Star triangle paradox

[Dywyddyr]

Oh, still avoiding I see.

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"?

It doesn't matter. We see by the light that comes from the object. Regardless of where that light originated.

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

Specious and stupid question. If all light is absorbed then we won't see the door. But, since even matte paint has some reflection we'll see the door. Regardless, the reflected light travels at light speed.

 

[AlexG]

How much more indulgence will John99 enjoy before he's banned?

 

[James R]

Goodbye for another week, John99.

We we take this matter up again when you return from your ban.

 

[billvon]

Goodbye for another week, John99.

You know, I have to speak up for John99 here. Sure, he's wrong, but he's not attacking people, he's not being rude and he's not trying to sell anyone anything; he's just plain wrong. And that seems like a very minor offense overall. (Especially here where questions concerning and debate over science is encouraged)

 

[Dywyddyr]

(Especially here where questions concerning and debate over science is encouraged)

Except that he has flatly declared that what science claims is wrong while at the same time refusing absolutely to expand upon that claim.
He has been given opportunity after opportunity to explain why he believes we "see in real time" and why it doesn't take time for light to reach us.
Try reading the thread.

He has given no explanation (let alone any sort of defence) for his claim and neither has he shown why, or how, the current explanation could be in error.

 

[James R]

billvon:

You know, I have to speak up for John99 here. Sure, he's wrong, but he's not attacking people, he's not being rude and he's not trying to sell anyone anything; he's just plain wrong. And that seems like a very minor offense overall. (Especially here where questions concerning and debate over science is encouraged)

All I have asked him to do is to provide some kind of argument for his claims, or else to retract them.

sciforums is a science forum. It's fine to discuss theories that are not mainstream science here. But to simply assert that mainstream science is wrong, repeatedly and with no supporting argument, amounts to trolling.

John99 can't pretend that what is required of him has not been made clear. He has wiggled around and avoided answering direct questions several times. I can only assume that this is an attempt to divert the issue onto a tangent or else to simply string the conversation along for as long as possible.

I can't tell whether John99 is deliberately trolling or whether he is just exceptionally stupid. He appears to be able to string sentences together, so I have to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as basic functioning intelligence goes.

If he can't support his claim, all he has to do is to say "I withdraw my claim that we can see things instantaneously, with no delay due to light travel time." That has already been made very clear to him.

 

[billvon]

Try reading the thread.

I did. (Note my name in a few places.)

He has given no explanation (let alone any sort of defence) for his claim and neither has he shown why, or how, the current explanation could be in error.

So he's wrong. Lots of people are. I would think here, of all places, there would be some slack given for people who don't grasp some of the odder conclusions that science entails. Not all of us get this stuff - and not everyone finds it easy to publicly admit that.

 

[James R]

billvon:

As far as I can tell from what he has written, John99 accepts that light travels at a finite speed. But at the same time he denies that it takes a finite time for light to travel from a door to a person 3 metres away.

Do you really think this is a case of not grasping some of the odder conclusions of science?

If we are to take him at face value, John99 also thinks there are different laws of physics governing how we see things depending on what particular thing we're looking at. Therefore, light may take no time to travel from a door or a supernova, for example, but apparently it might take time to travel from a human being. John99 has given no explanation at all for why such a difference might exist, or how light "knows" what object it has reflected from.

And we also have the bizarre statement that John99 agrees with everything written on the internet. Seeing as there are many mutually-contradictory pieces of information on the internet, it is impossible to logically agree with all of them. Moreover, we have at least one example of where John99 does not agree with information available on the internet - the example at hand. The internet has many thousands of sites that specify the finite speed of light, and that explain clearly that we see things as they were and not as they are. John99 explicitly disagrees with all those sites, though for what reason we aren't told.

Maybe we should treat John99 as if he has a learning disability, or as if he is intellectually disabled in some way. Is that what you're arguing? Do you think he is paddling with all four oars in the water?

 

[billvon]

Do you really think this is a case of not grasping some of the odder conclusions of science?

I think it's a case of not getting it and then not wanting to admit he was wrong.

Maybe we should treat John99 as if he has a learning disability, or as if he is intellectually disabled in some way. Is that what you're arguing? Do you think he is paddling with all four oars in the water?

?? I guess I just don't get the anger. Not everyone is as smart as everyone else, or as able to admit their mistakes. Doesn't mean they're "intellectually disabled." If he annoys people that much, they have the option of just not reading what he posts.

 

[James R]

If he doesn't understand something, he can ask questions.

