Maybe it's not more of a solid, real thing than your perception of colours.

Colors are far from a perception. Time is a measurement, just like distance. If you really think about it a meter is rather arbitrary and it's a quantification to allow us to understand it. Time is the same thing. What people confuse about it, unlike a distance, is it is not a physical thing.

Because we labeled it and gave it a measurement, people think of it differently.

But colors are not a perception, perhaps the detail of them is, though (as if people had a fourth color band they would see differences in colors, as far as I know, there's only two women on the planet that have them.)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

All sorts of light is sent and reflected. Evolution has slowly filtered out the noise to concentrate on a small band of wavelengths that seem to be frequent, but distinct from material to material. After our eyes adapted to the world to be most advantageous, we then began adapting the world to be most advantageous to our eyes (for example: which materials we use for artificial illumination). But colors aren't real. There's no such thing as 'red'. There is such thing is light waves with a wavelength of 710 nm. We've merely categorized the noise. But without eyes, the difference between red and purple is completely unimportant.

The scientific rule "energy can't be created or destroyed" is false. And I am going to prove it maybe in a few hours to you guys. But first, I want to know if anyone else thinks this rule is false, or if anybody stands by it and says I am wrong. Speak now.

---

Aaron's Stuff

The scientific rule "energy can't be created or destroyed" is false. And I am going to prove it maybe in a few hours to you guys. But first, I want to know if anyone else thinks this rule is false, or if anybody stands by it and says I am wrong. Speak now.

I don't know whether or not that is true, but what answer you get depends on who u talk to. Some believe mater is crushed out of existence by black holes. (but it still existence in other parallel universes(confusing))

---

Reality has become a commodity.

Its like a huge law in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy said:
Energy is converted from one form to another, but it is never created or destroyed

This law is false, and I can prove it. Who else thinks I am wrong or is with me?

---

Aaron's Stuff

All sorts of light is sent and reflected. Evolution has slowly filtered out the noise to concentrate on a small band of wavelengths that seem to be frequent, but distinct from material to material. After our eyes adapted to the world to be most advantageous, we then began adapting the world to be most advantageous to our eyes (for example: which materials we use for artificial illumination). But colors aren't real. There's no such thing as 'red'. There is such thing is light waves with a wavelength of 710 nm. We've merely categorized the noise. But without eyes, the difference between red and purple is completely unimportant.

So, you're saying that if we label something the label which represents that something is meaningless? :rolleyes: No, it represents what you've labeled. That's like saying nothing has weight, because that's just a word to describe the force of an object.

These are abstract things we commonly label so we can use them.

If everything is caused by something else, then nothing means anything except for the abstract idea, something, as a species, we cannot communicate natively. And, what light is reflected from an object (indicating the color) has a lot more to do with the material of the object and it's speed more than anything else ... a color indicated all these pieces of data and is a reaction. While the labeling of "red" is arbitrary, it is just a label, it doesn't mean what it is labeling is not a real thing. Just because there are more things in the spectrum, doesn't mean the ones you can readily detect aren't real.

Aaron, you cannot prove it. No one can.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

The problem with the law energy can't be created or destroyed is that it contradicts some facts about our universe that we already know. If energy cant be created, it cant be created. Its impossible for energy to be created or be created by anything under any circumstances, there for energy shouldn't exist, but it does. So than, how did it get here? What happened if we trace an "energy" all the way back, how far would we go. If the energy law is correct, than we would go back infinite, or the energy was never created in the first place, but than how does the energy exist.

Just ask yourself, forget all the rules you know, is it possible, maybe under rare conditions, for energy to be created out of nothing or for energy to be "amplified".

---

Aaron's Stuff

Aaron, I think you might be getting a little ahead of yourself...

Cash Car, there is such a thing as red- the conscious experience of it, at least. And that conscious experience is a real, solid, existing thing, that is different to just the description of it. Maybe if you were describing how a computer deals with red, yeah maybe, but from what people describe of their experience of consciousness, it seems pretty apparent that humans don't process information in the same, non-consciousness experiencing way as computers. Nobody has a clue how the brain works, really. I mean, not at the core level i.e. being able to make one from scratch.

Some things are because they are. Like a volcano or a platypus or a hula hoop or a midget. Some things are because we name them. Like red or love or enmity or truth.

Oh, and I know how to make a brain from scratch. "And for this trick, may I present my lovely assistant..."

Its impossible for energy to be created or be created by anything under any circumstances, there for energy shouldn't exist, but it does. So than, how did it get here?

