koti

The pursuit of a blacker black is on in other fields too. TV's (and screens in general), fine art printing, phtography, etc. The reason is the higher contrast you get with a blacker black. From my experience, the fine art printing market people are the biggest fans of blackest blacks possible.

I find this very amusing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlicWUDf5MM&app=desktop

I will save this comment of yours to comfort me when I'm in the relativity section of the forum fredreload, also consider that CMYK is a color model which was created and is used to present colors in systems without a source of light (printing, wall paint, car paint, etc) There is no such thing as a true CMYK light source from a physical point of view (and real life point of view as well) because visible light to us is essentially RGB. The RGB color model is what we observe in nature. If you send a beam of white light through a prism you will observe that it will diffract into the primary colors of red, green and blue. Or you can look at a rainbow too You mentioned that you tried to shine CMYK from your monitor onto a piece of paper...this doesn't make much sense in terms of experiencing CMYK colors on your sheet of paper. What you see on your monitor is always RGB - sRGB or Adobe RGB to be precise (these are standards put to cope with hardware differences) considering you are not using a monitor calibrated to some other specific color reference. In order to convert a certain color from RGB to CMYK we need some kind of color color management. If something is unclear I will be glad to answer.

So you don't expect too much of your experiment consider this; The source (lets say a flashlight) is an RGB source of light. The Cyan filter will absorb the Red spectrum, the Magenta filter will absorb the Green and the Y filter will absorb the Blue. Guess what you will be left with.

Ask Swansont, maybe he will be kind enough to shine a flashlight through the CMY filters he's got and post a photo My bet is on dimm, brownish color.

I've never done this but I presume that if you shine light from a source through a set of CMY filters (like the ones Swansont linked you) you will just result in a dimmer light. How much dimmer depends on the source and the filters. PS. and no invisible ships nor camoulflage with this, sory.

Probably brownish color. But color perception is very subjective so hard to say.

Black is lack of light, its not a color. Subtractive color model (CMYK) is used in printing where there is no source of light except the ambient light. If you were to use light emitting ink you could in theory print succesfuly in RGB. RGB color model (additive) is used in systems which use a source of light (tvs, laptops, projectors, etc) The two models are not compatible with each other.

ok, that I think answers my question. I have difficulties with parsing GR (this is a clear case of it) I wonder why we are tought that there are 4 forces of nature when clearly we should be tought that there are 3. That would have saved me confusion. As for your thought experiment, I find it ridiculous that the meteor could curve spacetime only if I'm in proximity of it (assuming my universe for simplicity)

What does that have to do with anything? I came in my spaceship, stepped out of it and I'm now in proximity of the meteor. Let's pretend we have a universe just like ours with all the physical laws intact with one exception - it consist of only me and the meteor. If I am in proximity of the meteor the spacetime curvature pulls me onto the meteor. If I am on one side of the universe and meteor is on the orher, the spacetime curvature is not pulling me onto the meteor but the curvature remains. Is that what your trying to convey ? Or in other words...if your thought experiment (in my above universe) implies that spacetime curves only if Im in close proximity to the meteor then I dont buy it. (I was not aware that GR doesn't treat gravity as a force)

I wasn't sure where to post this but I presume that the answer to my question is either very simple or there is no answer so I decided to go for speculations. I apologise in advance for the crudeness of my argumentation: If I kick a ball, my body is depleted of a certain amount of energy which is being transfered onto the ball. If an atom of U235 is being struck by a neutron it falls apart emmiting energy but at the same time its loosing some of it's mass. The mass is depleted and transformed into energy. If a star emmits radiation it looses some of it's mass which exactly correlates to the amount of energy that it emmited. Again, the stars mass is depleted. As far as I understand we can even make models of black holes which comply with the law of conservation of energy. How does gravity come into the picture here? For simplicity, lets consider a stationary meteor stuck in "empty" space far away from any other sources of gravity. The meteor has mass. If I find myself in proximity of this meteor I will feel the gravitational force pulling me towards it. What source is depleted and of what is it depleted in favour of the force that I am feeling? Or is the answer that I am simply experiencing the curvature of space-time and there is no force that needs to to be considered by the law of the conservation of energy? In that case, why is gravity considered as one of the 4 forces?

That doesn't seem funny to me but the fact that dimpreepr -> The Grim Reaper CAME to comment on his post is kinda funny in a dark way

Tim88...I don't want to disrupt the flow of this thread and alienate the guys who really know what they are talking about but I think there are some issues in your below post which I'd like to adress:

I've read about half through this thread so far. I'd like to thank Tim88 for this thread and especially Studiot, Mordred and ajb for your effort in it. Even posts like #52 by Mordred are usefull to me despite the fact that I lack the math to fully appreciate it. It is all exhilarating to read.

Thats great. Be sure to tell them that "koti" from the science forums sent you.

Thats easy. Just contact nobelprize.org and tell them what you are telling us. Be sure to ask for an expert in cryptohraphy to evaluate your work.

ok, we can now be sure that we're gonna in trouble ^

I don't know but it's dimreepr's turn to say something now

This excerpt sounds even worse than the worst crackpots posting on this forum: “The atoms of a better universe will have the right for the same as you are the way we shall have to be a great place for a great time to enjoy the day you are a wonderful person to your great time to take the fun and take a great time and enjoy the great day you will be a wonderful time for your parents and kids"

I'll do it for the sake of your 500 posts. I'm trying but failing. You do realise that Function meant a Windows embeded software by "Paint" ? Geez what did I get myself into

I was referring to me deviating from the OP into measuring foreheads in a psychology forum. Congrats on your evolution from molecule to...? I think my forehead might be not large enough afterall and you will have to. What in the world are you talking about?

If he drew dots on his forehead to mimic 3d curvature he'd need more than a single photo and paint for the job.

How did you manage to get the curvature right? Answer quickly before the mods come.