Denying the color blue

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Denying the existance of the colour blue.
I have been is some arguments against some crazy pseudo-physicist on youtube, and at this point the conversation went wierdly crazy.
I just made him deny the existance of the color blue :lol::
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=i7QmsngMRpE

P.S. I dare some one else to do better. :mrgreen:

Transcription of part of the conversation:

Well look here, I go out for a couple of days and the party starts without me.
Bgaede, all you have done so far is to circulate about the scientific concepts that you yourself don't understand. Before saying anything about scientific theories and mathematical models you must first understand what they say and why they say. We don't take things on opinion or intuition. Or it works, or it doesn't, if you don't like it go fuck yourself.

"scientific theories and mathematical models... you must first understand what they say"

Well, GR says that space is warped. QM says that a particle cam be 0D. ST says that a string is 1D. You need no college degree to 'understand' such poppycock.

"We don't take things on opinion or intuition."

Warped space is not intuition? Show me an equation that proves that space is a physical object.

"Or it works, or it doesn't"

Whether it ' works' has nothing to do with Science and all to do with Technology. In Science, we don't make it work. In Science, we explain HOW or WHY it works. A magnet attracting another is ' works.' Explaining how they do it is Science.

Whether it works has EVERYTHING to do whit science, technology just takes a ride. The only reason technology works is because we have a model to make it work. How to make planes fly? How much? How to make a light bulb lit? How much? How to make a standing building? How much?

Do you know, at what speed to you need to put a satelite to make him orbit the planet and stay there for very long period of time?
I dare you to give me an answer without using any current gravitical models and math!


Yes you do need a college education! You don't even know what dimesion means! Or what the heck is a orthonormal base! Or how the heck we have arrived to such conclusions.

What is a physical object do you even know? Do you know that thing called measurment? Which we use to measure propreties of said objects?

Reality has noting to do whit intuition or what you would like it to be, deal whit it!

You don't even know what dimesion means!"

Please enlighten me. What is a dimension? Do you know or are you just throwing the words around to look intelligent?

"What is a physical object"

An object is that which has shape. Do you agree?

"Do you know that thing called measurment?"

Oh! You don't agree. As far as I know 'measurement' does not have shape or form. There is no such 'thing' in Physics called a measurement, Ghost.

If you believe otherwise, please draw a picture of this thing. Okay?

"Reality has noting to do whit intuition"

Agreed! Reality is a synonym of exist.

exist: Physical presence.

So you are correct. There is no provision for observers (i.e. intuition) in the definition of reality.

"The only reason technology works is because we have a model to make it work."

The Iranians have models and Math and theory. They don' have the bomb. One down!

"How to make planes fly?"

The Wright Brothers tested and tweaked many models in their shop until they got it Wright! Two down!

"what speed to you need to put a satelite to make him orbit the planet"

Boy takes ball at end of string. Swings arm until ball in orbit. No Math! Three down!

You're too easy Ghost!

The problem whit you is that you think that everything must have a geometric shape. Reality is IT DOESN'T!

Your stupidity continues to amaze me.
1. Theory doesn't just go to how things work. Theory goes all the way on how to construct a good working device. Wanting one is a diffrent matter

2. Wright brothers didn't flew, they had a controled fall for 30s or so. To construct a plane you need more then trial and error.

3. Gravity isn't a string, it doesn't give you a a stable dynamic counterforce to keep you in place. To much speed you are gone, to litle and you fall

1,2,3 you got nothing

1. "how to construct"

Yeah! A recipe to make a cake is a part of Physics, but a trivial one. Physics is interested in EXPLAINING the invisible world of light, atoms, gravity, and EM phenomena. "How to construct" has no relevance in that context.

2. "To construct a plane you need more then trial and error"

Yes. You need a little intuition as well.

3. "Gravity isn't a string"

So what invisible entity mediates gravity? Particles? Waves? Warped space? Why do you 'fall' to the center of the E?

1. One that doesn't know how to do it will not likely make it.

2. Constructing a plane is very counter intuitive (I know I am an Aerospace engineer, I make planes, you don't). intuition takes no part in it. You have already said it yourslef, intuition has no room in science

3. You fall towards the center of gravity, that is where the net gain of all the influences leads you.

"you think that everything must have a geometric shape"

Geometry: a part of mathematics concerned with questions of size, shape...concerning lengths, areas, and volumes" (Wiki)

That's the instant context. So what is this bullshit about Physics not dealing with objects (i.e. shapes)?