Arron.... How can I really put this.... First off lets send you one of the leading theories of our century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory

Really wikipedia is only scratching the surface of what string theory is, and it condenses it into a 'readers digest' version for someone without the physics/chemistry background that you lack to understand. Some day when you go to school or a university beyond high school you'll learn that wikipedia is one of the WORST places to site your information, because frankly at its core is information that anyone can alter.

Anyways back to the topic at hand: Lets just say that string theory is our leading theory for creation/big bang. In order for it to work we need 26 extra dimensions! Our minds cant even comprehend anything above 3 let alone 4. Point is I think our primitive human brain can't comprehend creation, the sheer notion of infinity is daunting ex: the universe is infinitely long, but not infinitely big, it loops back upon itself.... see what I mean?

Point is arron, I really don't think your statement is really based in reality.... in fact its not based on anything.

---

Posting And You

Anyways back to the topic at hand: Lets just say that string theory is our leading theory for creation/big bang. In order for it to work we need 26 extra dimensions! Our minds cant even comprehend anything above 3 let alone 4.

Has anyone ever tryed to describe extra dimensions in a tangible form? Is it a uncomprehendable shape or is it simply a 26 (i thought it was 11) axis system which takes some crazy math to work.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

It depends on who you talk to.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

RedWood said:
Has anyone ever tryed to describe extra dimensions in a tangible form? .

Hell, I cannot convince anyone here that "Dark" is as fast, or at least as fast as "Light", and thats something we all can see. I doubt very,very much anyone here can grasp something as unseen as other dimensions. :rolleyes:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Oh, not that s**t again. :rolleyes:

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

See? If this sites most educated dumb person cannot grasp it, how much of a chance do the rest of you have?

Dark may be the absence of something tangible, but it still exists and therefore is measurable in its non-being. :wink:

I have been here God knows how long, and have read some pretty far fetched things come out of you kiddies, and the theory that dark isn't fast is not nearly as "out there" and most of them. :rolleyes:

If someone as uneducated as myself can imagine dark racing up behind light in a race surely you brainy half twits can too.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

If darkness is independent of light, as you are implying it is, how do you measure it? It has to be made up of some sort of particle, since you keep insisting it has some sort of speed comparable to light. Oh yeah, I want to know what spectrum these particles are in too, for instance light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

You answer all of those things with convincing reasoning and I'll let it go.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono said:
Oh fine, I was going to tell you the reason why it does that, but never mind now. It's all important and everything too.

Adam, you seem to be under some impression that having a definition is a must. Sadly, that may be so, but just because there may, or may not be one doesn't mean that that is the most important thing. I'd imagine that the things in the universe that none of us understand would fill 1,000,000's of forums galaxy wide.

Anywho, if I (or you for that matter) were capable of proving that dark is unmeasurable and has no movement neither of us would be a member of a gaming forum.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • <----- You see that dotted line? If the lines were pulses, and the gaps were darkness moving in a straight line, WOULD THE LIGHT CATCH UP TO EACH OTHER AND FILL IN THE SPACES?????

Dark moves... PERIOD!

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

RedWood said:
Has anyone ever tryed to describe extra dimensions in a tangible form? Is it a uncomprehendable shape or is it simply a 26 (i thought it was 11) axis system which takes some crazy math to work.

I don't know about 26 dimensions, but this site makes a good attempt with it's flash presentation: Imagining the tenth Dimension. (56k user warning!) I don't know if this theory ties in with the overall String Theory. I'm not totally familiar with that one, but I have read a little about it.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Orpheus, this is what you get for that response: you really deserve this.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Orph-

You want to make a hole in the ground. Well you take dirt out to make the hole right? You just can't put a void in the ground, because void is intangible.

Redwood-

Sorry that was a misprint, 26 is merely the... how can I describe it...the "power" of the number of dimension. Aka: in binary we say 2ⁿ is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 128, etc... So when we say 4 in base 10 number system in binary it means 2². Kinda get what im speaking of.

Food for thought: Just look at how we count....1...2..3..4...5..6...7...8..9...10...
What defined the number system to add a second digit when we reached the number amount of 10? The number of our fingers was. Is this the most logical thing base to describe our universe?

---

Posting And You

No, it's a pretty stupid thing to do.

However, regardless of what main base system you choose for your mathematics, you could always be wrong. I mean, it's better than they chose base 10 rather than base 20, right? Base 10 is easier to conceptualize in most instances, at least for people.

All counting systems have number units, or placements, though. (Like the ones, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc, place)

By the way, your listing of binary numbers is not binary, it's the decimal representation there of. In binary there is nothing higher than 1 in single units, just like in decimal there's nothing higher than 9.

