Will the sun rise tomorrow?

[mar_mar]

I have a mind-blowing question. Read it carefully: will the sun rise tomorrow? 

There's sunrise problem. Why is that you think? It seems like so obvious event. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem

Do you know that the sun will rise tomorrow or do you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow? If you KNOW that, where does that knowledge come from? 

[iNow]

I acknowledge the possibility it won’t, while accepting the likelihood it will as a near certainty 

[mar_mar]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

I acknowledge the possibility it won’t

On what reason? 

And I  apologize in advance for my question and for being foolish but I  want to ask. And ask for permission. If i am not right I'll accept it and leave it.

 

You told that birds prepare for winter because of survival and time. That they know about the future. 

In one topic, don't remember the name, the moderator said "don't anthropomorphize particles". Don't people anthropomorphize animals? This is YOU, who knows about the the time. And you endow that birds with concept of time. While they obey cause and effect. 

This is my speculation and I don't insist. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by mar_mar

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You told that birds prepare for winter because of survival and time. That they know about the future. 

!

Moderator Note

You were told to not bring this up again

 

[Sensei]

Quote

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

No. The Sun does not rise. That's a premature, childish version of ancient people who didn't understand how the world works.

The Earth rotates, causing the illusion that "the Sun rises" and "the Sun sets", when in fact it emits light all the time, just to a different part of the Earth..

 

 

56 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

On what reason? 

Hydrogen fuel burnout..

 

58 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You told that birds prepare for winter because of survival and time. That they know about the future. 

..do people know about the future when they prepare supplies for the winter.. ?

(In Africa, Central and South America, and the Islands, they don't do that.. year-round fresh fruits and vegetables).

 

[joigus]

The word "tomorrow" already implies that the Sun rises (otherwise I can picture no tomorrow), so I'm guessing we're talking about conditional probability and the answer is "yes".

 

[sethoflagos]

3 hours ago, joigus said:

The word "tomorrow" already implies that the Sun rises (otherwise I can picture no tomorrow), so I'm guessing we're talking about conditional probability and the answer is "yes".

 

At every instant, the sun is rising in a variety of locations around the solar system. Would anything short of a vacuum decay catastrophe halt this phenomenon?  

[joigus]

25 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

At every instant, the sun is rising in a variety of locations around the solar system. Would anything short of a vacuum decay catastrophe halt this phenomenon?  

It would take something of those proportions, I guess. Not even a galactic-scale catastrophe would impede a tomorrow.

Typically the effect of supernova explosions doesn't go beyond increasing the sky's opacity or something of that kind, AFAIK.

We are pretty safe in our outer spiral arm, fortunately.

[swansont]

Serleena could destroy the sun in their quest for The Light of Zartha.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

The word "tomorrow" already implies that the Sun rises (otherwise I can picture no tomorrow)

AHA, but Tomorrow NEVER ever arrives!!!

It’s always today!!!

Bwah hahaha. Checkmate, science nerds. You just got pwned!🤓 

[joigus]

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

AHA, but Tomorrow NEVER ever arrives!!!

It’s always today!!!

Bwah hahaha. Checkmate, science nerds. You just got pwned!🤓 

You can have my liver then.

 

[iNow]

Lol. In this amazing and expanding universe. 🎶 

 

 

7 hours ago, mar_mar said:

On what reason? 

On the reason that certainty is for fools

Edited December 8, 2023 by iNow

[mar_mar]

On 12/7/2023 at 7:32 PM, Sensei said:

No. The Sun does not rise. That's a premature, childish version of ancient people who didn't understand how the world works.

The Earth rotates, causing the illusion that "the Sun rises" and "the Sun sets", when in fact it emits light all the time, just to a different part of the Earth..

 

 

 

 

You are talking about the sun in Space.  

And I'm talking about the observation from the Earth. 

On 12/7/2023 at 7:32 PM, Sensei said:

people know about the future when they prepare supplies for the winter.. ?

(In Africa, Central and South America, and the Islands, they don't do that.. year-round fresh fruits and vegetables).

Since you quoted me I don't what to do. I am not allowed to talk on this topic. But I have found one article which can support my thoughts. 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I am not allowed to talk on this topic.

So don’t 

[mar_mar]

Could I ask to open my topic colour so that I could protect my thoughts? Ultimately it is not deleted. 

Or I could start a new one but I don't want to multiply entities. 

Or I can answer in this topic because everything concerns the observation. And it's very important thing. 

[mar_mar]

On 12/7/2023 at 7:32 PM, Sensei said:

No. The Sun does not rise. That's a premature, childish version of ancient people who didn't understand how the world works.

The Earth rotates, causing the illusion that "the Sun rises" and "the Sun sets", when in fact it emits light all the time, just to a different part of the Earth..

 

 

 

 

With the similar success you can say that there's no day and night, and there's no summer and winter. 

 

"Astronomically, sunrise occurs for only an instant: the moment at which the upper limb of the Sun appears tangent to the horizon.[1] However, the term sunrise commonly refers to periods of time both before and after this point."

On 12/8/2023 at 1:46 AM, iNow said:

🎶

 

 

On the reason that certainty is for fools

So you accept the event that the Earth could stop rotation? On what reason you accept this event?

Edited December 9, 2023 by mar_mar

[swansont]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Could I ask to open my topic colour so that I could protect my thoughts? Ultimately it is not deleted. 

