Thursday, March 31, 2016
Hyper Spectral Perception
What is hyper spectral perception? It's a hypothetical form of vision, which is akin to perception of light beyond the limits of our own. Yet hyper spectral perception goes the other way. Seeing a larger spectrum is comparable to using a telescope. Yet you could also see more detail using a microscope. In a similar way, we could see more detail in colors, in other words, being able to see smaller scales of color. This can also be called "color resolution". So, what are the smallest units of color?
This is not about dynamic range. Seeing various shades of color can mean two things:
1) Seeing colors of various amount of light/dark, or...
2) Seeing colors of various frequencies
Now, the second is what I call hyper spectral perception. Unfortunately, although it is said that one person may see more or less shades as compared to another, chances are, that the person actually see colors that are not always different wavelengths, but ones that have different lightness or darkness values. After all, we only see a certain number of colors, that are only based off of the three primary colors.
Can anything obtain this ability?
Yes. If an animal can see a narrower range of color, or light, than we do, than if it's eyes adapt the same as ours did, yet without such an expansive spectrum, then their color perception over that range will, or at least can, be more specific than ours. They would have the ability to focus more on a small range, where as we can do better over a larger color spectrum. And ever since I've started exploring this subject, I have come to an intriguing realization. One in which color is probably composed in a manner akin to that of matter. For example, if atoms are the building blocks of matter, or if photons make up light, then what will we be able discover about light; what are the individual units of color? What are the "smallest intervals of wavelengths". What we need to keep in mind, however, is that color differs from light in a fundamental way. Even though they are essentially the same in many ways, color is actually a quality of light which is a result of the mind's interpretation. When we keep becoming more specific, this is what we will be able to discover. If we were able to discern between sources of light that were separated by mere nanometers , things could get much more interesting. And they might even have a difference of less than a nanometer, in terms of their colors!
So, this is basically describing various "dimensions" of vision. There is more to these things than you might think. And I did not really realize this until I started blogging about it. It's a fascinating idea. Just think about it; we could have hyper spectral perception, as well as having extra spectral perception, all at the same time. What would it be like if we had both of these abilities? Well, think about this analogy: Imagine if the smallest units of measurement you could possibly perceive with unaided eyesight were smaller than they are currently. Then imagine if you could turn your eyes to the skies, and resolve one planet from another, without having to rely on information beyond your senses, or vision, based purely on the surface features. And then let's take it a step further, by theorizing that some day, you are able to stare at the sun without aid, and see features on the surface. Now, after that, we could evolve to look away, go into a room where the light levels are no more than that of a full moon, and our vision could immediately adapt to seeing the room as if it were daylight. Now tell me, wouldn't that be something!? What do you think about the possibilities?
We may not currently have such abilities; however, who knows? Either we might obtain them over time, with training, or... another equally interesting possibility exists, the one being that there is extraterrestrial life out there, that has already obtained this ability.
And the logic that I've just proposed is similar to the logic that one could use regarding other senses. Take the sense of hearing as an example. It is said that one person can hear better than another, yet in what ways is that really true? The superiority of hearing can be divided up into at least two distinct parts in itself....
One being that someone can hear more types of sound than another, or.... it may not be so much about the types of sound, but instead, about the intensity of sounds. Or how about the sense of smell? For instance, let's say that there is a scent coming from somewhere. But because that "somewhere" is some 3 miles away, you can't smell it. And I can. Yet I don't have an additional smell receptor. Instead, my sense of smell of that particular scent is much stronger. Also, this logic can go the other way as well. I could have an equal, or perhaps less strong sense of smell. However, I can still smell it. Why? Because you don't have the smell receptor necessary to sense the scent.
And we'll stop here. The only senses that can really lend themselves to this "conundrum", so to say, are the main senses, right? I mean...what does that have to say about others. Perhaps there are other aspects of the mind that can become involved (we can apply the same logic), such as intuition. Telepathy? What secrets are yet to be discovered about the way our consciousness works in the mind? Is it less, or even more mundane than I have just described here? And yet, there is still the theory, not that you'll find it anyways, that our mind could even develop ways of perception that are beyond what life here on Earth has been able to achieve.
Next time on The fascinating universe...delve further into the reached of the science of perception
This is not about dynamic range. Seeing various shades of color can mean two things:
1) Seeing colors of various amount of light/dark, or...
