest packet of light. A small percentage of these intensities are visible to the human eye and interpreted within the human system as the colours we see."

Colours aren't different "intensities" of light. Colour is how we perceive different frequencies of light.

 

I did not read any further.

 

Thanks for posting your link here, but this is not exactly how Hypography operates. First off, a username with something else than "usernamehere" would be appreciated, and a first introductory post. Also, your document seem to need some serious elbow grease before you should consider posting it again.

[usernamehere]

I would consider intensity and frequency to be two seperate properties of light. the second of which is not focused upon. I have not claimed to be a writer or even a scientist, I am just a guy who found something interesting and thought he would share. take it or don't it doesn't bother me.

 

Hi there.

 

From your document's cover page:

 

If it's a collection without order, we can't do much with it.

 

From your document's very first page:

 

Colours aren't different "intensities" of light. Colour is how we perceive different frequencies of light.

 

I did not read any further.

 

Thanks for posting your link here, but this is not exactly how Hypography operates. First off, a username with something else than "usernamehere" would be appreciated, and a first introductory post. Also, your document seem to need some serious elbow grease before you should consider posting it again.

[Boerseun]

I would consider intensity and frequency to be two seperate properties of light.

Separate properties they definitely are. You're talking about amplitude and frequency, and you're assigning the colour property of light to amplitude, whilst it's actually what we perceive frequency to be. What you consider to be right is of no use in a Science discussion. What is proven to be right is all that matters. Sorry, but you're wrong.

the second of which is not focused upon. I have not claimed to be a writer or even a scientist, I am just a guy who found something interesting and thought he would share. take it or don't it doesn't bother me.

All good, all good - just take it as a bit of constructive criticism. You seem to have spent quite a lot of hard work on that paper, and I'm sure if you index the whole thing with a front page that might indicate where to find what, and you spend some time and elbow grease to verify your facts, you might even produce a document that might serve as a handy and quick reference. But as your document stands now, it is utterly useless to us nerdy science types. I mean this in the kindest possible way - if you're willing to spend so much time in manufacturing a document of that size and scope, you might as well go another few steps and make sure you get it right. Otherwise, it's merely a bunch of letters on my screen which don't mean much. And after coming across the first glaring error I will delete it off my computer and never think of it again. And there goes all your hard work down the drain. There's no point in working your butt off at something if you don't care whether you're doing it right or not.

[usernamehere]

Again I am no writer nor scientist, so yes I may not have correctly commuicated my point clearly and may indeed have made errors throughout. Perhaps also the heading of Light is incorrect as it is not the totality of the properties of light that I wish to focus upon but a single property. As far as the Intensity, Amplitude and Frequency thing, Amplitude from my understanding is a measure at a set period over a period, which is the construct of a frequency and therein lies my issue. Amplitude requires a frequency and a frequency must be constucted over a measure of time. Hence why i chose to use intesity instead as I am speaking within the confines of a single segment of time, hence no frequency and therefore no amplitude, or at least that is how i see it, this though is confusing i agree and perhaps I should rework the document to explain this point. the whole reason for the release of the document was to highlight a process that others may or may not have discovered, I guess sometimes I feel as the man in Platos cave and bare the same responsibility, the document is not my be all and end all just something i felt i had a responsibility to share. Anyway thanks for taking the time to check it out and provide some feedback, sorry it wasn't to your liking.

 

Here is an updated version

 

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B1VRTIzMrgSsNTgxYTFmODMtYThhYy00ZGY0LWE4NzYtMWQwYTk2MmMxOTAx&hl=en

[36grit]

fyi, the link is broke. I'd like to read your papers though.