I thought 'reality' is the objective, PHYSICAL world out there. There are only objects out there, Ghost. What concepts do you see out there? Do you see justice? Can you see 'a' mass?


1. "One that doesn't know how to do it will not likely make it."

This guy made 'it', but he doesn't know why it works.

/watch?v=CvMbgGcHeEY

2. We have 'developed' the plane since the Wrights. We figured out the relations after the contraption failed. Gradually, we 'tweaked' the planes we have today. Again, the Iranians have all the Math. They do not have the bomb. You're beating a dead horse.

3. fall... the net gain of all the influences leads you.

Why don't you fall towards the Moon?

In other words, what physical entity is coming in contact with your body that is dragging you towards the center of Earth? Why don't you fall towards the sky?

Certainly not a string!

Justice has nothing to do whit science.
And yes I can see mass!! Seing in science isn't just precieving whit your eyes, it is taking a measurment, sampling it. I can measure mass.

1. Altough I said not likely, that doesn't change the fact that you Epicly Failed.
You just used as a reference a hoax, something that doesn't really work as he say it does to begin whit.

2. We have developed the plane indeed, to claim that it was done by hamering arround irrationaly like brainless monkeys is just absurd. And as I have explained the Iranians example doesn't support your point of view.

3. Because the net gain in our current location isn't towards the moon.


Care to try again? It is amazing how stupid people like you can't ever come up whit anything that works, and when they are asked for 'how much' on anything they suport they go mute.

So I dare you to give me a staright answer (clue it's a number), whitout using any math or any current gravitical models. Where should you put a satelite to keep him in a geosincronouse circular orbit arround the earth, and at what speed does it travel relative to the earth's inertial frame of reference.

"Where should you put a satelite to keep him in a geosincronouse circular orbit"

In order to have children, 'should' you get married? What time 'should' you set your clock to in order to be at work at 7 am?

Sorry Ghost. Science doesn't deal with such petty issues. Science doesn't tell you what you should or should not do. For advice on such matters, please visit a psychologist or your priest. You 'should' find a suitable shrink in the Yellar Pages.

Science only explains consummated events.

"at what speed does it travel relative to the earth's inertial frame of reference"

Please draw a picture of this 'inertial frame of reference' that you claim the Earth possesses. I have never seen one of these critters and have no idea WHAT object you're talking about.

For instance, I can tell you your speed wrt a fence or to a tree. How can you tell how fast a satellite moved wrt a frame? Are you talking about a window frame or the frame of a painting?

Oh, I get it! It was a trick Q, right?

It is your mistake to thing that everything is visual. Did you ever seen an electron? So why don't you do yourself a favoure and shove your fingers in an electric plug. They never seen an electron, what a bunch of fools, it obviously there isn't such athing as electricity.

Science IS ALL ABOUT TELLING HOW MUCH! If you can't tell how much, if you can't infer a quantitative qualities it isn't science, it is just pondering arround doing nothing. We do not put satelites in orbit by trial and error.

But it doesn't amaze me that you couldn't answer, I already knew you couldn't.
Science isn't trial and error and give an excue prior to the facts, it is infering and predicting the future.

"Did you ever seen an electron? So why don't you do yourself a favoure and shove your fingers in an electric plug."

I did, but I still didn't see an electron. I just got a tremendous shock. I am no longer white.

"I'd walk a million miles
for one of your smiles
my Maaaaammie!"


"there isn't such athing as electricity"

You finally got it, Ghost! Electricity is a concept; not a thing. The question is, "What mediates this phenomenon?" Particles? Waves? Higher dimensions? God?

"Science IS ALL ABOUT TELLING HOW MUCH! If you can't tell how much, if you can't infer a quantitative quality it isn't science"

I put three cubes of sugar in my coffee. Is that Science? Hank Aaron hit 715 home runs. Is that Science? My friend Jack the Roo can jump 5 feet high. Is that Science? My table measures three feet? A more accurate measurement shows that it actually measures 3 feet and 1 millionth of an inch. Is that Science?

"Science... is... predicting the future."

That's called Astrology, Ghost. Please do a little bit of your crystal ball / palm reading routine and predict the day I was born. Will Obama get us out of this mess? What do the stars say, Ghost? Will I move my left pinkie or my right thumb next? Predictions, predictions!

This Ghost guy is so funny! He actually swallowed the stuff they taught him in kindergarten. How gullible can people be?

