Petition to ban Sculptor

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Should Sculptor be banned from this forum?

Yes
20
65%
No
11
35%
I don't know
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 31

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu Nov 04, 2021 6:43 pm

Pedro I Rengel,

What happened to your resolve?


The advice wasn't meant for me. I just insult the faggots.


Again, the below is what you wrote:

Just ignore the sons of bitches. People need to stop being made to feel so uncomfortable by the existence of nuisances. They will be there, always, at any level, in any place. Just stick to what matters to you, and if you do, the like minded will join you (like-minded in terms of enjoying discussions about things, not agreeing about those things).


What does it matter who the advice was for - Magnus or anyone else. You did not stop to take your own advice. Why give advice that you are not willing to take on yourself? It was good advice but you did not have the courage of your conviction. That word is still a despicable word and insult but you are far too comfortable in using it to take your own advice.

I may be wrong here but are you not a Christian? Try to imagine that word coming out of the mouth of your Jesus. It makes me want to laugh just thinking about it.

But for someone like Magnus, who will lose interest in the thing if someone trolls him, it is much better to ignore.


So I wonder? What is the far better thing to do - lose interest for the time being or to call someone that despicable word which just continues to perpetuate fear and hatred?

There are others like him, honest intellectuals who are passionate about philosophy but can't tolerate dishonest intentions, like Ierrellus or phyllo, of course nobody's perfect, and I think we would all gain much if they would forget the trolls and post on. Trolls are part of life. No amount of modding will remove them.


Again, why would someone take your advice - advice which was not good enough for you?

Who is "J" You called me"J".
BE MELTING SNOW. WASH YOURSELF OF YOURSELF.

YOU WANDER FROM ROOM TO ROOM
HUNTING FOR THE DIAMOND NECKLACE
THAT IS ALREADY AROUND YOUR NECK!

DANCE UNTIL YOU SHATTER YOURSELF!

THERE IS A VOICE THAT DOESN'T USE WORDS. LISTEN!

LIFE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDING ON AND LETTING GO!

LET SILENCE TAKE YOU TO THE CORE OF LIFE!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15872
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Thu Nov 04, 2021 8:25 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Who is "J" You called me"J".


A man confused about what to do with his intelligence in a world that punishes it.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby gib » Fri Nov 05, 2021 2:45 am

Motor Daddy wrote:If I define the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in one second, to be the definition of the unit of measure of distance the "DLTIOS" then the speed of light is 1 DLTIOS per Second. That is a rock solid fact.


That's not a fact, it's a definition. What happens if I want to define it differently? What if I want to say a DLTIOS is the distance light travels in two seconds? Therefore, the distance light travels in 1 second is 1/2 DLTIOS. Did I change the facts? Did I break the universe? If you're going to say, "Well, gib, that doesn't make sense. A DLTIOS is an abbreviation for 'Distance Light Travels in One Second'", then I'll say that your statement is not a definition but a tautology or a circular statement. You're saying "The distance light travels in 1 second is the distance light travels in 1 second." Brilliant observation Einstein!

If you want to say that's a fact, fine. I'll give you 2 + 2 = 4 to boot. But I thought we were talking about scientific facts--you know, the kind that say something about the real world, not the abstract world of mathematics and logic. If you're point was to disprove Einstein's theory, you've got to pull your mathematics and logic down to the world of physical reality, and demonstrate it's truth with empirical evidence.

Motor Daddy wrote:The bottom line is that my MD's Box is an absolute fact! It refutes Einstein's BS about light taking .5 seconds to reach the Z receiver in that frame of reference. MD's Box can't be refuted, because it is a fact, BY DEFINITION! The science community chooses to ignore the facts, and ban me instead. That makes them corrupt losers, that aren't interested in the facts, but instead would rather worship their RELIGION, which is Einstein's BS!!


I have no idea what your MD box is. I can't make heads or tails of the diagram. But it reminds me of the thought experiment often brought in to explain why the speed of light entails that time is relative. So imagine a box on a moving train. A light beam is emitted straight up from the bottom of the box. It takes time t for the light beam to reach the top of the box. It then reflects back to the bottom taking the same amount of time t. Now because the speed of light is the same for every observer no matter their speed, someone standing on the ground beside the train will observe the light beam traveling not only upward but also in the direction the train is moving. Therefore, it's path, relative to the observer, is not straight up but diagonal. The light still travels from the bottom of the box, hits the top, and reflect back to the bottom, but because the beam now moves in a diagonal direction, it must be longer than the path relative to someone on board the train, which is straight up and down. And because the speed of light is the same for any observer no matter his state of motion, it must take longer than t to travel the diagonal path. Thus, time on the train passes by more slowly relative to the observer on the ground.

Presumably, your MD box is designed to show that the light beam must take the same amount of time to complete the journey regardless of the observer's state of motion, and therefore travels faster relative to the observer standing on the ground.

