veggiepatch
Registered Senior Member
The fundamentals of basic physics are just beyond comprehension for some.....
Star triangle paradox
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
veggiepatch
Registered Senior Member
Motor Daddy...
Your example is a simple exercise in vectors, a purely one dimensional (linear) one. Best of luck getting a decent answer from one person around here.
Your example is a simple exercise in vectors, a purely one dimensional (linear) one. Best of luck getting a decent answer from one person around here.
OK, i said the balls was a good analogy, but only up to a point. More as a visual aid. Does the fact that the balls are different balls and the light is the same mean anything? It does to me.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
The light is NOT the same thing.
You seem to think that light is like a yardstick, that once the end reaches you there is no delay.
Light emitted at 12:00 is not the same as light emitted at 1:00.
Why?
What do you mean "the light is the same"?
Um, no.
Answer my questions.
Photons are pretty similar to little balls. Heck, there are stars that are so distant and faint that we only get one photon from them an hour.
Yep. And it still takes each car 1 hour to get to you if it's a 100 mile long bridge and they're moving at 100mph.
Sure there is. Put some dye in part of the water. That section of water is then identified and you can time it.
Is the argument John perpetuates in this thread a wind up. Jeez. What the hells going on? If John can't get this, or is intentionally not getting this then a mod has to step in. It's a fucking farce.
I think he's been banned at least twice for the stupidity.
What I particularly "like" is that shortly before he gets the ban he states that he can answer the questions and provide support for his claim. And then as soon as he comes back he starts from scratch all over again.
No support.
No answers.
Just more obfuscation.
What I particularly "like" is that shortly before he gets the ban he states that he can answer the questions and provide support for his claim. And then as soon as he comes back he starts from scratch all over again.
No support.
No answers.
Just more obfuscation.
It does seem hard to believe he is genuine; or has any business on a science forum if he is. I suppose we are here to learn, but refusing to learn (that's how it seems) would suggest unconducivity to a learning environment. Should that revoke rights for memebership or what?
Last edited:
Oh, if you want a laugh check these threads out:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106496
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=109991
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=106608
I wonder why he's still around.
I dont see anything wrong with challenging things because how will we learn?
universaldistress, what discoveries have you made that qualifies you to say who belongs on a science forum?
Some of my ideas are quite good.
For example: The elimination of all rats and cockroaches from the earth seems to me to be common sense. Why keep the abominations around? Are we not supposed to make the Earth a better place for good living creatures?
Yet here we are in 2011 with rats...makes no sense to me. How...how will we elevate our civilization with rats? Surely type b civilizations would eliminate rats. If a civilization can get to another planet and walk around yet leave rats on their home planet to spread disease, compete for food and water is mind boggling.
Idiot.
Both rats and roaches have survived mankinds most concentrated efforts to eradicate them. Their survival abilities far surpass ours.
Yes.
John99:
Then you ought to retract your claim that you can see light the instant it is emitted from a distant object, and tell us that you actually didn't know what you were talking about.
James never said anything like that. This is a nonsense distraction.
Why would anyone say that? It is nonsensical.
Each photon of light emitted from the star takes x amt. of years to get here. Do you agree?
Light from stars comes in little balls called photons, which are not continuous. They are literally just like little balls.
----
John99:
You are waffling and trying to distract from addressing the questions that I put to you above.
You continue to claim, apparently, that if a light that is 3 metres away from you is switched on, you can see that light go on instantly, and not after a delay of 10 nanoseconds.
You will either support this claim with evidence or argument of some kind, or withdraw it.
You are now on 4 infraction points. If you are banned again, it will be permanent.
I will give you a reasonable amount of time to carefully consider your reply to this post. Think very carefully. Do not attempt to divert the discussion onto a tangent. You must either support your claim or withdraw it.
Have I made myself clear to you?
Then you ought to retract your claim that you can see light the instant it is emitted from a distant object, and tell us that you actually didn't know what you were talking about.
James never said anything like that. This is a nonsense distraction.
Why would anyone say that? It is nonsensical.
Each photon of light emitted from the star takes x amt. of years to get here. Do you agree?
Light from stars comes in little balls called photons, which are not continuous. They are literally just like little balls.
----
John99:
You are waffling and trying to distract from addressing the questions that I put to you above.
You continue to claim, apparently, that if a light that is 3 metres away from you is switched on, you can see that light go on instantly, and not after a delay of 10 nanoseconds.
You will either support this claim with evidence or argument of some kind, or withdraw it.
You are now on 4 infraction points. If you are banned again, it will be permanent.
I will give you a reasonable amount of time to carefully consider your reply to this post. Think very carefully. Do not attempt to divert the discussion onto a tangent. You must either support your claim or withdraw it.
Have I made myself clear to you?
Yes. I already did. For the purposes of the current discussion you can think of it as like a tiny ball.
Yes. Every time you see anything you're catching many billions of photons on the retina of your eye.
I mean that photons are indivisible. I can have a full glass of water, or half a cup, or a few millilitres. But I can't have half a photon.
Not so far.
What evidence do you have that you can see light emitted by a bulb that is swtiched on 3 metres away from you instantaneously, rather than after a delay of 10 nanoseconds - the time it takes the photons to travel from the bulb to you?
My patience with you is wearing thin. I expect an answer to this question in your next post.
OMG. I know we are here to learn, but are we here to support sabotage (intentional or otherwise) based on an apparent laziness to read carefully enough one's material on areas of interest. It seriously smacks of a wind-up merchant.