For sonship: On Childishness

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You actually expect me to watch a British show? 😲

Just recite your lines and don't bump into the furniture, m-kay?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

That light is not from the sun in any way, shape or form... yet it is light.
It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale.

[b]You claimed something different: you claimed that what emits from the candle constitutes light because it imitates the sun.
If the sun is the only light source ...[text shortened]... hat man[/b] the sun is the definitive standard of light.
For the time being, that sun IS light.[/b]

for that man the sun is the definitive standard of light.

So now we're back to the same point I already raised: giving us reasons to think that some scientific ignoramus would internalize the sun as the definitive standard of light within your hypothetical universe (for lack of any better scientific understanding or familiarity) is decidedly different from giving us reasons to think the sun actually is the definitive standard of light in your hypothetical universe. This point should go without saying, but I have already had to say it to you multiple times now.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Just recite your lines and don't bump into the furniture, m-kay?

I can't help it. It's so dark in here. Could you hand me one of those devices that imitate the sun? 😏

Originally posted by LemonJello

[b]for that man the sun is the definitive standard of light.

So now we're back to the same point I already raised: giving us reasons to think that some scientific ignoramus would internalize the sun as the definitive standard of light within your hypothetical universe (for lack of any better scientific understanding or familiarity) i ...[text shortened]... This point should go without saying, but I have already had to say it to you multiple times now.[/b]

Not sure why this is such a point of contention for ya, really.
That guy is just trying to make it light when the only light he knows is not available.

Even when he finds out about intensities and wavelengths and whatnot, he is forced to follow the (now more advanced) rules.
Whereas before, he used the ONLY standard he had, the sun, now he has parameters to stay within to do realize the desired results.

The fact is, most people aren't any closer to your understanding of light than they are to this guy's anyway.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not sure why this is such a point of contention for ya, really.
That guy is just trying to make it light when the only light he knows is not available.

Even when he finds out about intensities and wavelengths and whatnot, he is forced to follow the (now more advanced) rules.
Whereas before, he used the ONLY standard he had, the sun, now he has paramet ...[text shortened]... most people aren't any closer to your understanding of light than they are to this guy's anyway.

Look, Freaky, you just do not get it. Oh well.

Suffice it to say, if I wanted to present a hypothetical wherein the sun is the definitive standard of light, I would not present a hypothetical wherein some scientific abecedarians primitively internalize the sun as the standard of light, only to later mature into some heightened scientific understanding in which light description aptly proceeds through sun-independent considerations. Because, you know, that would just be self-defeating.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I can't help it. It's so dark in here. Could you hand me one of those devices that imitate the sun? 😏

Hang on, hang on.
I think I left my sunlight over here...

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I can't help it. It's so dark in here. Could you hand me one of those devices that imitate the sun? 😏

You want a non-coherent photon generator?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You want a non-coherent photon generator?

Take your sci-fi nonsense to Science Sonhouse!
You'll be saying the moon landings were real next!