How Does A Green Apple Turn To Red?

[xTcHero]

I do realize the discussion is about what subjective and objective is.

 

This discussion would never have started if you'd just find your answer on google, ya' know.

[xyz]

I do realize the discussion is about what subjective and objective is.

 

This discussion would never have started if you'd just find your answer on google, ya' know.

Hmm , the discussion is a lot more than just subjective and objective, the answers on ''google'' are what I am saying have errors.  

 

 

added- The objective mind experience is the visual experience we observe, any thoughts after that must be considered subjective and of the minds imagination and influenced on personal feelings. 

 

So when science tells me that Photons exist, that is based on personal belief rather than the objective observation fact that we see a Quanta whole that is ''gin-clear''. 

They can not say something exists without observation evidence that would be similar to religion. 

Edited June 25, 2016 by xyz

[xTcHero]

I agree that any thoughts after that are subjective unless we prove that it is true, but you really cannot argue for an objective answer without anyone actually researching this topic. That's why I think this is a rather useless discussion, because it'll get us nowhere.

[xyz]

 but you really cannot argue for an objective answer without anyone actually researching this topic. 

Sorry I did not understand this part

 

All I can say is look at the Universe with your own eyes and do not look through the eyes of ''giants''. 

 

You have been subjected by education the ''giants'' thoughts, it will be very hard for you or anybody else to consider anything else, that is why looking back to the beginning before science and having an ''empty'' mind, helps to build a picture of reality in comparison to the subjective history of thought. 

 

But of course I have said the above without understanding what you wrote. 

[xTcHero]

What I mean is that something objective is a fact; which it cannot be when it has not been thoroughly researched.

 

I agree having a open mind is important, and I do indeed have that. I, personally, believe we've all been brainwashed by the authorities, and are manipulated to think other ways than we're supposed to. I don't want to go in-depth though, as that would be far too off-topic.

[xyz]

What I mean is that something objective is a fact; which it cannot be when it has not been thoroughly researched.

 

I agree having a open mind is important, and I do indeed have that. I, personally, believe we've all been brainwashed by the authorities, and are manipulated to think other ways than we're supposed to. I don't want to go in-depth though, as that would be far too off-topic.

Thank you for clarifying your meaning.   

 

Indeed somethings do have to be researched and complete to be objective, but then there is other things that are self evident and apparent and axioms. 

 

If I personally think about space, I am instantly being influenced by my own thoughts and subjective to them, however If I do not listen to my thoughts and just say what I see which is totally unbiased by myself and objective, I see things rather differently to what science presently says with their subjective thoughts they don't really understand , not they do not understand their thoughts but they do not understand the subjective of them . 

[pzkpfw]

Clearly there is a problem in you understanding my sentence structure and are reading the sentences ambiguously. I know by your replies that you have done this. Also you are not being objective you keep resorting back to saying present information, that is subjective and not objective.

More language mangling. Ambiguity is about the content being open to more than one interpretation.

 

You have a very dishonest discussion style. You ignore detailed replies, and simply try to write them off as "if you don't agree with me, you don't understand me". Very weak.

 

 

Can we try this a different way ?

 

So you can totally ignore my detailed responses to your statements and just repeat your questions? Weak.

 

 

Can you imagine I and you are back in ''time'' before science and before any questions are asked about anything?

 

You know nothing at this point in ''time'' except for basic speech .

 

We both decide we want to start science, we will both be objective and not let personal feelings or thought influence our answers, ok?

 

You then say to me what is light and then explain you think it is made of tiny little particles and you will call them Photons!

 

I then ask you what is your observation and reasoning for this?

 

you reply ???????????????

Right there is where you go wrong on science. Nobody just said "there are photons" and everyone simply agreed with them. That's not how science works, so inventing a situation where you imagine I said that is utterly pointless.

 

 

Convince me with a solid argument because on the entire internet I find no solid evidence other than words of thought by people that is influenced by the personal feelings and history of thoughts. I ''see'' that if your ''evidence'' is flawed then it must be different to how it is presently thought.

 

The only evidence I could give you for photons is the science of the last few hundred years. Actual experiments, measurements, etc.

 

I'm not going to do your research job for you. Currently understood science is available - if you want your wacky ideas to be accepted, you need to tell us how that science is wrong.

 

 

p.s you never even asked how is the laser or a shadow evidence.

 

I was going by your previous posts.

 

However, why be so obtuse? If your laser or shadow provide evidence for your view, why didn't you just present those specifics? Just saying "they provide evidence", then expecting us to either accept that, or ask for further details, is plain stupid. And not science.

 

 

But please just answer the above for now please and then I will show the errors in your logic and experiments ...

 

Current science is out there for you to learn. I'm not wasting my time being your science lecturer.