!

Moderator Note

It was not deleted because we don’t do that. It will not be re-opened.

 

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Or I could start a new one but I don't want to multiply entities. 

!

Moderator Note

No you may not.

 

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Or I can answer in this topic because everything concerns the observation. And it's very important thing. 

!

Moderator Note

You should not repeat your error of being persistently obtuse as you were in the closed thread

 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I am not allowed to talk on this topic.

This is not exactly true, is it? You talked about it for several pages, couldn't support it, made up some weird semantic reasons, wasted a LOT of time for many people, and so ultimately your other thread was closed, and you were told not to bring it up again BECAUSE IT'S A WASTE OF TIME!

[mar_mar]

Persistently obtuse? Well, thank you. But I didn't do anything bad for this. 

21 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is not exactly true, is it? You talked about it for several pages, couldn't support it, made up some weird semantic reasons, wasted a LOT of time for many people, and so ultimately your other thread was closed, and you were told not to bring it up again BECAUSE IT'S A WASTE OF TIME!

Not couldn't. I didn't want to. I found an article. 

You criticize everyone, but you don't want to accept critics, very reasonable. Not you personally.

You can ban me forever, I don't care.  if you are so ARROGANT. 

here it is

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/14/picture-kangaroo-empathy-sexual-exploitation-human-anthropomorphise

 

"Both of these interpretations reveal far more about us than about the kangaroos. The extensive press coverage, and the accompanying comments criticising scientists for explaining what was really going on, are classic examples of the way we want wild creatures to be like us – a fallacy known as anthropomorphism.

It is, of course, perfectly natural to expect the rest of the animal kingdom to share the same ways of thinking and feeling about the world as we do. Since human beings first observed their fellow creatures we have endowed them with our own emotions – and we continue to do so today."

 

So NO, animals don't distinguish "colours". And the don't know what is time. 

Edited December 10, 2023 by mar_mar

[iNow]

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

You can ban me forever

Finally, alignment. 

[pzkpfw]

I read the article, and didn't see anything in it about whether animals can distinguish colours.

Then I realised, there was some doubt about what caused the female kangaroos' death.

It became obvious: as the kanagroo can't distinguish colours (so says mar_mar), it hopped into a tree it hadn't noticed.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, mar_mar said:

You criticize everyone, but you don't want to accept critics, very reasonable. Not you personally.

You can ban me forever, I don't care.  if you are so ARROGANT. 

Nobody is criticizing YOU, it's your idea that people have problems with. We told you exactly what was wrong with the idea, but you either didn't like the criticism or didn't understand it. 

It's not about banning you. We're here to have meaningful discussions about science. What you're arguing isn't science, and we tried to help you see that. It's very obvious that animals can distinguish colors, and there is a LOT of documentation about it. But here comes YOU, saying they can't, and we know they can. Is that arrogant? I don't think so. I think you're wrong, I think we've shown that, and again you either don't like what you're hearing or you don't understand what you're hearing. 

Also, you didn't seem to understand that Guardian article you linked to. It doesn't support your claims.

3 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Not couldn't. I didn't want to.

You didn't want to support an assertion you made on a science forum? Then don't make them in the first place. Boy, talk about arrogant.

[mar_mar]

7 hours ago, pzkpfw said:

I read the article, and didn't see anything in it about whether animals can distinguish colours.

Then I realised, there was some doubt about what caused the female kangaroos' death.

It became obvious: as the kanagroo can't distinguish colours (so says mar_mar), it hopped into a tree it hadn't noticed.

This article says that humans decide for animals what they(animals) feel. Everything we know about animals is from the observation of their behavior. And this observation is based on a human nature. We are restricted with our human nature, if it is correct to say this. For me kingdom of animals is some sacred place where we humans are not allowed to step in without correct instruments, such as going through the process, and not observing it. 

The same thing with religion. Scientific method doesn't work in these areas. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Nobody is criticizing YOU, it's your idea that people have problems with. We told you exactly what was wrong with the idea, but you either didn't like the criticism or didn't understand it. 

It's not about banning you. We're here to have meaningful discussions about science. What you're arguing isn't science, and we tried to help you see that. It's very obvious that animals can distinguish colors, and there is a LOT of documentation about it. But here comes YOU, saying they can't, and we know they can. Is that arrogant? I don't think so. I think you're wrong, I think we've shown that, and again you either don't like what you're hearing or you don't understand what you're hearing. 

Also, you didn't seem to understand that Guardian article you linked to. It doesn't support your claims.

You didn't want to support an assertion you made on a science forum? Then don't make them in the first place. Boy, talk about arrogant.

And also I'm saying about subjectivity. Humans observe animals being humans, and not animals. To understand animals you have to BE an animal. And you don't know what is color for animals, not for you, but for animals, is there time for animals.

And isn't it arrogance to say that there's no sunrise, while there's astronomical definition of the sunrise. 

Edited December 10, 2023 by mar_mar

[iNow]

And now here we are yet again for the 4th or 7th time talking about a topic which did nothing but waste time in the first place and which was not allowed to be introduced again.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, mar_mar said:

To understand animals you have to BE an animal.

OK, you really don't understand science. Perhaps study and come back, but you're just wasting time with this garbage, mostly yours. Such a shame!