2) Seeing colors of various frequencies
Now, the second is what I call hyper spectral perception. Unfortunately, although it is said that one person may see more or less shades as compared to another, chances are, that the person actually see colors that are not always different wavelengths, but ones that have different lightness or darkness values. After all, we only see a certain number of colors, that are only based off of the three primary colors.
Can anything obtain this ability?
Yes. If an animal can see a narrower range of color, or light, than we do, than if it's eyes adapt the same as ours did, yet without such an expansive spectrum, then their color perception over that range will, or at least can, be more specific than ours. They would have the ability to focus more on a small range, where as we can do better over a larger color spectrum. And ever since I've started exploring this subject, I have come to an intriguing realization. One in which color is probably composed in a manner akin to that of matter. For example, if atoms are the building blocks of matter, or if photons make up light, then what will we be able discover about light; what are the individual units of color? What are the "smallest intervals of wavelengths". What we need to keep in mind, however, is that color differs from light in a fundamental way. Even though they are essentially the same in many ways, color is actually a quality of light which is a result of the mind's interpretation. When we keep becoming more specific, this is what we will be able to discover. If we were able to discern between sources of light that were separated by mere nanometers , things could get much more interesting. And they might even have a difference of less than a nanometer, in terms of their colors!
So, this is basically describing various "dimensions" of vision. There is more to these things than you might think. And I did not really realize this until I started blogging about it. It's a fascinating idea. Just think about it; we could have hyper spectral perception, as well as having extra spectral perception, all at the same time. What would it be like if we had both of these abilities? Well, think about this analogy: Imagine if the smallest units of measurement you could possibly perceive with unaided eyesight were smaller than they are currently. Then imagine if you could turn your eyes to the skies, and resolve one planet from another, without having to rely on information beyond your senses, or vision, based purely on the surface features. And then let's take it a step further, by theorizing that some day, you are able to stare at the sun without aid, and see features on the surface. Now, after that, we could evolve to look away, go into a room where the light levels are no more than that of a full moon, and our vision could immediately adapt to seeing the room as if it were daylight. Now tell me, wouldn't that be something!? What do you think about the possibilities?
We may not currently have such abilities; however, who knows? Either we might obtain them over time, with training, or... another equally interesting possibility exists, the one being that there is extraterrestrial life out there, that has already obtained this ability.
And the logic that I've just proposed is similar to the logic that one could use regarding other senses. Take the sense of hearing as an example. It is said that one person can hear better than another, yet in what ways is that really true? The superiority of hearing can be divided up into at least two distinct parts in itself....
One being that someone can hear more types of sound than another, or.... it may not be so much about the types of sound, but instead, about the intensity of sounds. Or how about the sense of smell? For instance, let's say that there is a scent coming from somewhere. But because that "somewhere" is some 3 miles away, you can't smell it. And I can. Yet I don't have an additional smell receptor. Instead, my sense of smell of that particular scent is much stronger. Also, this logic can go the other way as well. I could have an equal, or perhaps less strong sense of smell. However, I can still smell it. Why? Because you don't have the smell receptor necessary to sense the scent.
And we'll stop here. The only senses that can really lend themselves to this "conundrum", so to say, are the main senses, right? I mean...what does that have to say about others. Perhaps there are other aspects of the mind that can become involved (we can apply the same logic), such as intuition. Telepathy? What secrets are yet to be discovered about the way our consciousness works in the mind? Is it less, or even more mundane than I have just described here? And yet, there is still the theory, not that you'll find it anyways, that our mind could even develop ways of perception that are beyond what life here on Earth has been able to achieve.
Next time on The fascinating universe...delve further into the reached of the science of perception
News On The Last Day of The Month
A new post is coming detailing the phenomena which is known as "hyper spectral perception". This is a form of perception which is the ability to see things which are potentially invisible. And those things do not necessarily have to occur beyond our visible spectrum; they can also be part of it, and we might not even know it! It's not that something is transparent. It's like "dark matter", which doesn't interact with light at all. However, A special kind of would enable us to see things which are NOT dark matter, yet are still virtually invisible. And I'm not talking about looking through somethings.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
We Forecast Future (In the Future...)