"They never seen an electron, what a bunch of fools, it obviously there isn't such athing as electricity. " -MasterGhost

Please show me this "electricity" thing.

One might explain the phenomenon known as electricity. One might explain why they felt a shock, why two wires repel or attract each other, etc. One might *assume* a particle called an electron exists for the purposes of explaining these phenomena. Since you cannot produce the e- particle itself, it remains an assumed entity.

Sience is only usefull because it is able to tell us what hapens and how it hapens and how much it hapens before the actual event. Giving an explenation saying that this did it doesn't offer us nothing at all.

Being able to predict the necessry resistance in order to give a certain ammount of heat, being able to predict the ammount of necessary rout in orde to get to mars, or to predict what is necessary and what will hapen in order to do a certain job is the all point.

How much fuel you should put on the rocket, in order to to put a satelite in a determinated place in order to perform a determinated tasks in a determinated optimal time.
It is all quantitative and that is science

Saying that Santaclause is responsible for thunderstorm (explenation) isn't.

"I can see mass!!"

And with double exclamations, folks!

Okay Ghost. Sketch for us what you're 'seeing.' Please draw a picture of this 'mass' thingy you claim to be 'seeing.'

By the way, has your doctor prescribed amphetamines for you lately?

"Seing in science isn't just precieving whit your eyes, it is taking a measurment... I can measure mass."

Hopefully, before you measure something you must see 'it.' Otherwise, how can you claim that you measured 'it'? Maybe you didn't measure 'a' mass. Maybe you measured a spirit.

It's too late to backtrack. You are on record saying you can see 'mass.' Since when is the verb ' to see' a synonym of the verb 'to measure'? Looks like you're trying to weasel out, Ghost.

Unfortunatly you are completly deprive of an y sort of education, and you have absolutly no knowledge of the used terminology. In science the term seeing isn't looking, it i not seeing in the literal sense. "seeing" with your eyes is just another way of sampling (i.e. seeing). You never seen temperature whit your eyes, and yet we are able to measure it (see it).

"You never seen temperature whit your eyes, and yet we are able to measure it (see it)." -Master

I see a column of fluid in some glass. I usually call it a thermometer. You call it a temperature?

Who said anything about measuring it whit a column of fluid?

"Who said anything about measuring it whit a column of fluid?" -MasterGhost

What is it you call a temperature? BBR detector? Two conductive materials with a potential across them? There are a few objects I call thermometers but apparently you call them temperatures.

Got you! You do realise the existance of several instruments to measure the effects of temperature. To do that You have to ackowledge that the effects are demonstrable (i.e. real). The theorys that you dismiss without question are able to predict and tell how much those instruments will measure on certain conditions (i.e. how much they will affect our world). You can't!

The same way I'm able to tell you where exactly should you put a satelite and the necessary speed to keep him geosicronouse.

Most imporatantly my prediction work eaxctly as it should, and you are not able to make them!
You are bound to catastrophe and powerless, you will never be able to get anywere near any of the modern technology (including the computer that you are loged on in order to read this message, the same computer that was modeled and only made possible by the combined effort of all the abstract thories and counter intuitive notions of electromechanics and quantum electrodynamics for you intel CPU).

"Got you" -MasterGhost

You completely evaded the original question:

"You never seen temperature whit your eyes, and yet we are able to measure it (see it)." -Master

What is this temperature thing you are measuring? I measure the height of a column of fluid (manometer), the distance between two pieces of metal (thermocouple), etc.

It could be a change in resistance of a charge that is translated into a digital voice system. You never see it whit your eyes.
But that was not the point, the point was that you had to ackowledge that those effects do take place and it affects the world in order for us to precieve it. At that this thing that you can't atribute a geometric shape exist and infuences the world none the less.

So my task here is done.

"At that this thing that you can't atribute a geometric shape exist and infuences the world none the less." -Master

I'm sorry, I'm still not following. I see a column of fluid or two pieces of metal. They both have shape. Even when the column gets taller/shorter or the metals get closer/further, they still have shape. Even when they do so in a particular pattern, they still have shape. Where are these "shapeless things" that are having an effect?

There are several ways to measure temperature without any fluid or change of volume or shape for that matter.

"There are several ways to measure temperature without any fluid or change of volume or shape for that matter." -Master

Please tell me, great wizard, how one measures without ANY shapes.

Thermal Luminescence
This is like beating on a dead horse.

So you can have luminescence without the object which is luminescing?

