Star triangle paradox

[John99]

And the light does NOT arrive in real time. (As you have agreed).

I never claimed that light does not take time to reach you. I said it does.

Irrelevant. Sight is interpreted in the brain.

It is relevant. The contention: are there instances enabling the capability for instant interpretation? obviously some things take longer to interpret could be many factors for that.

 

[John99]

I also asked if light stopped.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I never claimed that light does not take time to reach you. I said it does.

Lie:
Post #184

James R: 2. Does it take light from a door some time to cross the room to your eyes? Yes/no

I am going to say: NO

It is relevant. The contention: are there instances enabling the capability for instant interpretation? obviously some things take longer to interpret could be many factors for that.

Also wrong. Sight includes interpretation in the brain. If, as you claimed, we see things in real time then the processing must be instantaneous. And we happen to be talking about sight (that's the subject of the thread). Or are you claiming that we process seeing of different objects at different speeds?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I also asked if light stopped.

Beside the point. More avoidance.

 

[John99]

Lie:
Post #184

Originally Posted by John99
“
James R: 2. Does it take light from a door some time to cross the room to your eyes? Yes/no
”
I am going to say: NO

That is what we have been discussing - from a door

Also wrong. Sight includes interpretation in the brain. If, as you claimed, we see things in real time then the processing must be instantaneous. And we happen to be talking about sight (that's the subject of the thread).

I already introduced the assertion that there is capability to see in real time. From source to brain to interpetation.

Or are you claiming that we process seeing of different objects at different speeds?

Y E S

 

[Dywyddyr]

That is what we have been discussing - from a door

And we have also established that viewing a human is no different to viewing a door. You have also claimed that we see (for example) a supernova in real time.

I already introduced the assertion that there is capability to see in real time. From source to brain to interpetation.

So? Then you are are not only claiming that light travels instantaneously (contrary to your earlier agreement that it has a finite speed and your ridiculous lie in post ~241) you are also claiming that vision is processed instantaneously.

Y E S

Why? How? What evidence do you have for this?

 

[Dywyddyr]

“
Originally Posted by John99
Obviously vision has boundaries.

Originally Posted by John99
but i see the cookies with no boundaries.

I meant ocular baoundaries.

Meaning what?

 

[John99]

And we have also established that viewing a human is no different to viewing a door. You have also claimed that we see (for example) a supernova in real time.


So? Then you are are not only claiming that light travels instantaneously (contrary to your earlier agreement that it has a finite speed and your ridiculous lie in post ~241) you are also claiming that vision is processed instantaneously.


Why? How? What evidence do you have for this?

All you are doing is reading my posts back - out of context and only in parts.

supernovae can be seen in real time depending on where you are in relation to the supernova.

 

[Dywyddyr]

All you are doing is reading my posts back - out of context and only in parts.

Wrong.

supernovae can be seen in real time depending on where you are in relation to the supernova.

Also wrong.

 

[James R]

John99:

You have now added an additional false claim to your previous claim:

upernovae can be seen in real time depending on where you are in relation to the supernova.

You have approximately one hour left to either explain your claims in detail or to retract them. Failing that, you will be banned for trolling.

Here is a list of statements about the process of seeing a door. Since you seem incapable of generating such a list yourself, you need only tell me which one(s) you disagree with, and why, in physical terms. You will, of course, include at least some supporting scientific evidence you have for your views.

Process by which you preceive a door:

1. Light from an external source (e.g. light bulb or the sun) strikes the door.
2. The door reflects part of the light that strikes it.
3. Part of the reflected light travels towards your eye.
4. Light travels at a finite speed.
5. Light takes a few nanoseconds to travel from the door to your eye.
6. Light from the door enters your eye.
7. Light that entered your eye lands on your retina.
8. Nerve impulses from the retina travel to your visual cortex.
9. Your brain perceives the door.

You will now specify which, if any, of the steps 1 through 9 you think is false. You will provide your alternative explanation in full. You will provide evidence that the above explanation is wrong, and your alternative explanation is correct.

If you cannot do this, you will retract your specific claim that you can see things "in real time", with no time delay due to the travel time of the light (as in step 5, above).

You have approximately 1 hour.

 

[John99]

I'll be banned before i even read it.

I wont answer any questions for at least 10 hours.

 

[Read-Only]

I'll be banned before i even read it.

I wont answer any questions for at least 10 hours.

Only 10 hours??? John, you aren't capable of providing a decent answer in thousands of hours!!! You might as well just give it up since most of what you've posted here is nonsense anyway. Apparently, I kid of 16 knows more about this stuff than you do.

 

[James R]

Ok John99.

Because I want to be fair about this, I will extend your 24 hour deadline by another 24 hours.

You have 20 hours from the time of your most recent post to reply. If your reply is incomplete, off-topic, or tangential to the questions asked, or if you do not reply, or if you reply with questions, you will be banned.

 

[John99]

I only have time to answer number one:

Process by which you preceive a door:

1. Light from an external source (e.g. light bulb or the sun) strikes the door.

Correct.

Nothing i stated counters that. My statements were additions.

If you see something i stated that would indicate a otherwise then you need to post it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I only have time to answer number one:

Yet, twenty minutes later you're still on line...

If you see something i stated that would indicate a otherwise then you need to post it.

Hmmm.

If your reply is incomplete, off-topic, or tangential to the questions asked, or if you do not reply, or if you reply with questions, you will be banned.

Goodbye John.

Oh by the way:

John99
I have to be honest.

Wilful ignorance and denial of facts, plus making up your own "facts" is not "honest". Keep trying.

 

[John99]

...

Once again : I never once did i disagree with 1 through 4\7,8 and 9. What is ist you dont understand about that?

 

[Dywyddyr]

So what about 5, 6 & 7?
Still haven't come up with anything on those.
If, as you have agreed, light travels at a finite speed from "whatever it is we're looking at" then how can it NOT take time for us to see it?
This is where you consistently contradict known science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And you STILL haven't replied to James R's post as requested.

You will now specify which, if any, of the steps 1 through 9 you think is false. You will provide your alternative explanation in full. You will provide evidence that the above explanation is wrong, and your alternative explanation is correct.

Why and how are 5,6 & 7 wrong? What evidence do you have for this? What explanation do you have?

 

[John99]

If, as you have agreed, light travels at a finite speed from "whatever it is we're looking at" then how can it NOT take time for us to see it?

Very simple. If i shine a very low watt pen light on a door how far will that light bounce off the door and "travel"?

 

[John99]

What if the door is matte black and absorbs the light, what difference will that make?