Here is a link about the future of long range weather forecasting. The title is somewhat..."intimidating", and actually implies that it is qutie likley to be pretty warm in the upcoming days ahead. The near future, that is. Basically what is likely to happen with weather around the world, as well as beyond the ring of fire, is that the phenomena of heating in our western ocean will reverse, leading to what will be the Atlantic becoming warmer than the Pacific... meaning that we will get it interesting around these states. The New Days. They will Renew Our
It really will be interesting, as usual. The Earth itself provides us with interesting phenomena. It also provides us with bounty, or food. This is what we call Mother Earth. Because all our food comes from our Mother Earth. This is not opinion; this is actually a fact. We need to stay thoughtful about the links I provide. Do not just put them off and throw them in the community pool.
How To Understand Our Minds Better; Sub dimensions In The 4th
How much of it, our mind, can we possibly resolve, or understand? Well, let me tell you something really compelling about the mind itself. The secrets of the mind can be effectively unlocked once we stray away from mainstream thought. In order to understand how our mind works is to think about all of it as "dimensions". In this notion, the imagination can act as if it were a bridge between dimensions, not spatial ones, but instead, dimensions which are composed more or less of thought. And perhaps we can even go a step further with this way of thinking and learn more about stuff beyond perception. Beyond the human experience. Beyond what we are able to sense.
Sub dimensions In The 4th
What do we mean when we think about the 4th dimension of the human mind? Well, as stated earlier, the human mind can be thought of existing as thoughts, which make up what is comparable to a first dimension. In the case of anything involving the brain, however, these would actually be called realms instead of dimensions. And the second, higher, realm could be considered as being composed of something higher than thought, perhaps imagination. And then we come to the third realm, in which the act of perception can be found, and the senses function as well. And, here remains the question...
...what composes the next dimension? So far, we are just not sure. However, as I have already stated, by thinking about the mind in dimensions, or realms, it proves as a very effective way of thinking in order to understand what we can thus far. I theorize than additional dimension, could be made up of sub dimensions. In fact, all of the realms that make up the mind could be made up of what is known as a domain. And a third or fourth realm could be a domain in itself. And the sub domains could very well help explain the mysterious qualities known to many as telepathy, telesthesia, telekinesis, etc. Sub dimensions don't just apply to the mind. They can, in fact, apply to spatial reality. In math, one can actually use the term 2.5 or 3.1 dimensional. Sounds crazy. Yet it's true. The real world is lacking in many different forms, which are virtual. Take the spherical fractal pattern as an example; do we find those patterns in nature?
Friday, March 25, 2016
The Verdict...
The Music Of Science,
I was at speech for climate change. We had to debate whether the world was getting warmer or windier. I finally broke apart. I couldn't stand it no more. One of the people shouted, "CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOW!" Some fiercely agreed, while others were the opposite. Ever since that time life was never the same. I was haunted by demons. So that's when somebody decided to break the ice. That's when me and my crew took to the floor with music. And all the science wizards of the room would keep dancing. Just keep dancing, my friends. It's going to be the end of the world, we're going out of business, so let's play the music." Everyone was satisfied after that. No more arguments. INstead, we were all one with nature. And we were mind over body. The answer was not to change the world no more... it was to become a better person; one who's immune to the conditions on Earth, which many of us cannot survive. Climate is a cycle, but life is one too. And life is short, so don't worry about it. Music to my ears."Oh cool"
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Six Strange Things Bacteria Eat
From Uranium, to oil, all of the way to what!? We break down the 6 most unusla things that form a bacteria's diet!