4 = 2² is decimal, in binary it's 100. It's also important to note that not all binary numbers can be expressed in powers of two in decimal, only the increasing placements.

If you think this conversion crap is interesting at all you should look at number theory ... it's not a walk in the park, but it's built on using multiple number systems and those systems should become rather arbitrary.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Adam I am just giving you a hard time because its fun. However, I do believe that we (humans) are not at a stage of development to positively state that darkness has no motion.

I do believe that it is possible that we simply cannot prove it one way or the other.

In fact, who's to say that darkness doesn't have a power source, that is impossible to determine without further scientific advances?

Case in point... I imagine that you Adam can name a dozen things now proven, that were impossible 100 short years ago.. And prolly a 1,000 things a millennia before that.

Anywho, I am convinced that something, SOMETHING limits light to 186,000 miles a second and that something is the resistance darkness imposes upon it.

If darkness was the total absence of anything, light could move unimpeded and who knows how fast it could travel.

Considering a simple thing like extreme cold can speed up electricity. Perhaps darkness has a similar effect/limiting factor.

And as I said, I just love ragging on you. Its even easier than doing it to Doc Rock... Only, you're smart and he isn't all that bright.. Two sides of the same coin so to speak.

Darkness moves! Period! Even if its only to move out of the path of light.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

...you guys lost me...

Adam I am just giving you a hard time because its fun. However, I do believe that we (humans) are not at a stage of development to positively state that darkness has no motion.
I do believe that it is possible that we simply cannot prove it one way or the other.
In fact, who's to say that darkness doesn't have a power source, that is impossible to determine without further scientific advances?
Case in point... I imagine that you Adam can name a dozen things now proven, that were impossible 100 short years ago.. And prolly a 1,000 things a millennia before that.
Anywho, I am convinced that something, SOMETHING limits light to 186,000 miles a second and that something is the resistance darkness imposes upon it.
If darkness was the total absence of anything, light could move unimpeded and who knows how fast it could travel.
Considering a simple thing like extreme cold can speed up electricity. Perhaps darkness has a similar effect/limiting factor.
And as I said, I just love ragging on you. Its even easier than doing it to Doc Rock... Only, you're smart and he isn't all that bright.. Two sides of the same coin so to speak.
Darkness moves! Period! Even if its only to move out of the path of light.

I agree that darkness as a idea travels at the speed of light but i don't think it is any form of energy/mater. I don't know what pushes light but in a vacuum i don't think it's being impeded by anything but gravity.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

I don't have a degree in physics, (or a degree in anything lol), but light has a speed and direction.. Isn't this velocity? That said, I'd imagine that whatever dictates the light's direction would also dictate the light's speed. (Even if it does remain constant.) What if light is projected differently in different parts of the cosmos? Could there could be stars out there that emit light that's slower? More dense? Just some thoughts.

And orph, a void doesn't exist.. It's a representation of non-existence that we can only observe through the contrast of something that actually does exist. For example, the spaces in your dotted lines wouldn't even be observed if not for the existence of the dotted lines. Through existence, we can observe non-existence. That's duality for you.

Oh, and hi. =D I'm actually dreaming up a very sci-fi explanation for the physics of the universe.. heh. Woooo!

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

like cold doesn't exist, it's only the lack of heat

---

i eat paint

Orph, I know, do you honestly think I'm oblivious to your intentions? This is why you got face palmed. If I honestly thought you were really trying to convince me there'd be a more concerned tone in my responses.

Light is a special case, guys. It doesn't have mass at rest which allows it to go the speed it does. In a vacuum light goes a constant speed (go look it up, I don't remember it right now) and only slows down (actually slows down, not perceived slow down) when it goes though other things, like glass or something.

The act of emitting light produces the corresponding velocity, as it's a byproduct of other reactions and produces other properties of the light because of it (like the wavelength ... or color). You can look all of this up.

Like fishy said, cold is a label for perceived low levels of heat. Just like dark is a label for perceived low levels of light. These things mean absolutely nothing by themselves because they aren't physical things. A photon physically exists, there isn't any particle that produces darkness ... like the universe would be really bright (to us) if it wasn't for those damn darkons. Heat is the same sort of thing (though that is not a seperate particle, but rather a measurement in vibration of the particles) As far as I know, we can't exactly nail down all the aspects of heat, sort of like we can't nail down all the aspects of gravity (primarily why it effects things)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Darkness, is the absence of light. Who's to say, that there is not a light, that is unseen?

No, I don't mean light that our eyes, or machinery cannot detect. I mean light that is black, hence darkness?

Taking that one step further, if light, seeable light were focused in a single direction and pulsed, it would form gaps.