The thing not to do is to assert repeatedly that you're right about something when you have absolutely no reason for thinking you're right, and especially when you've been told by other people (who know) that you're wrong.

 

[Read-Only]

I think it's a case of not getting it and then not wanting to admit he was wrong.



?? I guess I just don't get the anger.

What puzzles me is why you think you detect anger. :shrug: In addition to a few others, I've made negative posts about his stance and there was no anger at all involved - none shown OR even remotely implied. Just people attempting to get him to actually think about what he's said and trying to get him to screw his head on straight.

And it takes very little personal integrity (or guts) for someone to simply say, "Sorry, I was wrong" if indeed that's his problem. Personally, I've had to admit that *many* times in my long years. If THAT'S actually his problem, then he's in FAR, FAR worse shape than just merely being ignorant!

 

[Magical Realist]

I seems to me this a rather petty bone of contention and certainly not enough for anyone to get upset over. Afterall, it takes the brain alot more time to process seen images than it does for the light to actually travel 3 meters thru space. IOW, there is a delay in everything we see that has nothing to do with the speed of light per se. Does John at least concede this?

 

[billvon]

What puzzles me is why you think you detect anger.

"Specious and stupid question"
" . . .whether he is just exceptionally stupid."
" . . .we should treat John99 as if he has a learning disability"
"You can't tell your donkey from a mine shaft"
"Are you really that clueless?"

I think if people discussed you in that manner, you might interpret them as being somewhat angry with you.

Just people attempting to get him to actually think about what he's said and trying to get him to screw his head on straight.

As have I; that (to me) is what this forum is here for. But banning him because he doesn't get it or won't (effectively) apologize? That seems to be somewhat antithetical to the purpose of this forum.

I have no dog in this fight; I don't know him from Adam. Just my opinion.

 

[Read-Only]

"Specious and stupid question"
" . . .whether he is just exceptionally stupid."
" . . .we should treat John99 as if he has a learning disability"
"You can't tell your donkey from a mine shaft"
"Are you really that clueless?"

I think if people discussed you in that manner, you might interpret them as being somewhat angry with you.

So, before, the statement was:
========================
Originally Posted by billvon
I think it's a case of not getting it and then not wanting to admit he was wrong.

?? I guess I just don't get the anger.
========================

And now it's down to "somewhat angry" ?

As for your quotes in the opening of this post, I've said practically all of those thing to people myself while laughing at them. It's certainly easy to call someone's stance stupid without being the slightest bit angry. In fact, I do it here quite often.

Nevertheless, I think you've overreacted with your perception of anger. So just get over it. The REAL point of this thread has become "what is John's problem here?" Seriously, is he really so dense that he cannot see that he's directly contradicted himself (more than once) OR is he, in fact, just trolling because he likes the attention? Or what?????

 

[James R]

"Specious and stupid question"

Which it was.

" . . .whether he is just exceptionally stupid."

One of two options.

" . . .we should treat John99 as if he has a learning disability"

Part of a question, not a statement. It's dishonest to quote this part out of context.

"Are you really that clueless?"

A fair enough question, wouldn't you say, in the context of this thread?

As have I; that (to me) is what this forum is here for. But banning him because he doesn't get it or won't (effectively) apologize? That seems to be somewhat antithetical to the purpose of this forum.

If he doesn't get it, he can withdraw his false claim. No apology is required.

 

[John99]

I am retracting the statement due to James stating that if i dont i will be banned so i obviously i cant defend (DEBATE) it...which to me is a little ridiculous.

 

[origin]

I am retracting the statement due to James stating that if i dont i will be banned so i obviously i cant defend (DEBATE) it...which to me is a little ridiculous.

Smart move.

 

[billvon]

A fair enough question, wouldn't you say, in the context of this thread?

Well, you're the mod, so you can have your own standards. The problems I see in other forums is that if you allow that, you can justify any attack. Anyone who thinks someone else made a mistake can therefore ask questions like "are you always this stupid or is it a one time thing?" or clever attacks of that sort - and justify it by claiming they thought that the other person _was_ stupid. (And that's a pretty low bar for personal attacks.)

But again, you can set your own standards.

 

[John99]

Many ideas that were once viewed as stupid turned out true.

 

[origin]

Many ideas that were once viewed as stupid turned out true.

However many, many more ideas were once viewed as stupid and lived up to that claim....

edited to add: The point is to back up your claim with something more than IMO or a hunch. With out that it IS nothing more than a stupid idea.