User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2015-09-16 at 11:38 PM UTC
Color is subjective, not objective. Actually, everything is subjective, and nothing in this world or in space is really objective.
Color isn't subjective because color is simply light of a specific wavelength and the wavelength of the color blue or red or whatever doesn't change with the observer. -
2015-09-16 at 11:42 PM UTC
Then, by "that logic", everything you know is subjective. It doesn't mean that nothing exists. At the very least your consciousness/sentience exists.
Bingo, that is the only thing which is real. All else is an illusion. -
2015-09-16 at 11:52 PM UTC
Bingo, that is the only thing which is real. All else is an illusion.
I don't think I can agree with you. First, I would have to ask you what does it mean to be real? What does it mean to exist?
What is an observer with nothing to observe? Do you believe an inside can exist without an outside?
I don't understand how I could possibly exist without some sort of universe or reality to exist in.
-
2015-09-17 at 12:41 AM UTC
Rainbows are light and light has mass.
uhh... -
2015-09-17 at 1:13 AM UTCLook you sons of bitches, I've been up for 48 hours straight studying about rainbows, and I've formed my conclusion:
Rainbows are an illusion; you couldn't grab one or touch one or hold one. Rainbows = Illusions. Do illusions exist, objectively?
The question the OP is addressing would need clarification as to what is actually being asked. Do the illusions of rainbows objectively exist? Yes. Does the physical embodiment of a rainbow actually exist? No. But just like ideas, something doesn't have to physically exist to... exist. It's the act of viewing a rainbow that makes it exist; viewing the reflection. Reflections exist. Is the person you see in the mirror real? Does it exist?
I'm just asking more questions. The answer, to me, is yes and no to all of this.
CONCLUSION: YES AND NO -
2015-09-17 at 2:29 AM UTC
Look you sons of bitches, I've been up for 48 hours straight studying about rainbows, and I've formed my conclusion:
Rainbows are an illusion; you couldn't grab one or touch one or hold one. Rainbows = Illusions. Do illusions exist, objectively?
You can't grab air but tornadoes and hurricanes kill and destroy every year. You can't grab the light from the sun but if I tossed you out of the International Space Station naked your exploded meat would cook to ash in those same sun beams. So yeah energy ain't real huh?
The question the OP is addressing would need clarification as to what is actually being asked. Do the illusions of rainbows objectively exist? Yes. Does the physical embodiment of a rainbow actually exist? No. But just like ideas, something doesn't have to physically exist to… exist. It's the act of viewing a rainbow that makes it exist; viewing the reflection. Reflections exist. Is the person you see in the mirror real? Does it exist?
I'm just asking more questions. The answer, to me, is yes and no to all of this.
CONCLUSION: YES AND NO
Don't let those imaginary sunbeams spoil your kitty's day sunshine.
-
2015-09-17 at 2:38 AM UTCYou think light has mass. How can I take anything you say seriously?
-
2015-09-17 at 2:44 AM UTC
You think light has mass. How can I take anything you say seriously?
If light doesn't have mass how is it's path bent by gravitational fields from from other stellar masses? Just like anything else in orbit. -
2015-09-17 at 2:48 AM UTC
If light doesn't have mass how is it's path bent by gravitational fields from from other stellar masses? Just like anything else in orbit.
Momentum, and stuff.
http://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/if-photons-of-light-have-no-mass-how-can-space-be-bent-by-gravity/ -
2015-09-17 at 3:07 AM UTC
Momentum, and stuff.
There can be no momentum without inertia and no inertia without mass. Gravity is the effect of two bodies of mass within a close enough vicinity of one another to attract one another. If light had no mass it could escape a black hole. Or are you now arguing that time has mass?
http://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-spa...nt-by-gravity/ -
2015-09-17 at 3:11 AM UTC
From 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.
So what quality of a rainbow makes it an illusion? Yes, observers in different locations may perceive rainbows that appear to "end" at different locations but why is consistency of apparent physical location the criterion for objective existence? If I wear sunglasses I'll perceive things being darker that people who don't. Are the sunglasses an illusion? Is the lower level of light I perceive an illusion (implying I don't, in reality, experience less light)? -
2015-09-17 at 3:14 AM UTCHey Lanny, I agree but fix the board. Pms notification all that shit is broke again.
-
2015-09-17 at 3:20 AM UTCWell apparently time is affected by black holes:
Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured byobservers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The stronger thegravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes.
This has been demonstrated by noting thatatomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times.
Are you saying time and light must have mass to be affected by black holes? Maybe not.
-
2015-09-17 at 3:23 AM UTC
There can be no momentum without inertia and no inertia without mass. Gravity is the effect of two bodies of mass within a close enough vicinity of one another to attract one another. If light had no mass it could escape a black hole. Or are you now arguing that time has mass?
Simply put, it's not gravity that is affecting the light that enters it, it is the black hole's literal bending of spacetime. Anything that travels toward the event horizon is ultimately moving toward the center of the black hole. -
2015-09-17 at 3:26 AM UTC
Well apparently time is affected by black holes:
Gravitational time dilation is a form of time dilation, an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured byobservers situated at varying distances from a gravitating mass. The stronger thegravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the slower time passes.
This has been demonstrated by noting thatatomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times.
Are you saying time and light must have mass to be affected by black holes? Maybe not.
nice pasta m8 -
2015-09-17 at 5:03 AM UTCHe pastes it without understanding the concept behind it. Its quite sad really.
-
2015-09-17 at 2:45 PM UTC
Simply put, it's not gravity that is affecting the light that enters it, it is the black hole's literal bending of spacetime. Anything that travels toward the event horizon is ultimately moving toward the center of the black hole.
Do they sell watches that tell spacetime? Your position on rainbows not supportable. One of these days people will start thinking for themselves instead of regurgitating things they've read without fully understanding them as if they are gospel.
The "science" of yesterday is disproven by the "science" of today just as the "science" of today will itself be disproven in the future.
Light has mass we just aren't smart enough to measure yet. -
2015-09-17 at 3:18 PM UTC
Do they sell watches that tell spacetime? Your position on rainbows not supportable. One of these days people will start thinking for themselves instead of regurgitating things they've read without fully understanding them as if they are gospel.
The "science" of yesterday is disproven by the "science" of today just as the "science" of today will itself be disproven in the future.
Light has mass we just aren't smart enough to measure yet.
I don't claim to be an expert, I just know how to review things and interpret them, and I'm usually fairly adept at doing so. Everything that people 'regurgitate' comes from one source or another, nothing is just created out of thin air. Your beliefs came from some readings that told you to question everything and think for yourself, or some such shit, and so that's what you're trying to do. Until science changes, and the facts as we know them change, what we know is what we know and that can't be changed.
My position on rainbows can absolutely be supported. I literally said YES AND NO to their existence. How the fuck can you not support that? LOL! They don't physically exist, but they do visually exist, hence the ability to take a picture of one of them, but yet you wouldn't be able to touch one. You are seeing a REFLECTION, which I said, reflections of course exist. You can SEE yourself in the mirror. The reflection of yourself exists. Does the person in the mirror EXIST? No, they are not a REAL PERSON. They are a REAL REFLECTION. The subject isn't as cut and dried as you may have it out to be.
Now, if you're so ahead of the science curve, why don't you write a fucking book instead of following spectral around here and REGURGITATING the same 2 insults? Honest question, Mr. Science. -
2015-09-17 at 3:34 PM UTCHah made you mad.
-
2015-09-17 at 3:41 PM UTCYou win. I lose. You're right. I'm wrong.
