Emeralds are not green

[Tempest Dahlia]

"Grue." Classic.

[Altαir]

All pure emeralds are green. All non-pure emeralds will change color, and therefore, will not be emeralds anymore.

[Tempest Dahlia]

All pure emeralds are green. All non-pure emeralds will change color' date=' and therefore, will not be emeralds anymore.

[/quote']

 

... Which therefore means that emeralds ARE green, and any other color is NOT one. It might be a gremrald, but it's not an emerald.

[Altαir]

All pure emeralds are green. All non-pure emeralds will change color' date=' and therefore, will not be emeralds anymore.

[/quote']

 

... Which therefore means that emeralds ARE green, and any other color is NOT one. It might be a gremrald, but it's not an emerald.

 

I think you can sum it up like that. There may be some exceptions, but Emeralds that do not change in 4000 A.D. have not been disturbed, and will still be pure.

[J-Max]

I also thought only Change came in Erosion and Decomposition. Emeralds are a Precious Stone and cannot be eroded. Neither can it be Decomposed. Emeralds will always look the same.

[Icy]

Haha... This ended quick.

 

In Conclusion: So' date=' we see science has these flaws. So, what separates Non-Science from Science, YCM?

[/quote']

 

What separates Non-Science from Science, is what we choose to believe as "facts" and what we believe is not a fact. Though, this is not to be confused with faith.

 

But, what if I have a wacky theory. "Quietude is the center of wholeness." This is true if flowers bloom in spring, and rivers flow down stream. I have facts. Is this a science?

 

 

Sure. Why not.

There's more than one kind of science after all.

[Willieh]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

 

How do you explain the general understanding of the hot and cool colors? I doubt people actually think that blue or green are "warm" colors. It's also worth mentioning that extremely bright yellow and green are usually hard colors for people to look at.

[Felix Culpa]

Who cares what color a rock that none of us can afford is?

[Dark]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

 

How do you explain the general understanding of the hot and cool colors? I doubt people actually think that blue or green are "warm" colors. It's also worth mentioning that extremely bright yellow and green are usually hard colors for people to look at.

 

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh, am I abnormal?

[Altαir]

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh' date=' am I abnormal?

[/quote']

 

WTF? You are missing out, bud.

 

So if I talk in orange text, it will strain your eyes?

[Dark]

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh' date=' am I abnormal?

[/quote']

 

WTF? You are missing out, bud.

 

So if I talk in orange text, it will strain your eyes?

 

Doesn't bother me at all, nor does it strain my eyes. ^_^

[Willieh]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

 

How do you explain the general understanding of the hot and cool colors? I doubt people actually think that blue or green are "warm" colors. It's also worth mentioning that extremely bright yellow and green are usually hard colors for people to look at.

 

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh' date=' am I abnormal?

[/quote']

 

No. I didn't limit strenuous colors to bright green and yellow. I just simply stated it's common for those colors to strain the eyes.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

 

How do you explain the general understanding of the hot and cool colors? I doubt people actually think that blue or green are "warm" colors. It's also worth mentioning that extremely bright yellow and green are usually hard colors for people to look at.

 

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh' date=' am I abnormal?

[/quote']

 

No. I didn't limit strenuous colors to bright green and yellow. I just simply stated it's common for those colors to strain the eyes.

 

Straining is just a result of contrast and shades. Green and yellow just happen to be fairly commonly shaded brightly, but they could still be an entirely different colour in another's eye, just brightly shaded.

 

Why wouldn't one find, say, your green, which would be, say, their red or orange, to be a "warm" colour? What they'd have grown to have associated with heat or warmth, primarily fire, would have been your green in their eyes and they'd have grown used to associating it with heat.

[Willieh]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

 

How do you explain the general understanding of the hot and cool colors? I doubt people actually think that blue or green are "warm" colors. It's also worth mentioning that extremely bright yellow and green are usually hard colors for people to look at.

 

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh' date=' am I abnormal?

[/quote']

 

No. I didn't limit strenuous colors to bright green and yellow. I just simply stated it's common for those colors to strain the eyes.

 

Straining is just a result of contrast and shades. Green and yellow just happen to be fairly commonly shaded brightly, but they could still be an entirely different colour in another's eye, just brightly shaded.

 

Why wouldn't one find, say, your green, which would be, say, their red or orange, to be a "warm" colour? What they'd have grown to have associated with heat or warmth, primarily fire, would have been your green in their eyes and they'd have grown used to associating it with heat.

 

Red is a warm color, and blue is a cool color regardless of association with fire/ice.

 

Also black and white would remain the same for them, so why not other colors?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

 

How do you explain the general understanding of the hot and cool colors? I doubt people actually think that blue or green are "warm" colors. It's also worth mentioning that extremely bright yellow and green are usually hard colors for people to look at.

 

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh' date=' am I abnormal?

[/quote']

 

No. I didn't limit strenuous colors to bright green and yellow. I just simply stated it's common for those colors to strain the eyes.

 

Straining is just a result of contrast and shades. Green and yellow just happen to be fairly commonly shaded brightly, but they could still be an entirely different colour in another's eye, just brightly shaded.

