Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

TIME EXPLAINED (v2.1)


  • Please log in to reply
244 replies to this topic

#18 cwes99_03

cwes99_03

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 1587 posts

Posted 09 January 2007 - 11:58 AM

Sorry dude, but get yourself the software and compare for yourself. I can create a flash demo that changes the color of an object as the colors around it change and then tell you that it actually is all happening in your mind too. Well, I can't cause I don't know flash, but I can create two pictures and then suggest they are the same color. Truth is they aren't.

BTW what is supposed to be shown in the above image. I'm guessing that the b and the a are actually the same color? because in the picture it says that the squares are the same color, and it is obvious that the squares are not the same color.

#19 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 10 January 2007 - 04:05 AM

As obvious as it might seem, A and B are the same colour, and you're still kidding yourself. You're kidding yourself about this picture, and you're kidding yourself about the yellow and grey on the first picture. Check out the echalk website yourself. Follow the illusion 2 link then it's illusion 1 to see the A and B squares image. Use the "swatch" to see for yourself that A and B really are the same.

eChalk: optical illusions

What's interesting about this is colour perception thing is that it demonstrates how people cling to what they think is the truth. It's similar with time.

#20 cwes99_03

cwes99_03

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 1587 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 08:28 AM

And you cling to what you think is truth as well. Since we are on equal standing on this website with neither one of us being able to tell which is clinging and which is not (except by the means I put forth of actually picking apart the picture with a photometer or a digital editing program and measuring the hue saturation and other color levels in the picture) then neither one of us can tell the other that they are wrong.
But since, I have suggested a method for testing, and all you have done is told me I am wrong, then I suggest one of us has a better method than the other.

#21 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 10:13 AM

As obvious as it might seem, A and B are the same colour …

… neither one of us being able to tell which is clinging and which is not (except by the means I put forth of actually picking apart the picture with a photometer or a digital editing program and measuring the hue saturation and other color levels in the picture)…

As hard to believe from the evidence of our eyes, what the picture’s author (Adelson) and Popular claim is true – the actual color value being sent to your screen is the same for pixels in square A and B is the same.

An easy way to verify this (I just did, since I too couldn’t believe the claim over what my own eyes were telling me) on a Windows machine is:
  • View the picture in you browser (upper left hand corner of you screen will save hassle in later steps)
  • Hold down the Ctrl key and press the PrtSc key to copy the current screen bitmap to the clipboard
  • Run mspaint.exe (or select “Paint” in the start menus).
  • Hold down Shift and press Ins (or click Edit, Paste) to copy the clipboard to the new drawing.
  • Click to select the “Select” tool (looks like a dotted-line box)
  • Click and drag over a portion of the A square in the picture
  • Hold down Ctrl and press Ins (or click Edit, Copy) to copy the selected region to the clipboard
  • Hold down Shift and press Ins (or click Edit, Paste) to copy the clipboard to the new drawing.
  • Drag the pasted region to an unused part of the drawing
  • Repeat steps 6-9 for a portion of the B square, placing the 2 copied regions close together.
You’ll be able to clearly see that A and B are the same color.

Unless you believe that mspaint.exe has hidden software to transform the colors copied via the select tool, this exercise is compelling proof of Popular and Adelson’s claim.

Color perception illusion are an essential, necessary feature of color computer displays, print, painting, etc. Nearly all TVs, computer display, for example, actually emit mostly (or, in the case of laser screens, exactly) photons of 3 wavelengths: 0.000000625 to 0.000000760 meter red, 0.000000520 to 0.000000570 m green, and 0.000000440 to 0.000000490 m blue. Our impression that we are actually seeing photons of many different frequencies is a perceptual illusion. Animals with eyes built radically different from our own might not perceive this illusion correctly, and be quite unable to use our color TVs and computer displays.

If you really want to bathe your retinas in photons of a specific color, you’ll need to use something like the refracted light of a prism. Your retina and brain, however, can’t tell most of these photons from mixtures of the primary RGB colors, so there’s really no advantage of “pure” of “mixed” photons for displaying colors.

#22 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 12:15 PM

Thanks Craig. The thing I've found very interesting about this is the "psychology of belief". To be honest I've found it rather surprising. In the latter example with the squares, people think the illusion is that A and B are the same colour. They don't appreciate that the illusion is that A and B are a different colour. I rather feel there are similar issues within physics. People "believe" in some idea or theory, but don't quite realise it how much of this is taken on faith rather than empirical open-minded logic. As a result they're far less willing to reconsider it than they think they are. For example, they will not follow the link and use the "swatch" to prove to themselves that the squares really are the same colour. Having said all that, I'm probably the same.

#23 niin

niin

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 16 January 2007 - 11:41 PM

If two things are objectively the same color, but you get more value from believing they are different.
Then it would be better to believe them to be different.
I think this is the reason why color illusions work.
Nature have found that it is better to believe the colors are different.

In some cases it might be better to not believe in a illusion, but i don't think this is true for all illusions.

