How Does A Green Apple Turn To Red?

[pzkpfw]

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.

Sorry, what does this diagram show? Does it support your view, or contradict current science? Why are you not showing it?

 

And - if you have an alternate explanation, that fits in with your other ideas, why not present it?

 

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.

You have the idea to present; it's up to you to show why it's better or more accurate than the current science, part of that is showing why the current science is apparently wrong. So far, very very little of your ideas make any sense at all. If they did, maybe people would develop them.

 

It doesn't matter how sure you are that you're right. It's up to you to convince the rest of us. It is your work. Simply repeating your ideas is no use, you need to engage in good discussion. e.g. earlier on you brought up the "two people shoot each other at the same time" thing. I gave a detailed reply, but instead of developing that part of the discussion you ignored that and piled on to something else. e.g. your rejection of the use of shadows as a tool for discussion. e.g. your facile rejection of the diagram explaining perspective, coupled with an equally facile counter-explanation.

 

That kind of thing is not going to get us anywhere. It's why you end up saying "I am sick to death of repeating my ideas ...".

 

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.

Well, no one is objecting to the basic "gin clear" thing. I fully agree that the air between me and my monitor is pretty much "gin clear". I can detect no effect of the air itself on the light.

 

... but, it's your interpretation of what that means that nobody agrees with; as your conclusions are at odds with multiple experiments. e.g. the way sight works - photons (or magic elves if you wish) hitting our retinas to send signals to our brains. e.g. the speed of light isn't infinite, proven by experiment; ... so your simultaneous source/reception can't be right. I can see how you feel that it is, but that's just not reality. Actual experiments have shown this, no matter how much you deny their results (or even their existence).

 

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.

I'm off to bed. It's 10:45 pm here, and it's been a busy family weekend.

Edited June 26, 2016 by pzkpfw

[A-wal]

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.  

 

 

object a.jpg

:rofl:

[xyz]

 

 

Well, no one is objecting to the basic "gin clear" thing. I fully agree that the air between me and my monitor is pretty much "gin clear". I can detect no effect of the air itself on the light.

 

I am sorry for being brief and not having my full attention, I also have a busy life with kids etc, I will answer you properly when I can find some quality time to think clearly without the background noise and distractions. 

 

I will quickly reply to the quoted sentence though, understanding this is the key. 

 

Do you agree because you agree in the basic gin-clear, that you can see both clocks in this diagram , that you have a clear line of sight of both clocks. 

 

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

I am sorry for being brief and not having my full attention, I also have a busy life with kids etc, I will answer you properly when I can find some quality time to think clearly without the background noise and distractions. 

 

I will quickly reply to the quoted sentence though, understanding this is the key. 

 

Do you agree because you agree in the basic gin-clear, that you can see both clocks in this diagram , that you have a clear line of sight of both clocks. 

 

clcok.jpg

Your diagram doesn't actually show what's between me and the clocks, but sure, assuming it's vacuum, or clear air, whatever. "Gin clear".

 

So I'll agree that I have "clear line of sight" of both clocks.

 

(But, in case you try to sneak in something I didn't "agree" to, I'll note that seeing those clocks means light from those clocks reaching my eyes, through that "gin clear" area.)

 

 

Edit: disclaimer, you've drawn the clocks slightly differently (rather than copy-paste) and the two lengths are not quite the same. I'm not sure if that's intentional and I don't necessarily agree to anything you might say that that signifies. (Though I'd agree that the furthest clock, if any, would appear smaller, due to perspective). There are also two small marks, vertically aligned, below length A and another two below length B, but further right. I don't know if they are intentional either. Same caveat applies.

Edited June 26, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Your diagram doesn't actually show what's between me and the clocks, but sure, assuming it's vacuum, or clear air, whatever. "Gin clear".

 

So I'll agree that I have "clear line of sight" of both clocks.

 

 

Ok, it looks like I am now prohibited from uploading pictures, I was going to show you as well, we was nearly there. 