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/six-strange-things-bacteria-eat/vi-BBqFrj6?ocid=spartandhp
http://www.msn.com/en-us/video/wonder/six-strange-things-bacteria-eat/vi-BBqFrj6?ocid=spartandhp
A Creative Post Derived From My New Found Knowledge Of Photography
One of the most compelling ideas of mine about photography regards working with light. That idea was to make multiple images of an object or scene, each using different lighting . We could use the same light source. Or, we can use various types of lighting, with varying qualities. Then, we can assign a new "color profile" to each image. We can alter the levels so as to make each one a different color, we can make one red, the other blue, and the third green. Then, once we merge the images together, we will see what it would look like if we were to use lights of various colors. We have effectively created a simulation. The results can differ in more than just color, as we can use lights such as lamps, or bulbs, which can each produce different quality of light. Now, instead of going into levels, we can even change other parameters in order to get more creative. Now, we can alter the levels in such a way as to create a more or less colored image. For instance, we can simulate a light source that is emitting totally red light, but we can also simulate the light as if it were emitting some white light as well, by playing around with the settings. It's interesting for sure, especially given that the options give us the ability to create more than the primary colors. We can also use secondary colors. One of the skills that I've tried to pursue for quite a while now
is the photography of ice crystals. In this type of photography, this is the secret to obtaining the vividly mezmerizing images you might see in a book or gallery, but without the need for the use of colored LEDs. So this idea may have come to me from the art of light painting, in which you pretty much paint ssomething that already exists, but by using a light instead of a brush. I have yet to try the techniques listed here on this post. I think it would be really compelling if we were to use this on macros. We could theoretically use it on landscapes, if we could find a way to do that. One proposal would be to work at night. The advantage of this is that you don't have to work using sunlight. This means that you can change the quality of light whenever you want, without having to wait for the clouds to create diffused light, or until after sunset for ambiance. If it's already cloudy, well, then you won't have to wait for the sun to come out. The disadvantage would be that you would need a really long time to light the whole scene, especially if the scene is large. If the scene is something like a mountain scape, well... you might want to call off your photo session. And also, it takes lots of skill through experience when it comes to getting the lighting right, or just to your taste. That's because if you'd want to simulate a single point light source, you'd need to make sure that the light is in the same place the whole time. Unless of course that's what you're aiming for. Lighting the night lends itself to pretty much unlimited angles of lighting possible, since you can take a flashlight and move it 360 degrees. And you can also combine multiple angles of light, something that can't be done easily in the daytime without the use of reflections. But again, the sun only give you either sharp, or diffuse light at the same time. Now, there is yet another possibility that you could try out some day (have I said this earlier?). You can set up a camera outside, in the same place, and in the same position. And make sure that there are significant intervals of time between each picture. The intervals need to be long enough so that the angle of lighting is noticeably different between images. You may need to experiment with that. Now, even if you did this same thing, without changing levels, you might still get something pretty compelling results. In fact, I have never even tried this, although I have thought about it before. So; maybe you can try it out yourself sometime and tell me how it goes.
Let's talk about another interesting approach to images. I have tried simulating longer shutter speeds before by combing multiple images. Does it work? Yes and No. See, what you need for an image like this, without a filter or low aperture setting, is a small time interval between images. This way, you can make for smoother transition of features, and the image will not be as choppy. This works best when using increasingly longer shutter speeds. In fact, the best method for producing these kinds of images would be to use a remote shutter release, and preferably a camera with a fast image processor, as well as a high grade of memory card. You know, that's the great thing about more modern cameras, is that they have faster processors. This is one of the most important features on a camera, IMO. And this means that there is another reason for why high resolution doesn't matter so much. More on that topic in the next discussion.
is the photography of ice crystals. In this type of photography, this is the secret to obtaining the vividly mezmerizing images you might see in a book or gallery, but without the need for the use of colored LEDs. So this idea may have come to me from the art of light painting, in which you pretty much paint ssomething that already exists, but by using a light instead of a brush. I have yet to try the techniques listed here on this post. I think it would be really compelling if we were to use this on macros. We could theoretically use it on landscapes, if we could find a way to do that. One proposal would be to work at night. The advantage of this is that you don't have to work using sunlight. This means that you can change the quality of light whenever you want, without having to wait for the clouds to create diffused light, or until after sunset for ambiance. If it's already cloudy, well, then you won't have to wait for the sun to come out. The disadvantage would be that you would need a really long time to light the whole scene, especially if the scene is large. If the scene is something like a mountain scape, well... you might want to call off your photo session. And also, it takes lots of skill through experience when it comes to getting the lighting right, or just to your taste. That's because if you'd want to simulate a single point light source, you'd need to make sure that the light is in the same place the whole time. Unless of course that's what you're aiming for. Lighting the night lends itself to pretty much unlimited angles of lighting possible, since you can take a flashlight and move it 360 degrees. And you can also combine multiple angles of light, something that can't be done easily in the daytime without the use of reflections. But again, the sun only give you either sharp, or diffuse light at the same time. Now, there is yet another possibility that you could try out some day (have I said this earlier?). You can set up a camera outside, in the same place, and in the same position. And make sure that there are significant intervals of time between each picture. The intervals need to be long enough so that the angle of lighting is noticeably different between images. You may need to experiment with that. Now, even if you did this same thing, without changing levels, you might still get something pretty compelling results. In fact, I have never even tried this, although I have thought about it before. So; maybe you can try it out yourself sometime and tell me how it goes.