 

 

... and then go on to tell you the obvious coupling connection and how space is the connectivity of your neural network.

 

Ha ha! And here we see why the pretence of "I'm just asking a question and have no opinion" was a lie from the start. You've developed an entire set of new theories based on your flawed interpretation of your perception, and you'll never let that go.

 

""connectivity of your neural network". Sigh.

 

 

But while you consider your frivolous litigation answer consider/imagine living inside a fibre optic cable that had a constant stream of ''light''.

 

A bit hard to answer a highly abstract non-physical hypothetical, but I'd constantly experience light passing me by. Any information in that light (e.g. change of colour, on/off state, would be reaching me sometime after it was created, due to the speed of light. e.g. when the light was first switched on, I'd start receiving that light in half the time that someone else in the cable twice the distance form the source would

Edited June 25, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

 

Clearly there is a problem in you understanding my sentence structure and are reading the sentences ambiguously. I know by your replies that you have done this. Also you are not being objective you keep resorting back to saying present information, that is subjective and not objective.

 

More language mangling. Ambiguity is about the content being open to more than one interpretation.

 

You have a very dishonest discussion style. You ignore detailed replies, and simply try to write them off as "if you don't agree with me, you don't understand me". Very weak.

 

 

 

Can we try this a different way ?

 

 

So you can totally ignore my detailed responses to your statements and just repeat your questions? Weak.

 

 

 

Can you imagine I and you are  back in ''time'' before science and before any questions are asked about anything?

 

You know nothing at this point in ''time'' except for basic speech . 

 

We both decide  we want to start science, we will both be objective and not let personal feelings or thought influence our answers, ok?

  

You then say to me what is light and then explain you think it is made of tiny little particles and you will call them Photons!

 

 

I then ask you what is your observation and reasoning for this?

 

you reply ???????????????

 

Right there is where you go wrong on science. Nobody just said "there are photons" and everyone simply agreed with them. That's not how science works, so inventing a situation where you imagine I said that is utterly pointless.

 

 

 

Convince me with a solid argument because on the entire internet I find no solid evidence other than words of thought by people that is influenced by the personal feelings and history of thoughts.  I ''see'' that if your ''evidence'' is flawed then it must be different to how it is presently thought.

 

 

The only evidence I could give you for photons is the science of the last few hundred years. Actual experiments, measurements, etc.

 

I'm not going to do your research job for you. Currently understood science is available - if you want your wacky ideas to be accepted, you need to tell us how that science is wrong.

 

 

 

p.s you never even asked how is the laser or a shadow evidence.

 

 

I was going by your previous posts.

 

However, why be so obtuse? If your laser or shadow provide evidence for your view, why didn't you just present those specifics? Just saying "they provide evidence", then expecting us to either accept that, or ask for further details, is plain stupid. And not science.

 

 

 

But please just answer the above for now please and then I will show the errors in your logic and experiments ...

 

 

 

Current science is out there for you to learn. I'm not wasting my time being your science lecturer.

 

 

 

... and then go on to tell you the obvious coupling connection and how space is the connectivity of your neural network.

 

 

Ha ha! And here we see why the pretence of "I'm just asking a question and have no opinion" was a lie from the start. You've developed an entire set of new theories based on your flawed interpretation of your perception, and you'll never let that go.

 

"connectivity of your neural network". Sigh.

 

 

 

But while you consider your frivolous  litigation answer consider/imagine living inside a fibre optic cable that had a constant stream of ''light''.

 

 

A bit hard to answer a highly abstract non-physical hypothetical, but I'd constantly experience light passing me by. Any information in that light (e.g. change of colour, on/off state, would be reaching me sometime after it was created, due to the speed of light. e.g. when the light was first switched on, I'd start receiving that light in half the time that someone else in the cable twice the distance form the source would.

 

'''The only evidence I could give you for photons is the science of the last few hundred years. Actual experiments, measurements, etc.''

 

Measurements really?

 

actual experiments ?  really ?  there is no experiment that shows a single photon it is a theory and not fact.   

 

 

What experiments show a Photon exists?, I await with baited breath.   

 

 

''However, why be so obtuse? If your laser or shadow provide evidence for your view, why didn't you just present those specifics? Just saying "they provide evidence", then expecting us to either accept that, or ask for further details, is plain stupid. And not science.''

 

You want me to give all my thought away so it can be plagiarism by somebody?

Edited June 25, 2016 by xyz

[xyz]

Ok let us discuss some objective science, look at the diagram below, 

 

Both A and B are equal in size. 

 

If it were true that we receive information of an object by a wave packet of a photon, then we would view all objects to be the same size and not notice visual down-scaling and up-scaling differences when increasing an objects visual line of sight radius.  

