tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16899684.post116491767818021768..comments2023-09-23T00:37:29.396-07:00Comments on Mom's Cancer Blog: Put Up or Shut UpBrian Fieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16347700145666751363noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16899684.post-1164994803102199122006-12-01T09:40:00.000-08:002006-12-01T09:40:00.000-08:00Thanks, Amanda. I appreciate it!Ronnie, regarding ...Thanks, Amanda. I appreciate it!<BR/><BR/>Ronnie, regarding the tree in the forest, I'm afraid I'm too much of a meat-and-potatoes science guy to find it an interesting question. Sound is pressure waves moving through air (or water, whatever). If I believe there is wind howling across the crest of Mt. Everest or the plains of the Sahara even when no one is there to experience it, I have to believe the falling tree makes a sound.<BR/><BR/>I've had this discussion with people who try to parse the difference between "sound" and "noise," arguing that sound is indeed waves moving through air but noise is how that sound is perceived by an observer (or vice versa). The tree can make sound without making noise. Maybe that's what you're getting at? I concede that point but think niggling over subtle word definitions misses the spirit and intent of the riddle (which wasn't originally posed in English anyway). Does something exist if it's not observed? Yes, including 99.99% of the universe.<BR/><BR/>But I think a rainbow is a fundamentally different thing. It's almost, but not quite, an optical illusion. Yes, light shines into raindrops and gets refracted and reflected whether anybody's looking or not, but the phenomenon of the <I>rainbow</I> depends on an observer standing at that 42-degree spot. If I'm standing to the side of a rainstorm in the distance, I can think, "boy, I'll bet those people over there are seeing some great rainbows," but I can't see one myself. No observers, no rainbows... maybe.<BR/><BR/>If 1000 people are in the forest and all hear a single bark-splintering crack, they can compare notes and trace that sound back to the fallen tree that made it. But if 1000 people are standing in a field looking at a rainbow, each is really looking at his or her own individual rainbow and there's no causal event to trace. There's no <I>there</I> there. If 1000 people see 1000 different rainbows, 100 people see 100 different rainbows, and 1 person sees 1 rainbow, then what would zero persons see?<BR/><BR/>If you tied me down and waterboarded me, I'd admit I think there probably are rainbows shining unobserved in the Amazon just as there are unheard sounds whistling across the summit of Everest. But I think there's a much better case for the unwitnessed non-existence of a rainbow than a tree crash.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your compliment on that panel. I share your unease, and in fact took myself aback writing that it was "one of my favorites," too. But I think I can have compassion for Mom and mourn her while still thinking I sometimes did an adequate job communicating her experience. If someone looks at that panel and understands Mom's terror, then I did a good job and that makes me happy.<BR/><BR/>If I can live with it, so can you!<BR/><BR/>Arnold, I regret your experiences that gave you so much time to study such machines. In my case, this particular machine was located at "Impressive Hospital" far from home. I could've made do with similar local equipment, but I came up with my Frankenstein solution pretty fast and liked it better anyway.<BR/><BR/>Namowal, thanks for giving me something else to gripe about. I share your peeve, and am always on the lookout for stars inside crescent moons, crescents pointing the wrong direction, full moons beside sunsets, etc. Ever notice how seldom artists depict a gibbous moon? It's always full or crescent. That's one reason I drew a gibbous moon on Page 76 of <I>Mom's Cancer,</I> just to be an iconoclast.Brian Fieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347700145666751363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16899684.post-1164990367123047042006-12-01T08:26:00.000-08:002006-12-01T08:26:00.000-08:00Good point on the rainbow physics violation! My p...Good point on the rainbow physics violation! <BR/>My pet peeve in art, doctored photos or movies is when they screw with the moon. Like when it's upside down or in some imposible position (a slim crescent high in the sky with no sun nearby, for example). Or if stars are visible through the dark part of the moon.Namowal (Jennifer Bourne)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00384500508934864421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16899684.post-1164948404102041502006-11-30T20:46:00.000-08:002006-11-30T20:46:00.000-08:00Agreed on Kinkade.Unfortunately I could draw you a...Agreed on Kinkade.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately I could draw you a very good sketch of the machine you were looking for, but I'm also sure if you'd taken a digital camera to the local hospital they'd have been cooperative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16899684.post-1164938043789711772006-11-30T17:54:00.000-08:002006-11-30T17:54:00.000-08:00Oh man, my head hurts with that physics lesson...o...Oh man, my head hurts with that physics lesson...obviously I took too much time actually trying to comprehend what you were talking about.<BR/><BR/>Makes sense though really, when you think about it, a master of a certain trade should be a master or what he(or she) does, and if he specializes in light, he should be able to draw lighting effects as well and as acurately as humanly possible...<BR/><BR/>But who knows, maybe that was his modern art phase...or maybe he really likes drawing rainbows!<BR/><BR/><BR/>PS: R and I finished our NaNoWriMo...! Yay!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16899684.post-1164931855542877452006-11-30T16:10:00.000-08:002006-11-30T16:10:00.000-08:00Truly fascinating post.As for the "tree in the for...Truly fascinating post.<BR/><BR/>As for the "tree in the forest" conundrum, can a sound be said to have been created if an eardrum didn't vibrate? Does the existence of sound waves alone (just like the existence of the raindrops reflecting the sun) constitute a "sound", or must an eardrum vibrate (or, in my case, a hair cell be stimulated by artificial means) in order for a "sound" to have been said to exist?<BR/><BR/>At least, I <I>think</I> that's what the conundrum is.<BR/><BR/>I wanted to mention in passing that that particular panel is one of my very favourite from Mom's Cancer, if "an image which startlingly perfectly sums up a terrifying experience the reader can relate to on a profound, gut-wrenching level" can be said to equal "favourite".ronniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14044863062652781155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16899684.post-1164924369990524392006-11-30T14:06:00.000-08:002006-11-30T14:06:00.000-08:00Just like your book, that was beautifully written....Just like your book, that was beautifully written.<BR/><BR/>-Amandashrinking indigohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131782214013656383noreply@blogger.com