User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2015-09-16 at 11:52 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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.
-
2015-09-16 at 11:26 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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. -
2015-09-16 at 10:11 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
By that logic nothing exists.
Not necessarily. -
2015-09-16 at 3:40 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?Here 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 12:48 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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 11:46 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?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. -
2015-09-16 at 2:28 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
>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 12:23 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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 12:06 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?I 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. -
2015-09-15 at 10:35 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
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 10:19 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?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. -
2015-09-15 at 9:16 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I would say you have a much better understanding of this than most of the people in this thread, especially that dummy "thelittlestnigger".
That nigga doesn't even understand the difference between a rainbow and the spectrum of visible light. -
2015-09-15 at 11:43 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
wow man. You are a hardcore faggot.
Pick up a text book or learn some shit from the local community college (as you are obviously not smart enough to go to a real college).
All this "its inside your mind" shit is high level retarded and you should probably be euthanized.
No, actually the rainbow is inside your mind. Because it is an optical illusion.
Yeah, I know, light exists out there. Yes, those water droplets exist out there. Those are not a rainbow. Because a rainbow is an optical illusion produced when viewing water droplets at a particular angle relative to the source of light. So yeah, a rainbow does exist inside your mind. It has no physical location. A light source has a physical location. Water droplets in the sky have physical locations. A rainbow exists in your mind.
Dummy. -
2015-09-15 at 4:38 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
Can we pinpoint its exact physical location? No. Because the location in which it resides is in a spectrum of waves rather than in geometric coordinates. But from the fact that it is a spectrum of waves we can verify it exists objectively.
Now since you seem to not understand physics and its phenomena point out which part of the above explanation doesn't make sense to you and we can work towards making you understand things on a level that is slightly above your current capacity for retardation.
Actually, the location of the rainbow is inside of your mind. You see, the rainbow is an optical illusion caused by viewing water droplets at a specific angle relative to a source of light. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, maybe you're dumb? You seem to have confused individual rainbows with the visible spectrum of light. -
2015-09-15 at 3:13 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?A rainbow is an optical illusion:
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.
You obviously didnt read my or greenplastics post. A rainbow, as in a spectrum of light exists objectively.
If a rainbow exists can you pin point its exact physical location?
-
2015-09-15 at 12:26 AM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?
objectively means it exists whether you think it does or not. so the reasoning of "i see rainbows therefore they exist" would be subjective, not objective.
That's right.a rainbow is just the alteration of light waves by a certain arrangement of moisture in the air.
So does the rainbow itself exist objectively?
If you went to a movie theater and saw and heard a monster, would you say the monster exists objectively? Or is the monster just an illusion produced by the theaters speakers and projector?you also cant say "its just an optical illusion" unless you are prepared to start calling everything an optical (or some other type) illusion.
But it is just an optical illusion. You can't say it isn't unless you are prepared to prove otherwise. -
2015-09-14 at 7:35 PM UTC in Do rainbows exist objectively?Some people would say yes, because they can see rainbows, therefore rainbows exist.
Others would say no, a rainbow is just an optical illusion.
What is your opinion?
-
2015-09-14 at 12:12 PM UTC in The Universe and You
He didn't say anything in OP was incorrect, he said it was tedious and unoriginal, which it is. What does it matter if we're stardust or whatever? Why is the interesting and why should we care?
Why does anything matter? What is the purpose of all the stars and galaxies in the universe?
The good thing about this is the rest of the universe doesn't care about being original. The universe doesn't care if you're interested in it or understand your connection to it, or if you would rather talk about how drunk you got last night. The fact that you are connected to everything doesn't change. -
2015-09-13 at 3:57 PM UTC in The Universe and You
Why do we have to go into a forest to feel the 'powerful connection?' Why can't I just do it here in my apartment?
You don't need to go to a forest. But it can help sometimes to feel closer to nature. -
2015-09-13 at 3:45 PM UTC in The Universe and YouConsider how much air is not inside your lungs right now. That doesn't mean there isn't air inside of you. Nothing said in the OP is incorrect. The good thing about science is that it's true whether you agree with it or not. So, do you have a legitimate reason to be calling this bullshit, or do you just not like the idea of being connected to everything else?
