Star triangle paradox
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
I gave you an option: (a) retract your statement or (b) support it with evidence or at least argument.
Since you cannot do (b), that leaves (a) as your only option.
Not this one.
James, i said i cannot be put on a time limit. I was debating the issue fine but if you come back and tell me "you have six hours to respond" then i, most likely, wont respond in the six hours due to lack of regimentation. Some people are good working on a schedule but i am not.
James, what effect does intermediary light have on this effect we are debating? Like something being carried along on a conveyor belt only mcuh faster. Now what if the conveyor belt passed along pies and those pies are spread out a foot apart. We can calculate that each pie wil take x amount of time to reach us. BUT what if those pies were put back to back with no gaps then how long will it take for a pie to reach you at the end of the conveyor? It would be immediate. Non stop pie.
A lie: James gave you the option of retracting OR defending.
Specious and an attempt at diversion. You persisted in making the claim and have failed to give any rationale whatsoever and you've had 14 pages to do so.
Arrant nonsense.Like something being carried along on a conveyor belt only mcuh faster. Now what if the conveyor belt passed along pies and those pies are spread out a foot apart. We can calculate that each pie wil take x amount of time to reach us. BUT what if those pies were put back to back with no gaps then how long will it take for a pie to reach you at the end of the conveyor? It would be immediate. Non stop pie.
In such a case we see pies arrive continuously but if someone were to mark any given pie (the state of the viewed object at time X) then THAT pie will arrive at a time later than X, regardless of how many others reach us.
But we are striclty referring to light alone so the light, like the pies is continuous\contiguous. It is a decent argument, if you can understand it. Just to be clear, we are not referring to the time it takes to cognitively register from sight to brain.
Let me make it VERY simple for you, John - what about the VERY first pie on the belt? Does it instantly fall off the delivery end? Of course not - and THAT is the fact you are ignoring!
Now, once you've got that straight in your head, consider the light beam again. If something happens at the source of that beam, like a star that explodes, that change - like a blueberry pie place on the belt while all the others have been apples - will NOT get to the end of the belt - or your eyes - for some period of time. Neither light nor your pies individually get to the end-point instantaneously.
And here's another: it's like water in a city distribution system. Even though water comes out the moment you turn on a valve in your house, do you actually believe that's the SAME liter (or whatever) that just left the treatment plant the same moment as when you opened the valve??
I sure hope not!!!
Now, once you've got that straight in your head, consider the light beam again. If something happens at the source of that beam, like a star that explodes, that change - like a blueberry pie place on the belt while all the others have been apples - will NOT get to the end of the belt - or your eyes - for some period of time. Neither light nor your pies individually get to the end-point instantaneously.
That is what we need to figure out because the door is not entering your eye but light is entering your eye only light particles are already present just like the pies are already present from beginning to end on the conveyor.
And here's another: it's like water in a city distribution system. Even though water comes out the moment you turn on a valve in your house, do you actually believe that's the SAME liter (or whatever) that just left the treatment plant the same moment as when you opened the valve??
Same thing there. You say yourself water comes out instantly when turned on and we acknowledge that but then in your example you are clear that the water itself is traveling to you in order to say\ask "do you actually believe that's the SAME liter?" is the door traveling to you? No just light and since light is instantly present then this already present light affords the eye instant ability to see objects. Recognition is open to interpretation by the brain though. See that is where it confuses people and may be the proof.
That is what we need to figure out because the door is not entering your eye but light is entering your eye only light particles are already present just like the pies are already present from beginning to end on the conveyor.
And here's another: it's like water in a city distribution system. Even though water comes out the moment you turn on a valve in your house, do you actually believe that's the SAME liter (or whatever) that just left the treatment plant the same moment as when you opened the valve??
Same thing there. You say yourself water comes out instantly when turned on and we acknowledge that but then in your example you are clear that the water itself is traveling to you in order to say\ask "do you actually believe that's the SAME liter?" is the door traveling to you? No just light and since light is instantly present then this already present light affords the eye instant ability to see objects. Recognition is open to interpretation by the brain though. See that is where it confuses people and may be the proof.
Last edited:
If, as i believe i already stated, no light is present in the interim (intermediary light) then the light from something happening at the source would need time "reach you" my contention is that the interim light (which lets face it is nearly always present in our universe) acts as helpers or buffers and the simple fact that light is always present at the eyes in continuity.
Here is an example where it would take time to reach you:
In total darkness someone lights a match from 50 yards away the flip side to that is total daylght the match is lit and seen immediately. (if bright enough to distinguish, of course)
Of course the flare up from lighting to height of light output is gradual but still you see this gradual flare up in real time providing there is light already present and same for the door.
Here is an example where it would take time to reach you:
In total darkness someone lights a match from 50 yards away the flip side to that is total daylght the match is lit and seen immediately. (if bright enough to distinguish, of course)
Of course the flare up from lighting to height of light output is gradual but still you see this gradual flare up in real time providing there is light already present and same for the door.