Could you illustrate/show me luminiscence without the object/shape that is luminescing?

Object isn't shape! They are 2 fucking words and they are not sinonimose. For some reason they are 2 diffrent words.

Does does the shape have anything to do whit fact that it is luminescent?

Do it like this, chose a random object put it in a box, put a spectograph along whit it. And there, independent of what shape it has, I know the temperature. PERIOD
What is the shape of temperature then?
Besides this is far beyond the point that Tempertaure is real.

What is the shape of Blue?

"What is the shape of temperature then?" -Master

Temperature isn't an object you loon.

"Besides this is far beyond the point that Tempertaure is real." -Master

Please show me 'a' temperature so that I can verify that what you're referring to is real.

"What is the shape of Blue?" -Master

Blue's not an object you nutcase.

Temperature is a real ellement that has consequences, it is as real as matter, and yes temperature is an object.

And yet after I showed conclusively just that, you fell back to the same mistake that you need to see whit your eyes. I have already showed you conclusively that.

You said that everything has a shape.
Or you either tell me the shape of Blue (and make you look like a loony) or draw back that stament and ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG!

"Temperature is a real ellement that has consequences, it is as real as matter, and yes temperature is an object." -Master

Please show me 'a' temperature, so that I can verify what you're saying.

"You said that everything has a shape." -Master

I said all objects have shape, you dumbass! Blue isn't an object. What an idiot!

In the context that we were using it, (in case you don't remember) "Object" isn't an "item". "Object" is an entity it is and entity that exist, and temperature classifies as such.

So again what is the shape of blue? Or admit that can exist things in our universe that have no shape.

""Object" is an entity" -Master

And what's an entity?

"it is and entity that exist" -Master

What does it mean to exist?

An object is an entity that exists. What attribute does an object have that an entity lacks, which qualifies an object as existent?

"So again what is the shape of blue? Or admit that can exist things in our universe that have no shape." -Master

What an idiotic question! Only objects have shape, not concepts. Only objects (shapes) can be said to exist.

So blue doesn't exist?
Or are you going to argue the semantics of the word exists?
Again what is the shape of blue?

"So blue doesn't exist?"

Nope. Watching this may save us a great deal of time:

youtube com/ watch?v=P9kA6dbaer4

"Or are you going to argue the semantics of the word exists?" -Master

Aren't we arguing over what exists and what doesn't? The meaning of exist is obviously tantamount. Would you argue with someone about X without both agreeing on what X means?

"Again what is the shape of blue?" -Master

Thrice the moron! Blue isn't an object, when will you learn?

I have made you deny the colour Blue.
I can fix stupid, not crazy.

There was more of the text, but it is a pain in the ass trying to put a non-linear conversation in chronological order.

 

[Neffi]

Lot of shit going on in that page. But from the title alone, it's actually not a bad argument. Blue is an internal value assigned by our brain to the wavelength which is corresponds. Outside of our and other animals' brains, does it exist?

 

[Spooky]

colors are names for lengths of waves.

 

[Josan]

From what I managed to piece together you only managed to make him say it because you were doing some weird things with definitions. From what I saw he only denied blue as a physical object, but more of a concept. Which is an interesting discussion in my opinion. I don't really see this as any extrordinary pwnage, I hardly see it as a victory to be completely honest.

 

[Neffi]

colors are names for lengths of waves.

But they're assigned to categories of wavelengths because our brains separate those individual wavelengths. Blue is a color because we see it as a color. Other animals may not even perceive the wavelengths between 440 and 490 nanometers (our blue) as a distinct color at all, meaning for them the color blue is a lie.

 

[Josan]

But they're assigned to categories of wavelengths because our brains separate those individual wavelengths. Blue is a color because we see it as a color. Other animals may not even perceive the wavelengths between 440 and 490 nanometers (our blue) as a distinct color at all, meaning for them the color blue is a lie.

And even if they were, that would be simply a function of light with certain wavelengths that still would act the same as waves with other wavelengths appart from their wavelength difference (if that made sense), it doesn't have some internal "blueness" that gives it special powers. And even if it did, it would be an internal property of the electro magnetic waves, it wouldn't have a "shape", at least not the way I see things.

 

[Pulsar]

But... if blue doesn't have a shape, then why am I feeling blue right now?

On a different note, I tried to watch bgaede's videos a long time ago, but I'm physically and mentally unable to tolerate more than a minute of his drivel. He's one of the biggest fruitcakes on youtube, and that's one hell of an achievement.