 

 

Edited June 25, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

If it were true that we receive information of an object by a wave packet of a photon, then we would view all objects to be the same size and not notice visual down-scaling and up-scaling differences when increasing an objects visual line of sight radius.

Rubbish. You clearly don't understand perspective. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_(visual) )

 

We don't see an object by a single photon. Photons are coming from all parts of the object, each giving us little bits of information about the whole object. Things that a further away will seem smaller due to perspective, essentially, a smaller visual angle is needed to contain the light coming from that object.

 

In the pic: objects A and B are the same size. B is further away. Light reaching us from the left and right sides of the objects naturally extend a smaller angle ( d ) from the further object than the nearer object ( c ).

 

In turn that means the further object occupies a smaller ( b ) amount of our field of view than the nearer object ( a ). So more distant objects appear smaller.

 

That's one of the clues used by our brain to interpret distance from what we see. The photons hit our eyes here, but that lets us interpret what's out there.

Edited June 25, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Rubbish. You clearly don't understand perspective.

 

We don't see an object by a single photon. Photons are coming from all parts of the object, each giving us little bits of information about the whole object. Things that a further away will seem smaller due to perspective, essentially, a smaller visual angle is needed to contain the light coming from that object.

 

In the pic: objects A and B are the same size. B is further away. Light reaching us from the left and right sides of the objects naturally extend a smaller angle (d)from the further object than the nearer object ©.

 

In turn that means the further object occupies a smaller ( :cool: amount of our field of view than the nearer object (a). So more distant objects appear smaller.

 

That's one of the clues used by our brain to interpret distance from what we see. The photons hit our eyes here, but that lets us interpret what's out there.

You are actually drawing those lines from your own personal belief, I am quite sure you do not observe actual lines and an inverse square law. 

 

The objects visual angle contracts to a 0 angle and a singularity the greater the radius of line of sight, the area of light of the object visually contracts also in the same process, you see objects in their exact location, this is provable by walking over to the object. We also see colour in its exact location, anything that contravenes this , is pure fabrication and subjective  and not of the observation we all observe, 

[pzkpfw]

You are actually drawing those lines from your own personal belief, I am quite sure you do not observe actual lines and an inverse square law.

You've gone from weak to super weak. Jumped the shark, perhaps.

 

In what way was your diagram different? How is your criticism not applicable to your own diagram?

 

The objects visual angle contracts to a 0 angle and a singularity the greater the radius of line of sight, ...

At infinite distance, yes.

 

... the area of light of the object visually contracts also in the same process, ...

Yes. No wonder a light bulb very far from you doesn't give you much illumination.

 

... you see objects in their exact location, this is provable by walking over to the object. ...

More or less, yes. My diagram doesn't dispute that.

 

... We also see colour in its exact location, anything that contravenes this , is pure fabrication and subjective  and not of the observation we all observe,

More or less, yes. My diagram doesn't dispute that.

 

 

What's the explanation for the apparent smaller size of distant objects in your universe?

 

 

 

P.S.

[xyz]

You've gone from weak to super weak. Jumped the shark, perhaps.

 

In what way was your diagram different? How is your criticism not applicable to your own diagram?

 

 

At infinite distance, yes.

 

 

Yes. No wonder a light bulb very far from you doesn't give you much illumination.

 

 

More or less, yes. My diagram doesn't dispute that.

 

 

More or less, yes. My diagram doesn't dispute that.

 

 

What's the explanation for the apparent smaller size of distant objects in your universe?

 

 

 

P.S.

The difference is my diagrams are surrounded by a Quanta whole and does not need lines because we can see through the space. 

 

''What's the explanation for the apparent smaller size of distant objects in your universe? ''

 

 

poor magnification by sight, adjustable magnification , I am not sure , in your terms it is an inverse square law collapse to zero visual angle .

 

added - the resolution decreases 

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

The difference is my diagrams are surrounded by a Quanta whole and does not need lines because we can see through the space.

Your diagram doesn't show (nor have you proven) any "quanta whole".

 

It's clear from shadows that light travels in a direction. Lines on a diagram show what direction light is travelling in, for that diagram. Very very simple.

 

That we can "see through space" doesn't make your diagram accurate in any way to show why distant objects appear smaller.

 

''What's the explanation for the apparent smaller size of distant objects in your universe? ''

  

poor magnification by sight, adjustable magnification , I am not sure , in your terms it is an inverse square law collapse to zero visual angle .

 

added - the resolution decreases 

So how's your description really different to the explanation of perspective? How can you write-off perspective when you have no clear alternative?

 

 

 

P.S. Can you please learn how to use quote tags? It's painful enough replying to you, without having to edit and re-edit replies to you, when you do your weird personal mangling of posts.

Edited June 26, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

-

 

 

Your diagram doesn't show (nor have you proven) any "quanta whole".