 

Why wouldn't one find, say, your green, which would be, say, their red or orange, to be a "warm" colour? What they'd have grown to have associated with heat or warmth, primarily fire, would have been your green in their eyes and they'd have grown used to associating it with heat.

 

Red is a warm color, and blue is a cool color regardless of association with fire/ice.

 

Also black and white would remain the same for them, so why not other colors?

 

Sure, but what they see as that familiar warm colour, red, might be different. Same for blue.

 

Black and white aren't colours by the way, they're shades. Brightness and darkness would likely be seen the same way based on people's eyes straining for certain colours. Yellow isn't necessarily a bright colour, what each of us calls yellow just appears as a bright colour in nature often, like on sunflowers. That could be your blue always being bright in my eyes. But I'd call it yellow all the same.

 

There're darker shades of yellows, but they don't appear as much in nature, so we associate yellow as being bright. All colours can be equally bright and dark. Standard ideas for their shade, like we see in crayons or paint.exe are usually based upon nature's influences, if not others.

[Willieh]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

 

How do you explain the general understanding of the hot and cool colors? I doubt people actually think that blue or green are "warm" colors. It's also worth mentioning that extremely bright yellow and green are usually hard colors for people to look at.

 

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh' date=' am I abnormal?

[/quote']

 

No. I didn't limit strenuous colors to bright green and yellow. I just simply stated it's common for those colors to strain the eyes.

 

Straining is just a result of contrast and shades. Green and yellow just happen to be fairly commonly shaded brightly, but they could still be an entirely different colour in another's eye, just brightly shaded.

 

Why wouldn't one find, say, your green, which would be, say, their red or orange, to be a "warm" colour? What they'd have grown to have associated with heat or warmth, primarily fire, would have been your green in their eyes and they'd have grown used to associating it with heat.

 

Red is a warm color, and blue is a cool color regardless of association with fire/ice.

 

Also black and white would remain the same for them, so why not other colors?

 

Sure, but what they see as that familiar warm colour, red, might be different. Same for blue.

 

Black and white aren't colours by the way, they're shades.

 

Black and white may not "technically" be colors, but it's more convenient to call them colors because when you see a black shirt you don't say "Hey look that shirt is the absorption of almost all incident light!" You say that it's black.

 

Anyway, if the absorption/reflection of all rays results in the same color for everyone alike, why would the reflection/absorption of only "red" rays of light result in different colors for everyone? Unless you'll admit that black and white are different (probably non-existent) colors for different people, your theory doesn't make much sense.

[Altαir]

It's how your eyes pick it up. I see red. You see red. It is almost impossible to see a completely different color than red. Colors do not vary with people. It's just at what angle and how much light at that angle which will make a difference.

[Shrekstasy]

And diamonds are not forever.

[BehindTheMask]

ITT: Science is just a bunch of theories with MORE evidence to back it up than anything else.

 

Well' date=' yeah, it is. This is a problem with Science. We cannot completely prove something is completely correct. There are also 2 other problems, the usage of terms, and the usage of Universally quantified sentences.

 

The usage of terms in science is quite bad. There are two types: Theoretical and Observational. Science tries to explain the unknown observations they see with both terms. Take, for example I have a red round rubber ball. I release the ball from my hand. It falls to the ground. Science uses the theoretical term "gravity" to describe the theoretical term "force" to explain why the ball reaches the ground.

 

Problem 2: Universally quantified sentences(UQS): Science uses UQS to describe what will happen based on our knowledge. In my Grue example, the word "All" was used. The problem with this is if I see one emerald that is Orange then my theory fails. Why is this bad for science? Science wants to COMPLETELY PROVE things. If we cannot describe what will happen in a domain, then what is the use?

 

 

In Conclusion: So, we see science has these flaws. So, what separates Non-Science from Science, YCM?

[/quote']

 

What seperates non-science from science?

 

Science is made up of mostly theories. Things we cannot know for sure, so we decide to find facts and supporting evidence, which could actually be related to something entirely different.

 

Things that we could not, can not, and will not witness, even with evidence, is a theory, because that evidence could belong to a theory yet to come.

 

EX: The Big Bang. No one was there to see it, we can't send probes to see if it really happened, we cannot reverse time to see if it happened. So, we tried to find backround radiation, and we did. However, it could still belong to other things, and the Big Bang may not have happened, and be simply a theory.

 

Non-science is theories. Science is 100% true, and completely proved theories, which have become facts.

 

What seperates them, is fact. The completely true theories are facts, and until proven, the theories are mere fairy tales, waiting to be called "true".

 

Of course, this matter is completely opinional, as to what seperates science and non-science, as well as the definition of both (In some ways), so this is merely my opinion on the subject.

 

If Science is "100% True, and completely proved theories" then What do we do about Gravity and Evolution?

 

Just curious : D

 

BehindTheMask is actually a 70-year old pedophile who abducts 71-year old ladies' date=' rapes them, forces them to marry him, kills them, and picks up their insurance policy money.

 

Can you prove [i']me[/i] wrong?