[xyz]

 

Ok I have managed to get it to post by reducing the size considerably, in this picture I have just changed the two clocks to digital, do you still agree of the above picture, that you can see the two clocks and have a clear line of sight to the clocks from your present seat position?

 

 

In the below picture, the clock at the top of the picture is not small , it is far away, do you still agree that you can see both clocks and have a clear line of sight?

 

 

12:00am

 

12:00am

 

 

 

In the below picture there is two clocks , one is near and one is far away, do you agree because of the clear line of sight, that when you see 12:01am on the near clock, you will also see 12:01am on the far away clock?

 

12:01am

 

 

12:01am

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

It's obvious that you're going to make a claim on the time shown by the clocks, but leaving that for later ...

 

... sure, I can see two digital clocks. One appears smaller, due to perspective, because it is further away from me.

 

 

(So far, you don't really need a diagram for that, but I appreciate the effort you're making.)

 

 

Edit: your post was being altered as I typed my first reply, so need to add this:

 

In the below picture there is two clocks , one is near and one is far away, do you agree because of the clear line of sight, that when you see 12:01am on the near clock, you will also see 12:01am on the far away clock?

No.

 

It's just not that simple, because light takes time to travel. What I see on both clocks at the "same time" as figured by me, will depend on how everything is set up.

 

First, let's assume the clocks and I are are all at rest relative to one another. That means we don't need to get into relativity.

Second, let's assume the clocks were synchronised, so both, in our common frame of reference, will always have the same time.

 

Now, because light takes time to travel, at the moment both clocks tick over to 12:01, light from those clocks showing that time begins to travel to me.

 

(Light was of course already traveling to me from both clocks, but that was before the clock started showing 12:01. We're using that time as the moment of interest.)

 

Light from the nearer clock will reach me first, light from the further clock will reach me later. So what time I see on those two clocks may not be the same.

 

If the two clocks were in my room, I wouldn't notice the difference, but if the further clock were 1 AU away (and I was looking at it through a telescope) then light would take 8 minutes to get to me from it. So by the time light from it arrived at me, which started from the clock when it showed 12:01, the nearer clock would be showing 12:09.

Edited June 26, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

It's obvious that you're going to make a claim on the time shown by the clocks, but leaving that for later ...

 

... sure, I can see two digital clocks. One appears smaller, due to perspective, because it is further away from me.

 

 

(So far, you don't really need a diagram for that, but I appreciate the effort you're making.)

good, your objective mind is thinking now. 

 

So if a Photon leaves the far away clock at 12:00am and arrives at the near clock at 12:01am exactly, what time do you see on the far away clock?

[xyz]

 

Edit: your post was being altered as I typed my first reply, so need to add this:

 

 

No.

 

It's just not that simple, because light takes time to travel. What I see on both clocks at the "same time" as figured by me, will depend on how everything is set up.

 

First, let's assume the clocks and I are are all at rest relative to one another. That means we don't need to get into relativity.

Second, let's assume the clocks were synchronised, so both, in our common frame of reference, will always have the same time.

 

Now, because light takes time to travel, at the moment both clocks tick over to 12:01, light from those clocks showing that time begins to travel to me.

 

(Light was of course already traveling to me form both clocks, but that was before the clock started showing 12:01. We're using that time as the moment of interest.)

 

Light from the nearer clock will reach me first, light from the further clock will reach me later. So what time I see on those two clocks may not be the same.

 

If the two clocks were in my room, I wouldn't notice the difference, but if the further clock were 1 AU away (and I was looking at it through a telescope) then light would take 8 minutes to get to me from it. So by the time light form it arrived at me, which started from the clock when it showed 12:01, the nearer clock would be showing 12:09.

You have gone back to subjective thinking and you was doing so well. Say what you see not what you think you know. 

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

good, your objective mind is thinking now. 