Let's talk about another interesting approach to images. I have tried simulating longer shutter speeds before by combing multiple images. Does it work? Yes and No. See, what you need for an image like this, without a filter or low aperture setting, is a small time interval between images. This way, you can make for smoother transition of features, and the image will not be as choppy. This works best when using increasingly longer shutter speeds. In fact, the best method for producing these kinds of images would be to use a remote shutter release, and preferably a camera with a fast image processor, as well as a high grade of memory card. You know, that's the great thing about more modern cameras, is that they have faster processors. This is one of the most important features on a camera, IMO. And this means that there is another reason for why high resolution doesn't matter so much. More on that topic in the next discussion.
The Purpose Of Life, As Seen Through My Eyes
This post will be about my personal idea on what the purpose of life is. I have found one, and it is phenomenally compelling, so please take a second to look at this and tell me what you think. Not sure how much sense it is, but I hope you understand what it say here
Speed Up Your Own Evolution
Do not be afraid, of the heat of the dessert, of the frigid winter. Don't be afraid; of going beyond human boundaries we set for ourselves. You can be anywhere, no matter how cold or hot you are, if you just become acclimated. Don't despair; The world could be a fearless place, where we could wander anywhere we want to, and not fear hypothermia, heat stroke, pain, or even other such challenges. It's essentially all in the mind. We just need to train. Starvation, thirst, or whatever else you can think of, such as diseases, can be cured! All you need to do, is start the to acclimate to these things, slowly yet surely. No need for healthcare. This will give us powers. The like of which the world has never, and might never see again. This is hyper evolution, in which we accelerate our own evolution, to survive anything the world has to throw at us. Sure, it's pretty ambitious. There are many things out in the world destined to be deadly. Yet if we don't start, then we won't get too far now. It's time to rethink what it means to be an average person, and what the purpose of life is. R U in, (do you agree?)!?
We could go into an extremely thin air, or extremely dense atmosphere without equipment. We could take a balloon up over Mounr Everest without a pressure suit or air supply. We could come back down to Earth and be alright. We can become immune to pressure changes, no matter how great, and no matter how fast. We can then acclimate to various factors at once. And so goes the story, of the purpose of life. My mind's eyes have opened up the window to a new existence. One which can lead to no more suffering, no more cold, no more heat, no more anything of that nature. We can overcome our fears, and be one with nature. We will cease to be afraid, and nature will start to become our lifestyle. It will now be our
I am currently listening to some slowed down music. It really opens up your inner energy, as I like to call it. It's amazing as amazing gets. What is it, it's M83, with a paulstretch applied to it in software. Oh man, I haven't heard this kind of music in my life. I will upload the results once I can.
Speed Up Your Own Evolution
Do not be afraid, of the heat of the dessert, of the frigid winter. Don't be afraid; of going beyond human boundaries we set for ourselves. You can be anywhere, no matter how cold or hot you are, if you just become acclimated. Don't despair; The world could be a fearless place, where we could wander anywhere we want to, and not fear hypothermia, heat stroke, pain, or even other such challenges. It's essentially all in the mind. We just need to train. Starvation, thirst, or whatever else you can think of, such as diseases, can be cured! All you need to do, is start the to acclimate to these things, slowly yet surely. No need for healthcare. This will give us powers. The like of which the world has never, and might never see again. This is hyper evolution, in which we accelerate our own evolution, to survive anything the world has to throw at us. Sure, it's pretty ambitious. There are many things out in the world destined to be deadly. Yet if we don't start, then we won't get too far now. It's time to rethink what it means to be an average person, and what the purpose of life is. R U in, (do you agree?)!?
