How Does A Green Apple Turn To Red?

[xyz]

Because I'm laughing too hard.

You are just trolling and looking for a reaction, I would have to pretend I was reacting if I reacted, your attempts are futile my friend and your time would be best spent elsewhere. 

I have the power just to ignore you and you would become MR Who to me. 

[A-wal]

I tried reasoning with you and that didn't work so now I'm hoping you'll see just how utterly ridiculous and non-sensical your points really are.

[xyz]

 

 

As I said, at any normal distance I deal with, sure I'll appear to see the same time. But that's not the reality.

Nice diagram, you say that is not the reality, yet we both have agreed in what I have put forward about the observation we see, would you agree that the agreement you have agreed with is 100% fact and an axiom for all able sighted observers?

 

To recap you have agreed gin-clear and you see both clocks whether near or far and agreed you would see the same time on the clocks because of synchronous rates ,ok?

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

Nice diagram, you say that is not the reality, yet we both have agreed in what I have put forward about the observation we see, would you agree that the agreement you have agreed with is 100% fact and an axiom for all able sighted observers?

 

To recap you have agreed gin-clear and you see both clocks whether near or far and agreed you would see the same time on the clocks because of synchronous rates ,ok?

That bit in bold : absolutely no, I do not agree to that. That should be very very clear by now.

 

So clear, I can't imagine why you even write that.

 

Tell me, with the knowledge that light takes time to travel, how my latest diagram would not match reality, for a Clock A 1 AU away from me.

[xyz]

I tried reasoning with you and that didn't work so now I'm hoping you'll see just how utterly ridiculous and non-sensical your points really are.

No, you tried to subject me to present information, that is not a discussion. 

[xyz]

That bit in bold : absolutely no, I do not agree to that. That should be very very clear by now.

 

 

You are contradicting your earlier reply 

 

''As I said, at any normal distance I deal with, sure I'll appear to see the same time. But that's not the reality.''

 

Ignore the end part of the statement for now, as you said at any normal distance you deal with you will see the same time. 

 

To recap you have agreed gin-clear and you see both clocks whether near or far and agreed you would see the same time on the clocks because of synchronous rates ,ok?

[pzkpfw]

You are contradicting your earlier reply 

 

''As I said, at any normal distance I deal with, sure I'll appear to see the same time. But that's not the reality.''

 

Ignore the end part of the statement for now, as you said at any normal distance you deal with you will see the same time. 

 

To recap you have agreed gin-clear and you see both clocks whether near or far and agreed you would see the same time on the clocks because of synchronous rates ,ok?

I will not agree, because without the caveat bold/underlined above, we end up with an unreal situation. If I agreed to that, you'll say "aha! and the same for a much more distant clock!", or something like that.

 

You can't put an unreality in a thought experiment and expect reasonable results. You want to ignore the finite speed of light. That won't work.

[xyz]

 

Tell me, with the knowledge that light takes time to travel, how my latest diagram would not match reality, for a Clock A 1 AU away from me.

 

I will not agree, because without the caveat bold/underlined above, we end up with an unreal situation. If I agreed to that, you'll say "aha! and the same for a much more distant clock!", or something like that.

 

You can't put an unreality in a thought experiment and expect reasonable results. You want to ignore the finite speed of light. That won't work.

We have not got to the speed of light yet, we are talking about the visual picture we see that we do not even see a speed of light or photons because we only see the gin-clear in this discussion up to  yet. 

 

If you want a really far clock , a clock is synchronised with our clock and put on a really far away planet, we do not need to see it to know it is showing the same time as our clock because it synchronised. 

 

But forget this far clock for now if it is an issue for you building this mental picture. 

 

 

So would you say it is a fact and axiom that you can see the two clocks in our previous examples?

 

A fact and an axiom that with normal distances we see the same time on each clock?

 

A fact and axiom we see gin-clear?

 

For all able sighted human  observers this observation is relative and a fact?

[pzkpfw]

You are misusing "fact" and "axiom", but OK, let's say we stipulate that wherever these particular clocks are, they've been set so that the time we see on them is the same.

 

(Of course: 1. for a clock 1 AU away, that would mean it's been set 8 minutes behind the clock that's next to us, and 2. another observer a different distance from the two clocks wouldn't see the same time on them.)

 

With that stipulation, now what?

[xyz]

You are misusing "fact" and "axiom", but OK, let's say we stipulate that wherever these particular clocks are, they've been set so that the time we see on them is the same.

 

(Of course: 1. for a clock 1 AU away, that would mean it's been set 8 minutes behind the clock that's next to us, and 2. another observer a different distance from the two clocks wouldn't see the same time on them.)

 

With that stipulation, now what?

You have that wrong, If I synchronise our two digital clocks or digital stop watches on earth and then send one, 1 AU away, you could see/watch the entire journey and see that the clock was not set behind to 8 minutes earlier, it is somebodies subjective thoughts that altered the reality.

 

You are avoiding the out and out agreement , if you agree and I agree that is relative, it is a fact and to say obvious to all observers,  

 

 

do you agree that what you have agreed with is not based on personal feelings of influenced by any other means?

 

 

e.g the gin-clear is an objective observation by all observers and not influenced by personal opinion. 