So we have me saying the light beam travels at the same speed relative to each observer (and therefore time yields), and we have you saying the light beam travels at different speeds (therefore time remains fixed). Which one of us is right? Well, I have a good way to find out. Wanna know what it is? Science! We can conduct a scientific experiment to find out. And many have! According their reports, I win! You're MD box is not a fact. The results of the experiment, whatever they turn out to be, are.

This is why they booted you out. You don't believe in experiments. You believe thinking is enough. You are not a scientist and therefore don't belong on science forums.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

We're rich and we are hot. People want our money AND our bodies!
- Stolas

When I'm lonely, I become hungry, and when I'm hungry, I want to choke on that red *** of yours, toss your *** and lick all of your *** before taking out your *** and filling it with *** until you're screaming ********* like a f***ing baby.
- Stolas

As the stars start to align
I hope you take it as a sign
That you'll be okay
Everything will be okay
And if the Seven Hells collapse
Although the day will be my last
You will be okay
When I'm gone, you'll be okay
- Stolas
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9165
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:28 am

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Yes, I think you should ignore them.


No no no, what you actually mean (not necessarily intentionally) is that I should offer no resistance to them -- efficient resistance, that is. If I told Sculptor something like "Shut up, faggot", you'd be perfectly fine with that. You did it yourself, didn't you? But asking for him to be banned is a no no. The problem is that your approach is at best inefficient (requiring too much energy on your part) and at worst counter-productive (since it can, and often does, motivate the troublemakers to continue doing what they're doing and even intensify it.) Banning them, on the other hand, is the elegant approach. It utilizes the absolute minimum of effort necessary. You just have to click on a button. That's all. The software does everything else. And it also shows the optimal level of antagonism -- not too much and not too little. You don't start unnecessary wars with them, but also, you don't submit to them. It's pretty cool, actually.

But if you're like Mr. R, then everything revolves around pleasure and pain. The only reason anyone would object to anything, according to this sort of philosophy, is because it makes them uncomfortable. The solution, therefore, is to learn how to be comfortable. End of story. Simple. But I'm actually interested in what's rational. Eating donuts is comfortable but it's not necessarily rational.

Trolls won't go away, even with the strictest moderation.


I am pretty sure that strict and consistent moderation would make Sculptor's persona completely disappear. He acts the way he acts because the forum allows it. Give people too much freedom and they end up destroying themselves. It's no coincidence they say power corrupts.

They will adapt.


Exactly. They will either leave (i.e. refuse to adapt) or they will start acting in an acceptable way (i.e. adapt.) But of course, you're saying something else. You are saying they will learn how to stay within the rules (or avoid getting caught) while still being trolls. When was the last time that happened though?

Never undeappreciate the value of someone willing to make their dislike of you explicit. Nothing more insidious than a guy like iambiguous/kropotin, who is 100% mod proof. They will never get banned, ever, no matter what the mod policy is. So what? Are they blocking your keyboard, preventing you from talking about what you want to talk about?


They are making things unnecessarily difficult. Should we keep doing things in an inefficient manner or should we switch to something more efficient?

I live only half a mile away from where I work. So I don't drive, I don't cycle and I don't take a bus. I walk. I used to at least. As you can see, I am not choosing the easiest solution. I don't because the easier solutions are both more expensive and less healthy. But I still don't walk backwards. That's pointless, unnecessary, burden. Even though I can easily do it. I can easily walk backwards to where I work. You don't think I can do so? Too bad. I mean, hell, I don't even run. Why should I run?

When you let Pyotr Kropotkins post on philosophy forums, you make it difficult for everyone to concentrate. And if your interlocutors can't concentrate, discussing anything with them becomes unnecessarily difficult.

In the last month or so, I have covered extensive ground on topics that interest me deeply. Possibly I am the only one rewarded by it, but on the other hand I am the only one I am interested in rewarding. Eventually I get to a place where the person I'm talking to has the "does not compute, switch to troll mode" moment and I move on. And I don't get cowed because I actually like a bit of a fight. I won't get stuck for months going at it with someone like iambiguous/kropotkin, but every now and then it's fun to invest some time into the old scratching post. Nothing wrong with it. When you are discussing politics, specially, feelings will get involved and insults will be forthcoming. That is just the way it is. I can't tell you I want to force you to live a life you are against for any reason and expect you to be calm about it. There are enemies in politics and that is life.


To each his own.

Plus, it's healthy to learn to have someone insult you and not let it get to your head.


Yes but this site is called "I Love Philosophy", it's not called "I Love Being Insulted By Other People Without Being Offended By It". Each place has its own purpose. When you go to your kitchen, you don't shit in your sink even though it's healthy to take a good long smelly shit. Should we turn every room into a shitroom merely because shitting is a healthy thing? Is it okay to take a shit during a sexual intercourse merely because shitting is a good thing? Just imagine the world in which everyone can shit anywhere and at any time with the justification that shitting is a healthy thing. That's what this forum is.

How much would we all have gained if he had pressed the ignore button and continued with his observations and musings?