We could go into an extremely thin air, or extremely dense atmosphere without equipment. We could take a balloon up over Mounr Everest without a pressure suit or air supply. We could come back down to Earth and be alright. We can become immune to pressure changes, no matter how great, and no matter how fast. We can then acclimate to various factors at once. And so goes the story, of the purpose of life. My mind's eyes have opened up the window to a new existence. One which can lead to no more suffering, no more cold, no more heat, no more anything of that nature. We can overcome our fears, and be one with nature. We will cease to be afraid, and nature will start to become our lifestyle. It will now be our
I am currently listening to some slowed down music. It really opens up your inner energy, as I like to call it. It's amazing as amazing gets. What is it, it's M83, with a paulstretch applied to it in software. Oh man, I haven't heard this kind of music in my life. I will upload the results once I can.
Future Weaponry and the Atomic Conundrum
Atomic bombs? Pssh. Machine guns? Incendiary rounds? Pssh. These are, the Weapons of The Future. First off, why couldn't we develop incendiary machine gun tech? You're basically throwing bombs. You are if you're using one of those weapons that shoots off of many barrels at once. Nukes? How about bombs full of disease, or toxins? You know, that could very well be something that could actually be used some day by enemy forces. And what if they use one of those? Will our nukes be enough to go against these threats? What if... a WW3 occurs? And what if say, China, obtains a nuclear arsenal that's greater than that of The U.S.? Even if China or Russia, even if they obtain an equal, not greater, amount of nukes, that doesn't make us (or them) more or less powerful in terms of nuclear power. But why!? We don't know what would happen if two nations to go to war w/each other with an equal amount of bombs. First, you have to realize that not all nukes are the same potency. 50 American bombs might not equal 50 China bombs. What if one nation's arsenal equals say, 125 MT, while the other equals 250 megatons? It's not just quantity, but also size. Even so, there are other issues concerning nuclear arsenals. Even with the same amount of overall nuclear power, no two nations will be the same when it comes to nuclear war, or as some like to call it, the next winter event (ice age). Let's say U.S. & Russia each have a total of 250 megatons of bombs stored up. The size of these bombs may vary depending on nation, or even in the nation itself. What if the U.S. releases a large amount of small bombs, against less numerous, but larger, bombs? The average size of an American nuke could differ from that of a Russian one. The ratio of small to large bombs in either the U.S or another country, could be anything. And this makes things extremely interesting, and probably would make things incredibly perplexing when it comes to nuclear warfare. What would be better? Would it be better using 4 packs of 25 sticks of dynamite in one, for 100 in total, or throwing individual sticks? (pack=24 sticks, 4 sticks). If someone threw four sticks at you, would you throw 100 sticks one at a time back at them!? But wait, there's more to it than that. After all, nuclear warfare also depends on how ready the nukes are for takeoff. And how well the operators control their trajectories. And so, if these factors are equal in two nations, then the nations are about equal overall, if their stockpile of bombs is equal in terms of overall power. Not sure just how much sense I made this last sentence. However...the truth is still out there, lurking like the demons in the shadows. Only time will tell. It is yet to be seen. After all, strategy will tell Well then; I suppose for that matter, that there is a purpose for why people want to play video games. It's either scary, or pleasing. Because you can realize what the fate of an army is. Thanks for reading, just wanted to shed some light on the Atomic Conundrum.
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Friday, March 11, 2016
Can Anybody Actually Possess (OBTAIN) a Soul?
And this is the million dollar question. I always answer some phenomenally tantalizing riddles...using nothing more than merely common sense; it ALWAYS FAILS TO DISSAPOINT;
This is what makes common sense my weapon of choice, especially when it comes to all those who are trying to become superior to me by saying their smarter. "IT JUST MAKES SENSE". Yeah. Except there are much more perplexing questions that need to be taken with a grain of common sense. Well, maybe a little bit more than that. Especially this one, which talks about whether or not there is a possibility for an afterlife.