#24 cwes99_03

cwes99_03

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 1587 posts

Posted 17 January 2007 - 09:23 AM

As hard to believe from the evidence of our eyes, what the picture’s author (Adelson) and Popular claim is true – the actual color value being sent to your screen is the same for pixels in square A and B is the same.

An easy way to verify this (I just did, since I too couldn’t believe the claim over what my own eyes were telling me) on a Windows machine is:

  • View the picture in you browser (upper left hand corner of you screen will save hassle in later steps)
  • Hold down the Ctrl key and press the PrtSc key to copy the current screen bitmap to the clipboard
  • Run mspaint.exe (or select “Paint” in the start menus).
  • Hold down Shift and press Ins (or click Edit, Paste) to copy the clipboard to the new drawing.
  • Click to select the “Select” tool (looks like a dotted-line box)
  • Click and drag over a portion of the A square in the picture
  • Hold down Ctrl and press Ins (or click Edit, Copy) to copy the selected region to the clipboard
  • Hold down Shift and press Ins (or click Edit, Paste) to copy the clipboard to the new drawing.
  • Drag the pasted region to an unused part of the drawing
  • Repeat steps 6-9 for a portion of the B square, placing the 2 copied regions close together.
You’ll be able to clearly see that A and B are the same color.

Unless you believe that mspaint.exe has hidden software to transform the colors copied via the select tool, this exercise is compelling proof of Popular and Adelson’s claim.


First, I did not say that the picture of the checkerboard with an A and a B are not the same. I said that you cannot prove it without using a method that actually selects the sample and gives you a numerical reading of the picture.

The method you have prescribed here still only leaves you a perception of the two colors and not an accurate numerical analysis of them. For this you need a program better than paint. A program that can give you a precise measurement of the two samples and tell you with certainty what the color of the two images are.

The original post of this thread shows an illusion of two objects each with a yellow (or was it grey) center piece. However, each object has been screened by a film of colored material (one yellow, one blue). If the author understood optics, this is not an illusion. The actual wavelengths of light filtered out by each color filter mean that what reaches the eye from each side is fundamentally different. Thus when one views the picture with the filters in place, one is seeing two different colors (not their mind makes them think there are two different colors.) This can be verified with a program like cs2 which allows you to create custom color palletes by selecting a portion of an existing picture to give you an exact match to that color. This custom pallete then gives you a precise readout of the different color levels (RBG or CMYK) as well as saturation and hue and other things.

Do not leave it up to the eyes.

#25 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 18 January 2007 - 09:05 AM

You can prove it just by following the echalk link, or by making a small hole in a piece of paper to mask out the context. Then you see that the colours really are the same.

http://www.echalk.co...Perception.html

It's offline at the moment, so here's another link to something Arkain posted re the first image. He didn't quite crop them right, but you can see that the central portions are both gray.

http://hypography.co...242-post40.html

#26 cwes99_03

cwes99_03

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 1587 posts

Posted 18 January 2007 - 09:31 AM

That has been precisely my point. You can't by the methods you suggested.

The methods you suggest still leave the answer up to interpretation. The echalk link uses a computer model in which the programmer could easily have configured the flash program to gradually fade the center piece into a different color.
To use a piece of paper with a hole in it on your picture above (which is the initial frame of the echalk link) still allows for your interpretation of what your brain tells you is two identical colors. When I tried that demostration on your picture I could see two different colors in the two holes I punched in the piece of paper. Thus I suggested the only actual mechanical method of proof, a photo editing program.

Craig suggested taking screen shots.
I would gladly do that, but right now they are experiencing technical difficulties. Perhaps you could do it when the site comes online.

What I then want you to do is to take a screen shot of the beginning frame and one of the ending frame of the flash object on their website. Then edit the two screenshots and place the beginning frame side by side with the ending frame and post it here on your thread.

#27 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 18 January 2007 - 10:15 AM

I know but you still have to follow the links. Did you look at Arkain's screenshots? Like I said, I think they could do with a bit more cropping, and there are a few errant pixels in there. But they're demonstrably and obviously both grey rather one being yellow and one grey.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#28 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1931 posts

Posted 18 January 2007 - 06:25 PM

popular:

I am trying to find your topic on energy explained.

I have a concept I really want to discuss and I thought I would bring it up in your thread.

Maybe a new one. I have a concept that sort of supports your idea on energy. Except I think I can show logically there is two types of energy.


Where is your thread?

#29 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1931 posts

Posted 18 January 2007 - 07:03 PM

You’ll be able to clearly see that A and B are the same color.

Unless you believe that mspaint.exe has hidden software to transform the colors copied via the select tool, this exercise is compelling proof of Popular and Adelson’s claim.


I still dissagree. Of course the colors could be the same when you seperate them. But when you mix colors together and those frequencies compile on your retina, you get mixed information.

Color only exists in your mind, which is why what you see is always the truth. It may be a mixture of frequencies that developes a harmonic of color..