 

My diagram was not meant to prove a Quanta whole, however proof is not needed because it is an observation  fact once one admits to observing gin-clear space! 

 

 

 

It's clear from shadows that light travels in a direction. Lines on a diagram show what direction light is travelling in, for that diagram. Very very simple.

 

Ok if you must talk about shadows to rack my brain, you can observe a shadow a distance away from you, you will notice the shadow is surrounded by the quanta whole. Photons from the objects in shadow , well what do you think they dim down while travelling to give you a shadow view ?

 

 

That we can "see through space" doesn't make your diagram accurate in any way to show why distant objects appear smaller.

 

Your brain makes them appear smaller, it is nothing to with light it is an illusion of the brain. 
 
 

 

So how's your description really different to the explanation of perspective? How can you write-off perspective when you have no clear alternative?

 

I do not understand the question sorry. 



 

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

My diagram was not meant to prove a Quanta whole, however proof is not needed because it is an observation fact once one admits to observing gin-clear space!

So what was the point of your diagram? You say it doesn't prove anything, then assert that you're right so your claim doesn't need to be proven. We all acknowledge distant objects appear smaller.

 

You are so far from "doing science" it's laughable.

 

Ok if you must talk about shadows to rack my brain, you can observe a shadow a distance away from you, you will notice the shadow is surrounded by the quanta whole. Photons from the objects in shadow , well what do you think they dim down while travelling to give you a shadow view ?

Again, with your "quanta whole". You need to define this, then provide evidence for it, before there's any point sticking it into discussion.

 

Your comment here is verging on gibberish (you didn't answer if English was your first language) but ... do you really not understand shadows? Objects that are not transparent, block light. So in an area illuminated by something, anything blocking that light will obviously be darker, as it can't directly reflect some of that light to you.

 

If that light source is the only light source, and the general environment doesn't reflect much, then the shadow will be pitch black. But in general we're never in that situation, there's usually another light source, or something (general "stuff") reflecting light around, so the shadow will be dimmer but not necessarily pitch black.

 

e.g. in a room illuminated by a single lamp, a blockage (like a couch) will create a shadow, but that shadow is unlikely to be pitch black because the walls, the furniture, you, all contribute to spreading light around the room, and things in the shadow may not be directly illuminated by the light source, but will be receiving ambient light. (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Available_light ).

 

Your brain makes them appear smaller, it is nothing to with light it is an illusion of the brain.

Why? How do you explain this? My diagram with the lines showing light paths is the currently accepted explanation for perspective. Why does your "just so" explanation trump that?

 

I do not understand the question sorry.

Your denial of the perspective diagram contained both agreement with parts of it, and lack of support for your own alternate view. So I was asking you to clarify.

[xyz]

So what was the point of your diagram? You say it doesn't prove anything, then assert that you're right so your claim doesn't need to be proven. We all acknowledge distant objects appear smaller.

 

You are so far from "doing science" it's laughable.

 

 

Again, with your "quanta whole". You need to define this, then provide evidence for it, before there's any point sticking it into discussion.

 

Your comment here is verging on gibberish (you didn't answer if English was your first language) but ... do you really not understand shadows? Objects that are not transparent, block light. So in an area illuminated by something, anything blocking that light will obviously be darker, as it can't directly reflect some of that light to you.

 

If that light source is the only light source, and the general environment doesn't reflect much, then the shadow will be pitch black. But in general we're never in that situation, there's usually another light source, or something (general "stuff") reflecting light around, so the shadow will be dimmer but not necessarily pitch black.

 

e.g. in a room illuminated by a single lamp, a blockage (like a couch) will create a shadow, but that shadow is unlikely to be pitch black because the walls, the furniture, you, all contribute to spreading light around the room, and things in the shadow may not be directly illuminated by the light source, but will be receiving ambient light. (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Available_light ).

 

 

Why? How do you explain this? My diagram with the lines showing light paths is the currently accepted explanation for perspective. Why does your "just so" explanation trump that?

 

 

Your denial of the perspective diagram contained both agreement with parts of it, and lack of support for your own alternate view. So I was asking you to clarify.

I know what a shadow is and I already know what you are saying because most of it is on the internet and any individual can look it up.   If I wanted to speak in terms of present information I would show you a diagram that breaks the inverse square law already admitted elsewhere. 

However after several years or so at this, I am sick to death of repeating my ideas and do  feel I am just the ''fun toy'' for science to keep them amused on their forums. 

For some reason people think I can explain everything to my ideas leaving them no work. 

 

 

My premise for argument is the objective view of seeing gin-clear, the rudiment of evidence that all observers who can see must agree on. 

 

I will return later to answer the rest of your questions, I have an hang over from getting drunk which I don't normally do.