The soul does not exist, at least not in any practical way. First of all, matter does not have consciousness, as some may think. And the notion that it DOES...this is just one of the reasons for why some might think that, upon dieing, we will be reincarnated, or that we have a soul. For Nature essentially does not know in itself about ourselves; if it were conscious then it, and people, could each interact with one another. And hypothetically speaking, one COULD "obtain" a soul. But this wouldn't really be mainstream science. Instead, it would be something more like metaphysics. It would be like telepathy (or at least something of that nature). And we just don't have such experiences in our own reality. And even if we had a "soul", it's not as though we would necessarily know about it, whether we were dead or alive. Why? A good way to compare this would be by going unconscious. Your soul may have left you, but... you won't have any way to sense it. You're dead either way. The only way around such a dilemma would be to undergo a hypothetical brain transplant. After all, there's no telling where your soul has ended up. But for you, this isn't important because you can't even tell that your soul still exists. It could be that a tree has gotten your soul. Wait one minute. A tree is not conscious so we wouldn't know anyway. But a dead man leaves behind new life either way. And life in general benefits from this. Even People, even today, are based on life that has existed before. It has to do not with the individual himself, but instead, future life depends on the building blocks of life; the same ones that have played a role in life all along.
This is what makes common sense my weapon of choice, especially when it comes to all those who are trying to become superior to me by saying their smarter. "IT JUST MAKES SENSE". Yeah. Except there are much more perplexing questions that need to be taken with a grain of common sense. Well, maybe a little bit more than that. Especially this one, which talks about whether or not there is a possibility for an afterlife.
The soul does not exist, at least not in any practical way. First of all, matter does not have consciousness, as some may think. And the notion that it DOES...this is just one of the reasons for why some might think that, upon dieing, we will be reincarnated, or that we have a soul. For Nature essentially does not know in itself about ourselves; if it were conscious then it, and people, could each interact with one another. And hypothetically speaking, one COULD "obtain" a soul. But this wouldn't really be mainstream science. Instead, it would be something more like metaphysics. It would be like telepathy (or at least something of that nature). And we just don't have such experiences in our own reality. And even if we had a "soul", it's not as though we would necessarily know about it, whether we were dead or alive. Why? A good way to compare this would be by going unconscious. Your soul may have left you, but... you won't have any way to sense it. You're dead either way. The only way around such a dilemma would be to undergo a hypothetical brain transplant. After all, there's no telling where your soul has ended up. But for you, this isn't important because you can't even tell that your soul still exists. It could be that a tree has gotten your soul. Wait one minute. A tree is not conscious so we wouldn't know anyway. But a dead man leaves behind new life either way. And life in general benefits from this. Even People, even today, are based on life that has existed before. It has to do not with the individual himself, but instead, future life depends on the building blocks of life; the same ones that have played a role in life all along.
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Something From Nothing ; How Has Time, And Everything We Know About, Begin?
SUMMARY: It all came into existence out of essentially nothing, just like water condenses out of "nothing", which is a term used to describe emptiness; however...space is NOT EMPTY, & for that matter never was, even when it comes to what it all started from
When I close my eyes I see the absence of light. Still... That does not mean there's nothing. Black is not nothing, it's still something. And the Same logic should probably apply to nothing as it comes to the start of the universe. For there could always have been something, right? But see, perhaps we are looking "too far" for the answer! Remember when I wrote about whether your red= my red? Well, buckle up. Because I'm Going to explore what exactly is "the science of nothing", as well as how this understanding can help us solve the mystery behind how everything probably (most likely) came into existence. The verdict of how it all began will be revealed, and the results, even from a scientific standpoint are nothing but shocking!
The term "nothing" is in essence the synonym for "imperceptible" (undetected). We cannot detect something (specific), so this is when it becomes "nothing". It is an assumption. The only exception though, is that we don't know what to assume should take place of what we cannot perceive. Wait a minute; it doesn't matter; saying, or even thinking of nothing involves something.
And given all the previous ideas, it is very likely that the universe may have come to existence from nothing, practically that is. What you may not realize, however, is that this transformation can take place in various ways, and we are probably even be able to notice most of them. Whenever something appears or disappears, our initial thought might be to think that say, water condensed on the windows out of nothing.At least that's what our perception tells us! In the case of everything expanding though, there could perhaps be yet another possibility, although my best guess wouldn't agree on it. The fact that subatomic particles have the extraordinary ability to seemingly appear and disappear could also help describe how everything began in the first place. And if such a scenario really were the case...then if someone were observing the start of the universe, it could very easily seem that matter is being created from nothing. And if the universe actually was microscopic at one time or another then it might have had the abilities of teleportation. All the matter would've teleported through a hole in space. Wouldn't that be something? Either all of it would, or individual pieces of matter would do so at a time. The notion of energy not be created nor destroyed. Could the same notion involve the matter? I say the universe has always been in existence. It was not merely magic (or was it?). Well, in all means, YES. The beginning of everything was magical indeed. If there were anything that really fit the bill for being dubbed magic, then our universe itself would definitely be just that. The talks of black holes and whatnot could be the entry point for matter to escape and form its own realm. Who knows? It could very well be the case that matter, or at least particles, can teleport through these entrances, expanding just like ours is. And so goes the story, of how all of existence came to be.
