Time Explained

[arkain101]

Two times arkain? I was rather thinking we ended up with none!

 

Fundamentally we do end up with none, but relative to our human consciousness and the physics we have developed based upon it, we have two.

 

We are still on the same base.

[Boerseun]

Boerseun/Tormod/Anybody:

 

How's the TIME EXPLAINED essay looking? I've put it on some other forums, and from what I'm seeing some people think it's great, others just don't get it, and others sneer and call me names. But nobody has pointed out the flaw, fatal or otherwise. Nobody can bust it.

 

What say ye? Does it sound better after a second reading? Does it now feel right? Am I kidding myself or what?

I've read it now for the third time, and I'll refer you once more to my post #4 in this thread.

[Farsight]

All points noted guys. Thanks for the feedback.

 

I was rather hoping you were tossing and turning at night wrestling with this one Boerseun, but nevermind. Thanks all the same.

[Little Bang]

Well Pop, I quess it's turned into another thread where everyone expesses their opinion with out any empirical data, I, in my humble opinion, think you are correct.

[Vicarious]

All children should learn the basic lessons that you give in your article. I believe giving children the idea that, "most all your perceptions are really just different ways of looking at atomic motion," would allow for a more solid basis for kids to build their interest in science on. It's really a pity that I didn't learn that sound and heat are just about the same thing, and that they are illusory properties of human perception, until my 4th year of college. It's ludicrous.

[Farsight]

Thanks Little Bang, and Vic. Yeah, there's loads of obvious things that children just don't get taught. Sigh. But what really bugs me is how schools manage to make physics so bleedin dull. Well, at least in the UK.

[Farsight]

You know how I said in the essay "Did you know that smell is really shape?", and later on in the thread said look up Olfaction? Well, in my New Scientist there's this article about this guy Luca Turin who reckons olfaction is to do with molecular vibration, not molecular shape.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225780.123-interview-a-nose-for-controversy.html

 

So if he's right, smell is down to motion too. Yay!

[arkain101]

of course it is.. everything that happens is due to change and motion, right?

 

However, nothing is at rest that changes, and everything changes.

 

But getting back to time, it can not be without as you said the ability to reflect up that change. Or recreate a present. that of memory.

[Farsight]

Remember the colour perception thing I used as an intro to TIME EXPLAINED?

Where the two central portions of the two crosses are the same colour?

 

 

I bumped into this colour perception site, it's really good.

 

http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~tcstewar/illusions/colour.html

[arkain101]

Interesting, but I have issues with these proposed illusions.

 

The colour we see isn't necessarily the actual colour that's there. The following images demonstrate this nicely.

 

Color is not something that is over here or there. Its not on an object. Its not part of the object. Color is in our brains, created by our consciousness, our mind if you will.

 

So what is seen is really all that can be seen.

 

What is really "there" is a countless amount of frequencies and intensities of energy.

 

I agree however it is true our mind can create images that dont seem to be there when the frame of refernece is removed from its surroundings and seen alone.

 

But, what if you took a picture of those images. I would assume it would look the same. If the camera records a picture the same as our mind sees the object, then is it us being tricked? or is it actually the only image that can be seen.

[arkain101]

For example;

 

The shades of grey are infact not shades of grey. They are a mixture of frequencies and lack there of frequencies. Black(no frequency.) /red/blue/green.

 

See in the image I took with a small lense out of a pen laser. Blurry but showing the 'colors'.

 

The camera also detects differences in shades and colors, it shows the same image as looking at the computer screen with your eyes.

 

be it they are the same shade, your eye is not recieving just that frequency. Its like paint being mixed on your retina. The frequencies(paint) form new colors when they are mixed or stirred together.

 

Only life can see. So what is there to compare to when we say, what is actually there. There is only what we actually see, and thats what is there is it not?

 

I do see what they are suggesting with these images. But when things are surrounded by other colors/shades, we should expect change.