The same idea is to watch a car drive away in a very colorful enviroment, the further it gets the less you know about its exact color, your get mixed data.

#30 ldsoftwaresteve

ldsoftwaresteve

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 757 posts

Posted 19 January 2007 - 07:16 AM

I thought a new version was in order to take on board some of the feedback I've had. Any comments and views will be gratefully received.

I loved it. Thanks. And thanks for the insight to the friendship between Einstein and Godel. Did not know that. I wonder if anyone ever took a picture of the two walking together. I'd like a copy to frame and hang on my wall. I'd name it, 'two doubters doubting'. :QuestionM
I especially liked the way you related an optical illusion to the way we see time. I am interested in that because I fear that we have other concepts that are of that category that don't really refer to anything that exists. Blindspots that we've created because of the way we regard these mental inventions.
Beautiful work. And that goes for the folks that are helping you put it together too. Exciting possibilities. Now this is forward motion. ;)

#31 cwes99_03

cwes99_03

    Suspended

  • Members
  • 1587 posts

Posted 19 January 2007 - 08:20 AM

I still dissagree. Of course the colors could be the same when you seperate them. But when you mix colors together and those frequencies compile on your retina, you get mixed information.

Color only exists in your mind, which is why what you see is always the truth. It may be a mixture of frequencies that developes a harmonic of color..

The same idea is to watch a car drive away in a very colorful enviroment, the further it gets the less you know about its exact color, your get mixed data.


This is precisely right. It is the same in tv's. Each 'pixel' is actually 3 pixels. That is to say that on a standard tv there are three different colored pixels that each get excited by a different electron and together they form a pixel. Thus your eye is trained into seeing one color by compiling various colors together.
This is even more obvious when you think of a DLP television which uses three colors for every pixel (color wheel or LED based).

I have disected the original picture, since I was sure that I could find and at least demonstrate the difference between the two centerpieces. In doing so, I ended up with a similar picture to what you had above.

As soon as I can figure out uploading pictures on this site, I will do so. It is unfortuneate that we have discussed this so long. The point I was trying to make is that the only way to truly prove what color the centerpiece is is by comparing the two colors analytically with a professional piece of equipment (in this case I suggested Adobe CS or other type of professional digital editing software.) I will also do this later today, as I have a couple of people here at work with the software.

I'll update this post when I get the data and figure out how to upload the picture.

edit: Umm apparently I need to request gallery space. Who should i talk to?

#32 Farsight

Farsight

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 19 January 2007 - 08:39 AM

I loved it. Thanks. And thanks for the insight to the friendship between Einstein and Godel. Did not know that. I wonder if anyone ever took a picture of the two walking together. I'd like a copy to frame and hang on my wall. I'd name it, 'two doubters doubting'. ;)
I especially liked the way you related an optical illusion to the way we see time. I am interested in that because I fear that we have other concepts that are of that category that don't really refer to anything that exists. Blindspots that we've created because of the way we regard these mental inventions.
Beautiful work. And that goes for the folks that are helping you put it together too. Exciting possibilities. Now this is forward motion. :)


Wow, thanks Steve. You have made my day.

:QuestionM

Edit:

I read about Einstein and Godel in this book. It's maybe historical rather than scientific, and I don't know if it's the best source available.

A World Without Time - Palle Yourgrau - Penguin UK

There's also this earlier book which I understand is somewhat philosophical, but don't trust me on that.

Amazon.com: Godel Meets Einstein : Time Travel in the Godel Universe: Books: Palle, Yourgrau,Palle Yourgrau http://www.amazon.com/Godel-Meets-Einstein-Travel-Universe/dp/0812694082

There's plenty of pictures of Einstein and Godel kicking around. Just search Google. I don't know about buying big images though.

einstein godel - Google Image Search

Posted Image

#33 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1931 posts

Posted 19 January 2007 - 06:19 PM

As soon as I can figure out uploading pictures on this site, I will do so. edit: Umm apparently I need to request gallery space. Who should i talk to?


Hit reply, so you have the 'advanced' reply window. Look for the paper clip. It is 'add attatchments tool'. There you can upload files directly to your priviledged member webspace. Once it is uploaded, simply reply/submit on as usual on your text reply window and the file should attatch to that particular post.

#34 ldsoftwaresteve

ldsoftwaresteve

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 757 posts

Posted 20 January 2007 - 06:16 PM

Popular, thank you. I have arrived at the same conclusion via a different avenue. I don't see a lot of discussion about place holder concepts or concepts that we create to cover entities necessary for mental activity. The issue of time is the crossover between being a rock and being a living thing.
Without being able to retain 'past moments' or previous 'nows', we'd not be conscious. Since we can see them and infer them we assume that 'time' is there holding them together like beads on a string. But there is no string outside our minds. Just more beads popping into our minds along with our internal metronome.
How many other entities do we have like that? Perhaps some day we should have a thread to see where that discussion goes.