 

[Spooky]

But they're assigned to categories of wavelengths because our brains separate those individual wavelengths. Blue is a color because we see it as a color. Other animals may not even perceive the wavelengths between 440 and 490 nanometers (our blue) as a distinct color at all, meaning for them the color blue is a lie.

yeh. blue is just a name. i mean, if we called blue "red" why would it matter? it is a name we give a certain wavelength. if an animal won't see it, that doesn't mean that length of wave does not exist. about categorizing, there could be something between those color right? like on the boarder of yellow and red you get orange. so yeah, blue does not exist, the wavelength that we call blue exists. end of story.

For example, if you called chickens goats and i called them dragons, they still would be the same creatures.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Lot of shit going on in that page. But from the title alone, it's actually not a bad argument. Blue is an internal value assigned by our brain to the wavelength which is corresponds. Outside of our and other animals' brains, does it exist?

Blue is a description for something that exists. So, "blue" exists in the same way that any other descriptive term exists: as a descriptive property of a physical aspect of something else. It is an adjective, not a noun.

Or, to put it another way: does "wavelength" exist?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I hope some context will shed some light. It was a pain in the ass trying to put a non-linear conversation into chronlological order (not sure if that is all correct). there was more of the text but I couldn't really integrate it correctly.

Anyways, it wasn't about the pwnage per say, but about what people are willing to accept in order to the sham forward.

And it is incredebly funy that he had to deny the existance of color. I'm still laughing.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And it is incredebly funy that he had to deny the existance of color. I'm still laughing.

You didn't really kick his ass at all, sorry to say. It seems that you were using two different definitions of "exist."

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You didn't really kick his ass at all, sorry to say. It seems that you were using two different definitions of "exist."

No, the definition is the same (even because I was the one that started the blue argument). Look closer, he posted a link to it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No, the definition is the same (even because I was the one that started the blue argument). Look closer, he posted a link to it.

I'm reading what you quoted, and you aren't using the word in the same way. The more I look at it, the more wrong you appear.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What is the shape of Blue?

Blue's not an object you nutcase.

You said that everything has a shape.
Or you either tell me the shape of Blue (and make you look like a loony) or draw back that stament and ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG!

I said all objects have shape, you dumbass! Blue isn't an object. What an idiot!

What is the shape of Blue?

Blue's not an object you nutcase.

In the context that we were using it, (in case you don't remember) "Object" isn't an "item". "Object" is an entity it is and entity that exist, and temperature classifies as such.

So again what is the shape of blue? Or admit that can exist things in our universe that have no shape.

What an idiotic question! Only objects have shape, not concepts. Only objects (shapes) can be said to exist.

(here he draws back to his own definition of object=what can be seen which he also implicates that must have shapes; it is pretty clear what he is talking about is the direct visual aspect of existence)

So blue doesn't exist?

Nope.

This is getting byound the point.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is getting byound the point.

Yeah, he spanked you pretty hard... especially the part where you declared victory while being dead wrong. :lol:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Suxs being me.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Suxs being me.

You could always try to learn from your mistakes?

 

[mandangalo18]

is energy an object?

 

[Homunclus]

"You never seen temperature whit your eyes, and yet we are able to measure it (see it)." -Master

I see a column of fluid in some glass. I usually call it a thermometer. You call it a temperature?

Who said anything about measuring it whit a column of fluid?" -MasterGhost

What is it you call a temperature? BBR detector? Two conductive materials with a potential across them? There are a few objects I call thermometers but apparently you call them temperatures.

"You never seen temperature whit your eyes, and yet we are able to measure it (see it)." -Master

What is this temperature thing you are measuring? I measure the height of a column of fluid (manometer), the distance between two pieces of metal (thermocouple), etc.

"At that this thing that you can't atribute a geometric shape exist and infuences the world none the less." -Master

I'm sorry, I'm still not following. I see a column of fluid or two pieces of metal. They both have shape. Even when the column gets taller/shorter or the metals get closer/further, they still have shape. Even when they do so in a particular pattern, they still have shape. Where are these "shapeless things" that are having an effect?

What the hell was his point here? Was is position that fluid just changes height and that the distance between pieces of metal happens just because?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

His intention was to deny the existance of everything that doesn't have a "shape". Th temperature example came about and he said that temperature actually doesn't exist, the only thing that he sees is a column of fluid from a termometer changing shape (and that was all there was to it).