No, John, there's no confusion here - except in your mind. :shrug:
I'll make one last attempt at this with a final example and question: If an astronaut was on the Moon with a very powerful spotlight and was able to somehow point it directly at you, would you see the light from it at exactly the same moment he switched it on?
And don't forget this before you answer the question - when we did have guys up there, it took a full 2.4 seconds for mission control to ask a question and get an answer back (assuming the astronaut answered immediately).
Can you see an unlit\unlighted object that would be equal distance from earth to moon?
Is light present in continuous stream from earth to moon?
Is complete darkness present in the interim from earth to moon?
But that is due to communications equipment.
You just repeated the claim you said you would retract.
Specifically, you have said that in daylight you will see light from the match immediately that it is lit, even if you're at some distance away from it.
This is the same as your claim that you will see a door as it is now rather than as it was a few nanoseconds ago.
You can't retract your claim then make the same claim again a few posts later.
You must either support your claim or retract it.
You must do this next time you post to sciforums, or you will be banned.
John, before you die please will your skull to science. It's denser than ANY material ever discovered.
John here is how light works. You turn on a light. The element in the light heats up and emits photons in the visible range. A photon travels to the door and is absorbed by an electron of an atom or molecule making up the door. The electron jumps to a higher energy state and then drops back down to a lower energy state as it emits a photon. This photon travels to your eye and encounters your retina. This is what allows you to see the door. You are seening individual photons from the door.
Time passes as the photon travels these distances. You cannot see the door until a photon that has been absorbed and reemited from the door enters your eye.
That is the way light works. It is really very simple and intuitive. It is amazing to me that you are so stubborn that you refuse to engage the old noggin on this...
Time passes as the photon travels these distances. You cannot see the door until a photon that has been absorbed and reemited from the door enters your eye.
That is the way light works. It is really very simple and intuitive. It is amazing to me that you are so stubborn that you refuse to engage the old noggin on this...
I know, it is like talking to a turnip. Trying to explain something to John99 is another case of hope overcoming reason... just a glutton for punishment I guess.
Hold on, I have been supporting the claim and look at all the questions i ask that no one answers or even acknowledges. So the claim i am not supporting the calim is not true. Is there some specific support you are looking for?
Let us look at another experiment:
Let us stick with the door as the object. Suppose there is a mirror at the foot of the door and the mirror extends all the way to your feet but still the door is say 100 yards away. We can adjust the mirror any way we like to get the image of the door reflected so it is right in front of us. Visualise different scenarios, even some that are kind of impossible like a mirror from earth to moon.
Edit: Another option for the last scanrio: suppose the mirror on the observers end was directly below their eye to eliminate the distance from mirror to eye.
Looking straight down at the door in the mirror, the door opens and closes slowly, how does this change the speed\time we see the door moving?
Last edited:
You are just a follower then. Some of us are pioneers, not you. and you call yourself "origin".
Last edited:
John99:
Wrong answer.
You must either support or retract your false claim that you can see objects instantaneously, without any delay due to light travel time.
Just so there is no further confusion, here is the wording you can use to retract your claim:
"I, John99, unreservedly retract my false claim that it is possible to see a distant object as it is now. I accept that a distant object can only be seen after light has had time to travel from the object to the observer. I acknowledge that that this applies for all objects without exception. I undertake not to repeat my false claim again, and understand that if I do so I will be permanently banned from sciforums."
Please think carefully about this during the next two weeks, John. In the meantime, enjoy your time off once again.
Wrong answer.
You must either support or retract your false claim that you can see objects instantaneously, without any delay due to light travel time.
Just so there is no further confusion, here is the wording you can use to retract your claim:
"I, John99, unreservedly retract my false claim that it is possible to see a distant object as it is now. I accept that a distant object can only be seen after light has had time to travel from the object to the observer. I acknowledge that that this applies for all objects without exception. I undertake not to repeat my false claim again, and understand that if I do so I will be permanently banned from sciforums."
Please think carefully about this during the next two weeks, John. In the meantime, enjoy your time off once again.
Moderator note: John99 has been banned for 2 weeks.
---
PS In case there is any confusion, "supporting" a claim in this context does not mean yelling "Yay my claim! I'm right!". It means producing some evidence or logical argument in favour of the claim.
Illogical arguments and tangential rubbish won't do the trick. If you wish to support your claim, I suggest you first find somebody with appropriate qualifications who agrees with you. You may provide a link or quotation of their confirmatory opinion. Alternatively, you can post real-world experimental evidence of an instance in which your claim has been found to hold. Don't forget in that case to link to the relevant peer-reviewed scientific paper.
---
PS In case there is any confusion, "supporting" a claim in this context does not mean yelling "Yay my claim! I'm right!". It means producing some evidence or logical argument in favour of the claim.
Illogical arguments and tangential rubbish won't do the trick. If you wish to support your claim, I suggest you first find somebody with appropriate qualifications who agrees with you. You may provide a link or quotation of their confirmatory opinion. Alternatively, you can post real-world experimental evidence of an instance in which your claim has been found to hold. Don't forget in that case to link to the relevant peer-reviewed scientific paper.
ok, done.