When I close my eyes I see the absence of light. Still... That does not mean there's nothing. Black is not nothing, it's still something. And the Same logic should probably apply to nothing as it comes to the start of the universe. For there could always have been something, right? But see, perhaps we are looking "too far" for the answer! Remember when I wrote about whether your red= my red? Well, buckle up. Because I'm Going to explore what exactly is "the science of nothing", as well as how this understanding can help us solve the mystery behind how everything probably (most likely) came into existence. The verdict of how it all began will be revealed, and the results, even from a scientific standpoint are nothing but shocking!
The term "nothing" is in essence the synonym for "imperceptible" (undetected). We cannot detect something (specific), so this is when it becomes "nothing". It is an assumption. The only exception though, is that we don't know what to assume should take place of what we cannot perceive. Wait a minute; it doesn't matter; saying, or even thinking of nothing involves something.
And given all the previous ideas, it is very likely that the universe may have come to existence from nothing, practically that is. What you may not realize, however, is that this transformation can take place in various ways, and we are probably even be able to notice most of them. Whenever something appears or disappears, our initial thought might be to think that say, water condensed on the windows out of nothing.At least that's what our perception tells us! In the case of everything expanding though, there could perhaps be yet another possibility, although my best guess wouldn't agree on it. The fact that subatomic particles have the extraordinary ability to seemingly appear and disappear could also help describe how everything began in the first place. And if such a scenario really were the case...then if someone were observing the start of the universe, it could very easily seem that matter is being created from nothing. And if the universe actually was microscopic at one time or another then it might have had the abilities of teleportation. All the matter would've teleported through a hole in space. Wouldn't that be something? Either all of it would, or individual pieces of matter would do so at a time. The notion of energy not be created nor destroyed. Could the same notion involve the matter? I say the universe has always been in existence. It was not merely magic (or was it?). Well, in all means, YES. The beginning of everything was magical indeed. If there were anything that really fit the bill for being dubbed magic, then our universe itself would definitely be just that. The talks of black holes and whatnot could be the entry point for matter to escape and form its own realm. Who knows? It could very well be the case that matter, or at least particles, can teleport through these entrances, expanding just like ours is. And so goes the story, of how all of existence came to be.
Friday, March 4, 2016
Is Your Color The Same As Mine? Let the Expert Explain...
Your red=my blue!? Hint: (I already know the answers); I'm so compelled to answer this. This is simple, to me at least. For those of you who don't know the science behind this, that's where I step in. To answer this question, let's first think about something similar to our eyes: the camera sensor. This works just like our eye, in the fact that sensors record light using three primary colors. And, if we compare one camera to another, we will notice that any two of these sensors are the same according to what colors they record. One sensors photo sites will look the same color as another's. And the same goes for our eyes, which also uses RGB. And then comes the science behind how the image is processed via the brain. That's where we run into trouble. After all, a camera doesn't work like our brains. But from then on, we would only need to figure out how this brain exactly forms the colors we perceive. If we could do just that, then we could compare our own processes with those used by other people. In fact, we've probably already done that. I'm just saying that we haven't done the comparing part. So, the verdict is still clear to me: most everyone perceives color the same. Unless, of course, there is something off about how their brain processes colors. You can simulate such a scenario yourself by this little experiment you could try out someday perhaps. Take a picture. Then you can use levels in a program like Photoshop, and switch them around in a way as to show how the world would look like if you were to perceive one color as another. Actually that's something that I've been trying to play around with before when I used to undertake IR photography for some really neat effects! In other words, what you're trying to do is replace one color with another by assigning each one a different profile. And in full spectrum photography, you couldn't really do it any other way. Technology cannot even help us see beyond the visible spectrum, because we don't have additional color receptors to perceive them. Just a little bit of insight into photography was all it took for me to answer this! Problem solved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)