User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2015-09-15 at 10:35 PM UTC
Why can't people discuss things without calling the person in which they're discussing names? When smart folk debate things they don't end every phrase with 'you stupid faggot' they state their point and wait for rebuttal. Like I said this is a tricky subject, but as I said too, at the end, you CAN take a picture of a rainbow and EVERYONE can see it, so it's hard to argue against that as objective.
You're right about that, good sir.
However, if you and I went to the movies and we both saw and heard Godzilla, and took pictures of him, does that mean Godzilla exists objectively? -
2015-09-15 at 10:42 PM UTC
Wow you are dumb.
A rainbow is the visible spectrum of light which appears in the sky under specific circumstances
The visible spectrum which is just the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye is a rainbow.
These things have different definitions but they are not different things. as the rainbow is the spectrum of refracted light. Im a dummy.
fixd.
Also learn what objective actually means before using it the wrong way. If we use the definition since both of you went to the movies and saw godzilla then he objectively exists. If you both went to the movies and only one of you saw godzilla he subjectively exists.
Definitions and sauce:
Subjective information is one person's opinion.
Objective information reviews many points of view.
https://www.lib.odu.edu/genedinfolit/1infobasics/subjective_vs_objective.html
so it follows that OBJECTIVELY a rainbow exists as many people can see it and SUBJECTIVELY you think they do not because u r dum. -
2015-09-16 at 12:06 AM UTCI have not once in this thread stated my opinion on the objectivity of rainbows. In the OP, I mentioned what some people would say, which someone already pointed out would be wrong, which I agreed with.
As for Godzilla, two people seeing a movie about Godzilla would not mean Godzilla objectively exists. There are no behemoth, fire breathing reptiles walking around earth destroying stuff.
The film projector and speakers causing the illusion of Godzilla do objectively exist, but Godzilla doesn't exist.
Similarly, the phenomenon of light refracting through water droplets being viewed from a specific angle does objectively exist. The droplets objectively exist. The light objectively exists. But the appearance of gigantic colourful arches in the sky are optical illusions. -
2015-09-16 at 12:12 AM UTCOh your are trolling. I didnt think anyone could actually be this retarded.
-
2015-09-16 at 12:23 AM UTC
Oh your are trolling. I didnt think anyone could actually be this retarded.
Well, you are retarded enough to actually get mad during a semantic debate on the nature of rainbows, and you clearly have poor athletic abilities since you were obviously confused about the difference between the optical illusion of a gigantic colourful arches in the sky and the very real phenomena that create these illusions.
So there's that. -
2015-09-16 at 12:45 AM UTCBlack holes are are a source of gravity on steroids. Gravity is like this. The more mass two bodies contain and the closet they are the more they are effected by each other's gravitational pull. So since even light can't escape the pull of a black hole with a certain vicinity the light must have mass fuck Einstein. Therfore since rainbows are light they have mass and exist objectively.
-
2015-09-16 at 1:06 AM UTC
Well, you are retarded enough to actually get mad during a semantic debate on the nature of rainbows, and you clearly have poor athletic abilities since you were obviously confused about the difference between the optical illusion of a gigantic colourful arches in the sky and the very real phenomena that create these illusions.
So there's that.
>implying im mad just because I use vulgar language and call you names
How new to the internet are you?
-
2015-09-16 at 2:28 AM UTC
>implying im mad just because I use vulgar language and call you names
How new to the internet are you?
I take that back. You were not mad. You're just a dumb cunt.
-
2015-09-16 at 3:57 AM UTCSays the goy who thinks rainbows aren't the visible diffraction of spectrum of light.
Keep it up man. Watching you make a fool of your self is good tiems -
2015-09-16 at 5:24 AM UTCfuck rainbows
-
2015-09-16 at 7:04 AM UTC
Wow you are dumb.
A rainbow is a colourful arch which appears in the sky under specific circumstances and is an optical illusion - there really is no arch in the sky.
The visible spectrum is just the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye. It is not the optical illusion of a giant arch in the sky.
These things have different definitions because they are different things. You dummy.
From wikipedia (yes, wikipedia is fine to use in this case, we're looking to get a feel for common usage):[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=14px]An [/SIZE][/FONT]illusion[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=14px] is a distortion of the [/SIZE][/FONT]senses[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=14px], revealing how the [/SIZE][/FONT]brain[FONT=sans-serif][SIZE=14px] normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.[/SIZE][/FONT]
So in what way is a rainbow a distortion of the senses? The light we perceive as rainbows really is hitting our eyes and is interpreted just as any light is. There's no slight of hand at the integration phase nor unusual signal produced by the optic nerve, we perceive what is there perfectly fine. A person might think that a rainbow has a constant physical location independent of the viewer or that it is somehow composed of a solid substance but that's simply a failure to understand rainbows, not an illusion. To someone who doesn't happen to know the standard planetary model it might seem like the sun orbits the earth or travels underground or something but this doesn't mean the sun is merely an optical illusion, it just means one particular person has created an incorrect mental model of what they've experienced. -
2015-09-16 at 11:46 AM UTCFrom wikipedia:
A rainbow is not located at a specific distance from the observer, but comes from an optical illusion caused by any water droplets viewed from a certain angle relative to a light source. Thus, a rainbow is not an object and cannot be physically approached. Indeed, it is impossible for an observer to see a rainbow from water droplets at any angle other than the customary one of 42 degrees from the direction opposite the light source. Even if an observer sees another observer who seems "under" or "at the end of" a rainbow, the second observer will see a different rainbow—farther off—at the same angle as seen by the first observer. -
2015-09-16 at 12:37 PM UTC
From wikipedia:
Rainbows are light and light has mass.
A rainbow is not located at a specific distance from the observer, but comes from an optical illusion caused by any water droplets viewed from a certain angle relative to a light source. Thus, a rainbow is not an object and cannot be physically approached. Indeed, it is impossible for an observer to see a rainbow from water droplets at any angle other than the customary one of 42 degrees from the direction opposite the light source. Even if an observer sees another observer who seems "under" or "at the end of" a rainbow, the second observer will see a different rainbow—farther off—at the same angle as seen by the first observer. -
2015-09-16 at 12:48 PM UTC
Rainbows are light and light has mass.
Better call Wikipedia then. The people need truth! This is a very important one! -
2015-09-16 at 12:49 PM UTC
Better call Wikipedia then. The people need truth! This is a very important one!
Wiki needs more truth than they have pages. Is that your source? -
2015-09-16 at 3:40 PM UTCHere is another persons opinion:
The phenomena which we call a rainbow, a colored arch formed in the sky under certain circumstances is not an objective phenomena.
Color is a phenomena of the mind. The phenomenon which we call Light is a very thin range of frequencies in the Electromagnetic Spectrum, and these range of frequencies can oscillate differently, our brain is capable of identifying between these changes in oscillation, and that mental differentiation of said oscillations is what we experience as color.
So since the colored arch is not independent of consciousness or sentience, it is not objective. The phenomenon which becomes the rainbow is, but not the phenomenon of the rainbow itself (the colored arch). -
2015-09-16 at 7:45 PM UTCBy that logic nothing exists.
-
2015-09-16 at 10:11 PM UTC
By that logic nothing exists.
Not necessarily. -
2015-09-16 at 10:46 PM UTC
Not necessarily.
Yes, all that we know is dependent on consciousness or sentience. -
2015-09-16 at 11:26 PM UTC
Yes, all that we know is dependent on consciousness or sentience.
Then, by "that logic", everything you know is subjective. It doesn't mean that nothing exists. At the very least your consciousness/sentience exists.