 

Using the logic stated in your first and subsequent posts, no, you cannot prove me wrong.

 

Anyone can make blatant and stupid claims and ask for proof that the claim is untrue.

 

But if you are making the claim, shouldn't it be your duty to prove to us that your claim is, in fact, true?

 

Here is another example, one done before in a religion thread on YCM:

 

"I am actually invisible. It's true. As long as no one can see me, and there are no video cameras around, I am always invisible. Once someone sees me, I automatically turn visible. And you cannot prove me wrong, can you?"

 

1) My logic =/= the first part of your post. I took evidence used to support "All Emeralds are Green" and applied it to "All Emeralds are Grue."

 

2) Attacking someone's character is a pretty nice thing to do, especially with a lack of an argument.

 

3) I didn't make blanket statements. I stated "Emeralds are not green, they are "grue".

 

What I mean by "grue" is that the emeralds are green, until 4000 A.D., then they will be blue."

 

This is my theory. I have evidence, which are emeralds. Right now they are green, however, my theory predicts they will be blue after 4000 A.D.

 

So you have one of two options:

 

1) Use proof to explain why emeralds cannot be grue

2) Stop trying to troll.

 

I do have proof. All the emeralds are green right now' date=' before 4000 A.D. How can you say that my theory has no evidence?[/quote']

 

That is not proof that emeralds will change colour.

 

It is my theory, HORUS, not my scientific law.

 

See above.

 

Haha... This ended quick.

 

In Conclusion: So' date=' we see science has these flaws. So, what separates Non-Science from Science, YCM?

[/quote']

 

What separates Non-Science from Science, is what we choose to believe as "facts" and what we believe is not a fact. Though, this is not to be confused with faith.

 

But, what if I have a wacky theory. "Quietude is the center of wholeness." This is true if flowers bloom in spring, and rivers flow down stream. I have facts. Is this a science?

 

 

Sure. Why not.

There's more than one kind of science after all.

 

Wow, I didn't expect you to agree. I expected you to say something like "That is nonsense."

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

HEY GUYS.

 

ON A SLIGHTLY RELATED NOTE.

 

MY GRUE COULD BE YOUR RED.

 

AND YOUR GRUE COULD BE MY PINK.

 

AND YOU'D HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING.

 

BECAUSE EYE CELLS ARE LIKE THAT.

 

^_______^

 

How do you explain the general understanding of the hot and cool colors? I doubt people actually think that blue or green are "warm" colors. It's also worth mentioning that extremely bright yellow and green are usually hard colors for people to look at.

 

I don't like to look at orange.

 

Dr. Willeh' date=' am I abnormal?

[/quote']

 

No. I didn't limit strenuous colors to bright green and yellow. I just simply stated it's common for those colors to strain the eyes.

 

Straining is just a result of contrast and shades. Green and yellow just happen to be fairly commonly shaded brightly, but they could still be an entirely different colour in another's eye, just brightly shaded.

 

Why wouldn't one find, say, your green, which would be, say, their red or orange, to be a "warm" colour? What they'd have grown to have associated with heat or warmth, primarily fire, would have been your green in their eyes and they'd have grown used to associating it with heat.

 

Red is a warm color, and blue is a cool color regardless of association with fire/ice.

 

Also black and white would remain the same for them, so why not other colors?

 

Sure, but what they see as that familiar warm colour, red, might be different. Same for blue.

 

Black and white aren't colours by the way, they're shades.

 

Black and white may not "technically" be colors, but it's more convenient to call them colors because when you see a black shirt you don't say "Hey look that shirt is the absorption of almost all incident light!" You say that it's black.

 

Anyway, if the absorption/reflection of all rays results in the same color for everyone alike, why would the reflection/absorption of only "red" rays of light result in different colors for everyone? Unless you'll admit that black and white are different (probably non-existent) colors for different people, your theory doesn't make much sense.

 

Black and white are different, I've never said they weren't. This's because aren't colours. To call them "colours" would be incorrect. It's an incorrect formal usage. They're shades. Each colour can be so black or so white. They have variable brightnesses.

 

When those "red" rays're absorbed or reflected, they could very well result in different colours seen for different people because the whole spectrum would be different. They might see the "red" spectrum differently with the same brightnesses too.

 

Brightness perspective is constant, that doesn't mean colour perspective is as well. ;D

[Willieh]

Most colors have different brightnesses by default though.

[Professor]

I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

The flap of a butterfly's wing will unleash armageddon upon a faraway planet.

[Altαir]

I'll consider trying to prove you wrong when you prove how this will be relevant to any of us.

The flap of a butterfly's wing will unleash armageddon upon a faraway planet.

 

Your Chaos Theory is evil. And irrelevant to the topic.

[Womi]

The Pokemon Emerald game was green. And Pokemon is always right. Get over it.

[Mehmani]

Science can never prove something 100%.

 

Raelen was right. Science can't prove something 100%.

 

It can. What about humans existing? Science says they exist. And they do. 100% Proof. Humans do exist. And Hydrogen. Science says Hydrogen powers the Sun, and it does. 100% proved.