Taking that one step further, this mythical dark-light isn't going anyplace before the seen light passes and is pushed and/or pulled along with it.

The darkness would be moving.

Hmm, you know, the hard thing about talking s**t is when you cannot even form sentences that form the same paths you want the light to travel upon. :sad:

Anywho, just because dark is consisted of things non-detectable doesn't in and of itself prove that its not there.

In the end one must ask oneself, if dark is composed of things unseen, how come there is so much of it AND in its non seeing nature, we detect it as being black?

Why does something thats not supposed to be composed of any elements have a color for that matter?

sighs

I am convinced. One day I will be vindicated and the majority of you will be sorry. Well, you'll know and sorry or not that will have to be enough cause I'll know you know. :biggrin:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Look, you're old enough that you can go and look at REAL data and explanations instead of this made up s**t. You have no evidence or reason to believe that dark is some sort of seperate particle or opposite particle of light. Where as, the opposite argument has plenty of evidence and reliability testing.

Pick up a junior high science book sometime, everything will be explained in the simplest of terms.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Orpheus said:
Anywho, I am convinced that something, SOMETHING limits light to 186,000 miles a second and that something is the resistance darkness imposes upon it

I don't think darkness slows down light. Darkness/Dark = 0 light. I don't think dark is a thing but rather as you said, an absence of light.

And just because light travels at that speed (186,000 miles) doesn't mean that anything is slowing it down, or at least darkness is slowing it down. Just remember light is a wave.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Adam, whether what I say pans out or not is irrelevant as far as this discussion goes if all you have to back your side up is some textbooks.

I'd wager that there are a s**tload of books on every sort of nonsense topic imaginable.

If ultimately it is in fact proven that dark is stationary it won't be within our life times.

I'm sorry if my reasoning offends your.... obtuse thinking, but its not about to change just because you're being difficult.

Sadly, its not my lack of faith in my belief system but my inability to articulate sufficiently well to sound convincing...

The only thing that bothers me has nothing to do with you, at least not directly. It bothers me immensely that I cannot seem to ever get my thinking down in text form. :rolleyes:

You on the other had can spout off some pretty convincing bulls**t. It simply rolls off your fingertips, AND I don't doubt for a moment that you believe most of what you type.

No, I don't believe your wrong, you just aren't completely right as often as you think. There is right, and there is dead right. Both are not always desirable.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Crono, you know it is futile to engage in academic discussions with non-academics :razz: I was wound up trying to explain to someone why the study of History is important, but the only counter they had was "but it's finished". Regardless of studying the subject for 6 years so far in total, I was "way off" and "wrong"...

I gave up in the end because I just got pissed off, to be perfectly frank.

Adam, whether what I say pans out or not is irrelevant as far as this discussion goes if all you have to back your side up is some textbooks.

I'd wager that there are a s**tload of books on every sort of nonsense topic imaginable.

Textbooks Crono refers to are more than likely academically approved studies/journals/papers which are accepted by the scientific community. People use texts because they prove that something works...

There are s**tload of books on nonsense indeed, but I can't see a heart surgeon utilising some kind of shamanic reference guide as opposed to say, a respected medical journal like The Lancet.

I know, Gwil. It's just ridiculous that he can't even discuss it. I mean, that's really all I asked about, hell I think an explanation on this "theory" he has would be hilarious.

It isn't that he doesn't "get it" it's that, his response to not "getting it" is a "well, whatever, but you're full of s**t, but never wrong, and always sort of right sometimes, I guess, anyway, this is all your fault" sort garbage. That's what pisses me off.

Just to note, Jon, if I try explaining something to someone, I'm never doing it to have some sort of superior feeling or try to influence my personal reasoning on people. I'm trying to make things clearer and easier to understand, you might not have noticed, but using phrases such as, "I think", "I'm not sure, but", "It might be light this" are all attempts to give what small knowledge I know about something in an effort to try to clarify something or maybe, possibly, entice that person to try to research the topic themselves.

But f**k it.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I've never gotten and feeling of superiority from you Adam...

gasps

Did I say that out loud?

/me giggles.

Seriously guys. When a topic comes up that I truly care about, you'll get an ear full. And, you'll be convinced, or at the very least, you'll be in a lesser position than you were when we began.

Gwil, I know there are books. AND I know that they are academically accepted. However what I said holds true in a sense. in times past there were academically accepted books that are laughable now.

As far as the dark thing goes. Who gives a rats ass. There is so much darkness out there that it couldn't possibly be worth anything so why get all worked up over whether its in motion or stationary.

