2 ms·
No. Get yourself straight and reread my post. The full post is saying that the interpretation of what you see is NO DIFFERENT from an alternate universe. I am
by nendroid 6y ago
No. Get yourself straight and reread my post.
The full post is saying that the interpretation of what you see is NO DIFFERENT from an alternate universe. I am not saying this is actually what's going on.
All reflections on all surfaces can be interpreted this way.
The point of the example is to say that the language people use to refer to reflections is to refer to this alternate higher level interpretation and is still valid. Only the most pedantic person will say "nothing" has flipped and call it just bouncing photons.
> If what you see in the mirror would be another universe then it would have to me MIRRORED to look like we see things in a mirror.
This is exactly what I'm saying nothing precludes the alternate universe to be MIRRORED. The alternate universe is a mirrored universe, Get it?
>The wrong assumption is that your universe and the one you see in the mirror is identical.
This is your assumption. I never said this. I said ALTERNATE universe. <--- read the word ALTERNATE. I'm assuming here that you might be delusional and seeing the word IDENTICAL instead of alternate.
>No matter how you would flip the other universe it would never look like what you see in a mirror.
Again if the atoms in this universe and flip them across the Z-axis the light bouncing off those atoms would produce exactly what you see in the mirror.
>Just use 2 identical but non-simple objects place them next to each other for example 2 coins. No matter how you flip or rotate the coins it will never look like there is a mirror in between. You would need a mirrored coin for that.
When I say a z-axis flip I mean inside out. Imagine holding a glove, then turning that glove inside out. That is a z-axis flip. Your coin analogy is completely off.
>I did and I pointed out why your theory is garbage.
I never even made a theory I just used the alternate universe thing as an example of the vernacular people use... people refer to the reflection as a real object and not as bounced photons and this interpretation is valid because it can't be proven otherwise. You just didn't get it. Hopefully you reread my post and realized that it is not my "theory" that's garbage but your brain.