Riddles
Sort:
Maybe he's already eaten it and now he's cooking it. Time-shifting aliens may occasionally be beside the point, but it's impossible to predict when or where. They just appear, are beside the point for an undefined period of time and then dematerialise again.
Apr 21, 2013
0
#24
I don't know if time-shifting aliens have special abilities like eating the food then cooking it, and dematerialising? They could just merely have the power to ignore daylight-savings time?
What about time-shifting natives for that matter? How fast can they blink?
lol @ Time-shifting aliens
Apr 21, 2013
0
#27
I think it's pretty irresponsible of pdela not to provide us with that information.
Apr 21, 2013
0
#29
I think Dr. McCoy had an affair with that particular alien. Did you ever work with Dr.McCoy, DrSpudnik?
That's not Nancy...
Apr 22, 2013
0
#31
It's not my Nancy!
Not with teeth like that!!!
Besides, with Star Trek zipping back and forth in time with Earth visits, it's hard to tell if you ever worked with the real McCoy or The Real McCoy.
Apr 22, 2013
0
#32
Joseph-S wrote:
This is why I read the forums.
well, that's why I love this people... I don't understand everything they say... not sure what are they saying about time shifting aliens, but it looks like they're saying something funny... and that's why I get sad if they get angry with me (cough...trysts...cough)
pdela wrote:
ok, like nobody is taking this seriously I will provide an answer. Our vision? (view?) doesn't tell us about the "present" state of the things, this is because we see the rays of light which are reflected from an object, but the speed of light is finite equal to c, so there is no immediate information transmission (not even in quantum teleportation)
So light comes from the object following two different paths:
the light last more time in reaching the camera from path 2 (there is a delay), so the screen reflects a "reality" (boy with eyes open) which precedes the "reality" which has been captured by the camera device (boy with eyes closed). In general, the more far that you look the more you go into the "past"
Without getting into the relativistic stuff, which is of no great relevance here, this explanation is false because the eye or the camera is "sampling" in time, ie does not catch an image instantly, but averages over something like 1 ms (the "obturation time" for the camera, the typical retine persistance for the eye, that depending on the person is around 0.1s).
Being given that the difference in length would be of the order of 1 m, and the speed of light is 3.10^8 m/s, the sampling of 0.001 s is much, much bigger than the short instant where you could catch that image with an 'instant detector' (that does not exist, and will never for physical reasons), which would be of the order of 3 ns (1 ns = 0.0000000001 s).
(so yes, photoshop)
secondly, the sky is blue in the reflection.
Apr 22, 2013
0
#35
Irontiger wrote:
pdela wrote:
ok, like nobody is taking this seriously I will provide an answer. Our vision? (view?) doesn't tell us about the "present" state of the things, this is because we see the rays of light which are reflected from an object, but the speed of light is finite equal to c, so there is no immediate information transmission (not even in quantum teleportation)
So light comes from the object following two different paths:
the light last more time in reaching the camera from path 2 (there is a delay), so the screen reflects a "reality" (boy with eyes open) which precedes the "reality" which has been captured by the camera device (boy with eyes closed). In general, the more far that you look the more you go into the "past"
Without getting into the relativistic stuff, which is of no great relevance here, this explanation is false because the eye or the camera is "sampling" in time, ie does not catch an image instantly, but averages over something like 1 ms (the "obturation time" for the camera, the typical retine persistance for the eye, that depending on the person is around 0.1s).
Being given that the difference in length would be of the order of 1 m, and the speed of light is 3.10^8 m/s, the sampling of 0.001 s is much, much bigger than the short instant where you could catch that image with an 'instant detector' (that does not exist, and will never for physical reasons), which would be of the order of 3 ns (1 ns = 0.0000000001 s).
(so yes, photoshop)
Apr 22, 2013
0
#36
pdela wrote:
Joseph-S wrote:
This is why I read the forums.
well, that's why I love this people... I don't understand everything they say... not sure what are they saying about time shifting aliens, but it looks like they're saying something funny... and that's why I get sad if they get angry with me (cough...trysts...cough)
Pdela, I think I was quite justified in getting annoyed with you when your most recent breakdown turned into a series of notes and messages from what can only be described as a 'madman'.
Apr 22, 2013
0
#37
trysts wrote:
pdela wrote:
Joseph-S wrote:
This is why I read the forums.
well, that's why I love this people... I don't understand everything they say... not sure what are they saying about time shifting aliens, but it looks like they're saying something funny... and that's why I get sad if they get angry with me (cough...trysts...cough)
Pdela, I think I was quite justified in getting annoyed with you when your most recent breakdown turned into a series of notes and messages from what can only be described as a 'madman'.
well
, now it's oki
Apr 22, 2013
0
#38
Yes, I noticed. Nice to have you back. You do know though, that if you use a picture of a woman in your avatar then you will likely get creepy messages, right? I don't know why a man would wish to do this, but good luck with that!
Apr 22, 2013
0
#39
trysts wrote:
Yes, I noticed. Nice to have you back. You do know though, that if you use a picture of a woman in your avatar then you will likely get creepy messages, right? I don't know why a man would wish to do this, but good luck with that!
I'm doing an experiment
Yeah it's nothing to do with the speed of light. If the light path from eye to camera is say 1m, the reflected path will be something like 1.2m. i.e. the difference in time between the events you see in each will be 0.2m / 3 x 10^8 ms^-1 = 0.000000000667s. Google tells me it takes about 0.1s to blink, so the two events implied in this image would be about 0.025s apart. For the speed of light to be an explanation here, we would have to assume this boy blinks 37 million times faster than an ordinary person.
This is why I read the forums.