In all seriousness, since you believe its full of nothing, you couldn't possibly convince anyone that it is not moving cause YOU cannot measure it. When you really think about it, I wasn't the one whom necessarily had to prove myself of anything. :rolleyes:

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I missed you, Orph.

I missed you, Orph.

I measured a unicorn once.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

I missed me too. :heee:

In all seriousness, its not reasonable to shift the burden of proof onto someone just to win.

I agree that there is a possibility that Adam is correct. He thinks that I am incorrect, so the burden of proof lies squarely upon his shoulders.

I'll tell you one fact however. Dark may not move, but when you fall off the top bunk in the middle of the night, it hurts.

Sadly, or perhaps not so sad, this connection is but temporary and with a week or so, will be gone. And I do not foresee another connection until they finally get DSL out this far.

Night/night all.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Dial-up, just adjust to it, you'll get used to it.

Back on topic...

I don't think dark moves. Why would dark move?

---

Aaron's Stuff

Orph (just read this kinda supports 'dark can travel')

I think your theory needs a little tweaking. I got to thinking of measuring void, even though you cant. And I was reminded of Dark Matter. Its hypothesized that theres Dark Matter that can't be witnessed or measured with electromagnetism (light, x-rays, etc.) but has an effect on gravity (and subsequently limiting the speed of light somehow). To me this is kinda some mumbo jumbo, but I think you could benefit from at least reading the readers digest version of Dark Matter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

(dare I encourage him?)

---

Posting And You

Never give up, Orpheus, never give up! :heee:

---

Why snark works.

The mystery's over. I created the universe. That resolved, we may now sleep until death.

The only problem I have with solipsism, would be where I came from, because I don't remember making myself.

---

i eat paint

You don't remember being born either, so you could've forgotten that you created yourself.

Then again you'd have to exist to create yourself, bummer.

We agree that our measurement of distance is a human construct, created to allow us some judgement of space.

We agree that the concept of 'time' is also a human construct, created to allow us some measurement of the rhythm of life.

We must also realize that the concepts of 'beginning' and 'ending' are no different - human constructs of language which allow us to quantify and measure these common phenomena in our world; the illusion of things starting stopping.

This language is a simple tool of measurement, is shallow, and should not be mistaken for the EVENT which we try to measure.

Look at even the simplest thing, a human birth. Where does that event begin exactly? When the child is birthed from it's mother? When it is a fetus in the womb? As a sperm fighting to reach the egg - is it not still beginning? And before that as two people bouncing around this world, still yet to meet.. is it not also beginning at that point?

Death is the same... has your life ended when your body no longer functions? Don't the actions of your life still resonate through the world through the people who knew you or the influences you had? This life is still traveling and living in some form. As you decompose and your minerals are absorbed by the earth, has your life ended, or is it still traveling through the plant life that its nutrients spawn?

My point is, with questions like these, you end up trapped, arguing about the flaws of the measuring tool - in this case, language. Language is a clunky, flawed system with which we (the experience itself, I may add....we are both the observer and the observed) attempt to translate and communicate our experience. You can no more succeed at that than you can bite your own teeth, or touch the tip of your right hand index finger, with the tip of your right hand index finger.

For those of you who like metaphysics, philosophy, relegion and discussions of this matter, I seriously urge you to look for some books, audio recordings, and video of the late, great Alan Watts. He is my favorite philosopher, and a great character from the 60's, 70's. (10 points to anyone who can find my alan watts quotes).

Here's a good video of his to start with.

part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aufuwMiKmE

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ8WeLrtFnY

If your reality is reliant on the existence of your concsiousness, and the existence of your concsiousness is reliant on reality, there doesn't exactly have to be 'birth' or 'death'. Solipsism sounds kind of unreasonable at first, but it's a valid outlook on life, to a degree. If you consider reality to only occur when observed, and don't believe in an afterlife, that would mean that there is no reality before or after your lifespan. I dunno where I'm going with this, though. Just turning my thoughts into words. =D

---

the players tried to take the field
the marching band refused to yield

So would killing a solipsist be proving them wrong? or proving them right? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The mind boggles.

---

o

Baron von Snickers said:
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The mind boggles.

Candyman, candyman... Its:

If a bear s**ts in the woods, but no one is there to smell it, does it have odor? Lets try hard to get our euphemism's right shall we? :rolleyes:

/runs

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I vaguely remember a quantum-physics example that questioned whether the tree would have actually existed at all, never mind if it made a noise or not.

Or that may just have been my interpretation.... :razz:

---

i eat paint

Isn't that reminiscent of "The cat in the box" thing?

Sounds like those academic types have a few screws loose when it comes to killing cats.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.