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

You have that wrong, If I synchronise our two digital clocks or digital stop watches on earth and then send one, 1 AU away, you could see/watch the entire journey and see that the clock was not set behind to 8 minutes earlier, it is somebodies subjective thoughts that altered the reality.

There is nothing subjective about the speed of light, nor the effects of that speed.

 

You are inventing fantasy in thinking you instantly see that distant clock.

 

As that clock got sent away, you'd start to see it showing a time that's further and further behind your local clock. That's an unavoidable consequence of the speed of light being finite. That distant clock ticks over a minute, and the light giving us the image of that begins to travel to us. The further the clock is, the longer it takes that image to get to us.

 

Until you can prove that the speed of light isn't infinite, you can never get this idea of yours accepted.

 

You are avoiding the out and out agreement , if you agree and I agree that is relative, it is a fact and to say obvious to all observers,

What?

 

do you agree that what you have agreed with is not based on personal feelings of influenced by any other means?

The bits I've agreed with are based on accepted science.

 

e.g the gin-clear is an objective observation by all observers and not influenced by personal opinion.

I've already agreed with that. Clear air or a vacuum is "gin clear".

 

What you keep wanting to ignore is that the speed of light through that "gin clear" air or vacuum is finite.

[xyz]

 

 

I've already agreed with that. Clear air or a vacuum is "gin clear".

 

What you keep wanting to ignore is that the speed of light through that "gin clear" air or vacuum is finite.

What you keep ignoring is your own contradictions which again you have just done, you admit to gin-clear then contradictory claim you can see the speed of light in the clear, please tell me what speed or photons do you see in the gin-clear?

 

 

You are missing the point and keep going back to the subjective of somebodies else's thoughts from the past.  

 

 

Look around you, look into the sky and space, do you see the gin clear whole ?  You see the entirety of space at the same time, think about it. 

 

 

added- I am not asking what you think you see , I am asking you what you see. 

Edited June 26, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

What you keep ignoring is your own contradictions which again you have just done, you admit to gin-clear then contradictory claim you can see the speed of light in the clear, please tell me what speed or photons do you see in the gin-clear?

That makes no sense.

 

You are missing the point and keep going back to the subjective of somebodies else's thoughts from the past.

No, it's not subjective. That light has a speed has been shown, and it's utterly obvious what effect that has.

 

Your point seems to be that magic elves telepathically transmit images of distant objects directly (and instantly) into your head.

 

Look around you, look into the sky and space, do you see the gin clear whole ?  You see the entirety of space at the same time, think about it.

Saying "think about it" is one of the sure signs of inability to discuss. If I don't agree with you, it's because your argument is weak, not because I have not thought about it.

 

We may appear to "see the entirety of space at the same time", but that's simply not an accurate description of reality. Science has shown that.

 

Your feelings about what you see can't trump actual experiments.

[xyz]

 

Your feelings about what you see can't trump actual experiments.

What feelings about what I see?   You have just agreed with me without any feelings about it, it was a total objective agreement on what we see including the Quanta whole which you should now understand visually  and objectively. 

 

Experiments do not prove the existence of a photon, that is subjective of you to suggest such a thing exists. 

[pzkpfw]

What feelings about what I see?   You have just agreed with me without any feelings about it, it was a total objective agreement on what we see including the Quanta whole which you should now understand visually  and objectively.

What "Quanta whole"? You've never defined this phrase.

 

My agreement is only for nearby objects, and it's clearly not reality. You're in turn incorrectly extrapolating that agreement to distant objects.

 

Experiments do not prove the existence of a photon, that is subjective of you to suggest such a thing exists.

Actually, they do. Do some research. It's not subjective for me to say that. You don't know the meaning of subjective.

 

Anyway, even if there were no photons, light is something. And that something has a speed. You even quoted that speed out of wikipedia in a previous post.

[xyz]

 

Anyway, even if there were no photons, light is something. And that something has a speed. You even quoted that speed out of wikipedia in a previous post.

Ok I am going bed now sleep on my thoughts, I agree light is something , I also agree that light has a speed but only when considering the ''tip'' or the ''leader'' of the stream. 

 

 

Maybe you would of understood Quantum whole better? singularity whole?  an entity whole?

 

 

The gin-clear whole you observe of space, consider space does not ''reflect'' light and you observe things in the whole, you see the entirety of visual boundary. 

[pzkpfw]

Ok I am going bed now sleep on my thoughts, I agree light is something , I also agree that light has a speed but only when considering the ''tip'' or the ''leader'' of the stream.

Imagine a distant clock that uses LED seven-segment displays.

 

If that clock were switched on, by your "tip" or "leader" comment, and your agreement that light has a speed; would you agree that you'd see that clock some time later?

 

e.g. a clock is 1 AU away, and is switched on, showing "12:00" by default. Will it take 8 minutes for the "tip" or "leader" of the light showing "12:00" to get from the clock to you?

 

(

Edit: to not let you feel an ambush is coming, I'll point out in advance:

1. If you don't agree with this so far, I'd have to go back to the "agree that light has a speed" and "considering the ''tip'' or the ''leader'' of the stream" parts of your post to see what you really mean.

or

2. If you do agree with this so far, I'd be pointing out two contradictions that come up from your use of "but only when".

)

 

.

Edited June 27, 2016 by pzkpfw