I'm back for now. Thank you so much for your contribution, Goodnight Elizabeth and aimee_xbella. So your point, Goodnight Elizabeth, is that colours are just light. Yes, I learned about this physical thing (and by the way, I'm in 9th grade too =)) I like the idea about this that if there is a different light on, say, a banana, it is not just my impression that the banana has changed, but that the banana really is not the same as it was before, because before it was also just all colours+light, and now it is all colours+a different light, so it has changed, not just it's surroundings. I hope I formulated this the right way^^ I think that what I exactly meant, although I am not quite sure anymore because your answer got me confused whether, really, it wasn't exactly the thing that I meant...But I am still going to explain what I meant before, although maybe the spectrum and the light is the only conclusion we may come to...I'm sure that all of you that are interested in this quind of science know about the tree in a forest. If not, here's a recap: There's a tree in a forest, and everything that has ears is either dead or far, far away, miles away. (There was for example an atomic bomb that killed everyone). And a tree falls. The "thud" that it makes produces vibrations that trravel in the air, and also through the ground, and get smaller and smaller. After travelling for a bit, they are so weak they stop. They have not reached ears nor brain. So although the potential for sound, i.e. the vibrations exist, there is no sound, because the actual sound only forms when the brain decodes it. And basically what I meant before was that colours also only exist when the wavelengths reach a brain. But now I think that Goodnight Elizabeth has explained it: it doesn't work quite the way sounds do, but there are similarities. Thank you again, Goodnight Elizabeth.
About what aimee_xbella said: Wouah, the universe, expanding? I did hear that before, but I don't know much about it. I think it's fantastically interesting, also what you said, about what it's expanding into
. It would be great if you, or someone else could make some more research about this. I will definetely also look it up. Ooh, I knew it would be great to discuss this with Twilighters on the Lex, after all we are the "most attractive, intelligent, exciting, and dedicated fands in the world" (according to Stephenie Meyer, and I agree with her).
So now I'm starting to wonder if I should still post the next couple of my questions because this is really a lot, and it's HUGE. But here we go:
There is this theory, that, I believe, has never been proven wrong, that if there would be no time, there would be no material. You know how the insides of atoms spin? Electrons? Protons, Neutrons, everything moves and spins so quickly (or at least the electrons definetely do)? Well, if there would be no time, or time would be stoped, they would stop spinning, and DANG! atoms would still exist, but since there is so much space between the different electrons and protons etc., you could put your hand through everything (well, in theory. practically you couldn't, because your hand wouldn't exist anymore as a material either, and you wouldn't be able to move it anyway since time has stopped).
Aaaaaand: what do you think about Einsteins theory, that we could travel in time? Do you like the idea? I like it, in a way, and since I watched about half of a movie about it, I find it very interesting, but this goes against everything that humans have always believed: What is done cannot be undone, the past is the past, and so on.I know it's not the newest of ideas, but I still find it amazing. I will have to finish watching that movie sometime.
Or did you know that apparently objects have no fixed place until the moment they are observed, i.e. by a camera or an eye?
Or something that is similar to the cat in the box( which has never been tested, because really, it's impossible fo humans to test it. And for those of you who don't know it: A cat in a closed box without cameras or other living things seeing or hearing it. And there is a 50%/50% chance that it dies, for example because of a poison that only kills half the living things that take it in. And until the moment that someone looks for the cat, the cat is neither dead nor alive. It is inbetween. The exact moment that it is verrified whether it's dead or not, the cat either then is dead, or not. Before that, it is both, and neither. This has mathematically been proven by a Nobel-Prize winner mathematician, Schrödinger. You can look it up any where, for example on Wikipedia (although I know many people don't trust Wikipedia, but it has been proven that it's more acurate than people believe), here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr
ödinger's_cat) and what I actually meant before going on and on about a cat was: that atoms can appear and disappear, although we don't know where they go to. And this can happen while we look at it, for once.
Holy, i feel like in an TOK class (Theory of knowledge), but better, because I am not constantly told to shut up and let the others talk =)