DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,349
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 30, 2020 18:40:35 GMT -5
I just read an article that a common house fly perceives time 600X more slowly then a human, which is part of why their reflexes seem so fast to us. Our swatter is coming at them 600X slower than we think we are swinging it.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,349
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 30, 2020 18:41:16 GMT -5
FUN FACT. You know how light takes 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun? Well if the sun disappears in a single instant - all of the sun all at once - then what would happen to the earth? Would it still orbit the sun or will it fly off in to space? The answer is that it would orbit the sun for 8 minutes around nothing. For eight minutes tremendous forces will keep the earth in orbit around where the sun should be, but there would be nothing there to do so. Then eight minutes later, it would fly off in to space no longer bound by the sun's gravity. Why because changes in space time (the change in gravity) happens at the speed of light. In essence, reality changes at the speed of light. The main limitations, it would be impossible for the sun to instantaneously wink out of existence. Physics would not allow it. My reality happens in slow motion. As such, I'm not finished reading the first post of this thread. My reality may be in slow motion, but I live in the future. OK so what stock should I buy in the morning?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 18:52:30 GMT -5
OK - Objective truth without semiotics: The Earth orbits the Sun due to gravitational force in precessing ellipses. It would do so whether or not anybody was here to observe it. We can use the language of mathematics to describe the relationship, but that's just semiotics. The actual gravitational relationship is independent of our description of it, or even our cognizance of it. That's an objective truth. Correct. And there are many similar objective scientific truths. But anything having to do with human perception (audio, for example, where this whole thing started) lacks similar objective truth since it involves interpretation. Are you saying objective truth lacks interpretation? If so, isn't science the interpretation of nature? Also, as a point of interest define hermeneutics.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Sept 30, 2020 19:06:07 GMT -5
My reality happens in slow motion. As such, I'm not finished reading the first post of this thread. My reality may be in slow motion, but I live in the future. OK so what stock should I buy in the morning? Honestly, I joke about the slow motion thing, but there was one very memorable day when that was the reality for about a dozen of my friends and I. A large group of friends and I used to go camping about 6-8 times a year, for many years. There came a weekend when we were all much older when we were to go camping. It rained very hard on that Friday, and promised to continue all weekend. We were all packed and ready to go, but decided not to. We decided to go "Not Camping" by staying at the house of one of the friends. Saturday morning arrived and we went through our usual camping duties of cooking breakfast. Same as what we would've done in the woods, but with indoor plumbing. As we went through the day, playing games, talking, reminiscing, going through photos of past camping trips, it was sometime in the early afternoon that I mentioned how long the day was lasting and how much we had been able to do. It seemed to me that the day had lasted more than double what any clock would indicate. When speaking with the others, they too, while not having actually noticing till I brought it up, realized that we had done so much in so little time and couldn't explain it. We stayed up extra late to make use of the extra time we were somehow allotted. We made use of the term Not Camping all weekend long, and for many years to come. We enjoyed Not Camping. Not Camping was at the top of our list of favorite Camping weekends. That day, that Saturday, of that weekend, was one of the best days of my life. Not Camping.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 30, 2020 19:09:29 GMT -5
Correct. And there are many similar objective scientific truths. But anything having to do with human perception (audio, for example, where this whole thing started) lacks similar objective truth since it involves interpretation. Are you saying objective truth lacks interpretation? If so, isn't science the interpretation of nature? Also, as a point of interest define hermeneutics. Don't you watch TV? The truth is out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 19:25:34 GMT -5
Are you saying objective truth lacks interpretation? If so, isn't science the interpretation of nature? Also, as a point of interest define hermeneutics. Don't you watch TV? The truth is out there. I like your sarcasm. I hope you'll join me on sarcasm Mondays. In all seriousness, no, I haven't had television subscription for over a decade. I remember when journalism died, truth was no more, and nothin but subjective opinionated bloggers replaced what is now classical journalist. The slippery slope began IMO when Nike threatened to pull advertising on a major network when the network was bout to release an investigative piece on Nike sweatshops in Vietnam. And at that time Nike was heavily invested in the network's right to cover the Olympics. Money then was the driving motive and agenda behind the reported coverages, when the network agreed to not run the story Nike demanded the newscasters wear the Nike Logo during the Olympic coverage. They both agreed. I hope integrity returns. No truth in the news and no news in the truth. In today's context if I pass in front of a television broadcasting the news, I remember, 'we are in a time when the insane are the majority outnumbering the sane and they will say you are not like one of us'.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 30, 2020 20:10:38 GMT -5
Don't you watch TV? The truth is out there. I like your sarcasm. I hope you'll join me on sarcasm Mondays. In all seriousness, no, I haven't had television subscription for over a decade. I remember when journalism died, truth was no more, and nothin but subjective opinionated bloggers replaced what is now classical journalist. The slippery slope began IMO when Nike threatened to pull advertising on a major network when the network was bout to release an investigative piece on Nike sweatshops in Vietnam. And at that time Nike was heavily invested in the network's right to cover the Olympics. Money then was the driving motive and agenda behind the reported coverages, when the network agreed to not run the story Nike demanded the newscasters wear the Nike Logo during the Olympic coverage. They both agreed. I hope integrity returns. No truth in the news and no news in the truth. In today's context if I pass in front of a television broadcasting the news, I remember, 'we are in a time when the insane are the majority outnumbering the sane and they will say you are not like one of us'. Times have changed so much in the past 200 years that's for sure. On a serious note, we can only hope to be a good ancestor.
|
|