 

So if a Photon leaves the far away clock at 12:00am and arrives at the near clock at 12:01am exactly, what time do you see on the far away clock?

That makes no sense, as I can't see either clock until the light reaches me.

 

You have gone back to subjective thinking and you was doing so well. Say what you see not what you think you know.

No, your assumption that you see the far thing instantly is subjective.

 

Actual experiments have shown light to travel at a finite speed, you've even quoted it yourself. That makes it an objective truth, it's shown true beyond any personal feelings or subjective opinion.

 

Ignoring that, and going only by sight, that would be subjective.

Edited June 26, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

No, your assumption that you see the far thing instantly is subjective.

 

Actual experiments have shown light to travel at a finite speed, you've even quoted it yourself.

 

Ignoring that, and going only by sight, that would be subjective.

We were not discussing the finite speed of light, I know light travels and I know we need light to enter our eyes before we can see, I am not ignoring that, we are not discussing that at this point. I was trying to build a visual picture in your head of my thoughts by running through a few simple thought experiments of your mind. 

 

 

You agreed you see both clocks whether near or far, then you must also agree that you see both clocks to run in synchronisation?

 

(I am using digital clocks, the rate of time is equal).

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

You agreed you see both clocks whether near or far, then you must also agree that you see both clocks to run in synchronisation?

 

(I am using digital clocks, the rate of time is equal).

This is hilarious!

[pzkpfw]

We were not discussing the finite speed of light, I know light travels and I know we need light to enter our eyes before we can see, I am not ignoring that, we are not discussing that at this point. I was trying to build a visual picture in your head of my thoughts by running through a few simple thought experiments of your mind.

But you can't ignore it. If you do, you get answers that don't match reality.

 

Consider the speed of light, and tell me exactly why my earlier description is wrong.

 

You agreed you see both clocks whether near or far, then you must also agree that you see both clocks to run in synchronisation?

I'd see them run in synchoronisation, but only as in ticking over their minutes in synch. (As we'd ruled out relativistic effects).

 

But I'd not see them showing the same time - for the reasons given.

 

Admittedly, in day-to-day life, the clocks would always seem to show the exact same time. That's because light is so fast and we never look at clocks that are very far apart.

 

That's why human experience is a very bad way to make judgement on reality, and that's why science comes up with (repeatable, objective) experiments to disprove things.

[xyz]

This is hilarious!

I am glad you are amused, clearly you have no objective ability like Pz is capable of. 

 

Why not try to answer  the questions I am putting towards ''you''. 

[xyz]

 

 

I'd see them run in synchoronisation, but only as in ticking over their minutes in synch. (As we'd ruled out relativistic effects).

 

But I'd not see them showing the same time - for the reasons given.

 

.

Contradictory, re-think about what you just said, you would see them synchronised in rate and see them showing the same time because they were synchronised in rate. 

 

You would see them to show the same time, try it yourself using clocks in experiment, one near and one far, you can even use a clock that has seconds on it and the seconds will also be the same, use binoculars to see the far clock if needed. You will see the same time,

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

I am glad you are amused, clearly you have no objective ability like Pz is capable of. 

 

Why not try to answer  the questions I am putting towards ''you''. 

Because I'm laughing too hard.

[pzkpfw]

Contradictory, re-think about what you just said, you would see them synchronised in rate and see them showing the same time because they were synchronised in rate.

That's not contradictory. Running at the same rate may mean they have the same time at the same "moment" - but that doesn't mean I'll see that same time - because light takes time to travel.

 

Try doing the same experiment with two people clapping their hands in sync, one close to you, one far. Sound is much slower than light, so it may be easier to think about.

 

You would see them to show the same time, try it yourself using clocks in experiment, one near and one far, you can even use a clock that has seconds on it and the seconds will also be the same, use binoculars to see the far clock if needed. You will see the same time,

As I said, at any normal distance I deal with, sure I'll appear to see the same time. But that's not the reality.

Edited June 26, 2016 by pzkpfw