How much would we all have gained if people like Sculptor were banned in the first place?
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5465
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Nov 05, 2021 4:23 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:No no no, what you actually mean (not necessarily intentionally) is that I should offer no resistance to them -- efficient resistance, that is. If I told Sculptor something like "Shut up, faggot", you'd be perfectly fine with that. You did it yourself, didn't you? But asking for him to be banned is a no no.


One is dealing with your own problem yourself. The other is asking someone to do it for you. One will make you strong. The other will make you weak and dependent.

Magnus Anderson wrote:When you let Pyotr Kropotkins post on philosophy forums, you make it difficult for everyone to concentrate.


Good training.

Magnus Anderson wrote:To each his own.


Including his own enemy. Eradication is only an option in those with the illusion of righteousness.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes but this site is called "I Love Philosophy", it's not called "I Love Being Insulted By Other People Without Being Offended By It".


Already Heraclitus was talking shit about Homer, saying he should get beat up. This is philosophy. Not a single philosopher since has not talked shit to or about another philosopher. We are talking about deep things, what you say about them matters.

Magnus Anderson wrote:How much would we all have gained if people like Sculptor were banned in the first place?


A weird feeling of artifice where you know there is a voice that wants to criticize you but isn't allowed to.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:32 am

Without a doubt, the greatest shit talker of all time is Leibniz.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Nov 05, 2021 7:37 am

Leibniz wrote:
The author had, moreover, particular and weighty reasons inducing him to take pen in hand for discussion of this subject. Conversations which he had concerning the same with literary and court personages, in Germany and in France, and especially with one of the greatest and most accomplished of princesses, have repeatedly prompted him to this course. He had had the honour of expressing his opinions to this Princess upon divers passages of the admirable Dictionary of M. Bayle, wherein religion and reason appear as adversaries, and where M. Bayle wishes to silence reason after having made it speak too loud: which he calls the triumph of faith. The present author declared there and then that he was of a different opinion, but that he was nevertheless well pleased that a man of such great genius had brought about an occasion for going deeply into these subjects, subjects as important as they are difficult.


Bear in mind that Leibniz, along with Newton, invented differential calculus.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Motor Daddy » Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:22 pm

gib wrote:That's not a fact, it's a definition. What happens if I want to define it differently? What if I want to say a DLTIOS is the distance light travels in two seconds? Therefore, the distance light travels in 1 second is 1/2 DLTIOS. Did I change the facts? Did I break the universe? If you're going to say, "Well, gib, that doesn't make sense. A DLTIOS is an abbreviation for 'Distance Light Travels in One Second'", then I'll say that your statement is not a definition but a tautology or a circular statement. You're saying "The distance light travels in 1 second is the distance light travels in 1 second." Brilliant observation Einstein!


Light travels a specific distance in 1 second, I call that distance a DLTIOS, which is a unit of measure of distance, just like the meter is a unit of measure of distance. The meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. So the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, AND 1 DLTIOS/s.

What you are saying is that you are taking my unit the DLTIOS and using the SAME NAME to define the length of the path that light travels in 2 seconds. You redefined the unit, just like if you would redefine the unit the meter, and claim the meter is the length of the path that light travels in vacuum in 1 second.

Light has a single path length for 1 second of travel, not two different path lengths. Duh? You are simply redefining names to mean two different things. That is the work of a dishonest hack, like Einstein's Fudge Factory!

gib wrote:If you want to say that's a fact, fine. I'll give you 2 + 2 = 4 to boot. But I thought we were talking about scientific facts--you know, the kind that say something about the real world, not the abstract world of mathematics and logic. If you're point was to disprove Einstein's theory, you've got to pull your mathematics and logic down to the world of physical reality, and demonstrate it's truth with empirical evidence.


First you say that's not a fact, then you say fine, you'll give me that. Which is it? Is 2 + 2 = 4 a fact, or not?

gib wrote:I have no idea what your MD box is. I can't make heads or tails of the diagram.


Then you're either a dishonest hack like Einstein, or you're not smart enough to figure out a diagram a 5th Grader could comprehend.

The typical response to my diagram from a dishonest hack is to say they have no idea what the diagram represents. What they are saying is they are too stupid to figure it out. LOL


gib wrote:Presumably, your MD box is designed to show that the light beam must take the same amount of time to complete the journey regardless of the observer's state of motion, and therefore travels faster relative to the observer standing on the ground.


Absolutely not! The whole point of the diagram is to show that different absolute velocities of the box produce different times to the receivers. Change the velocity of the box and the times to the receivers change, which means there IS absolute velocity, and that Einstein's second postulate, that the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame is BS! It took .65 seconds for light to reach the Z receiver, shown in frame 2 in MD's Box. It took .65 seconds for light to travel a distance of .5 light seconds, which is a speed of light of .5/.65=.769c in the frame of reference of the box. That is the speed of light from the center of the box to the Z receiver, which is a single direction in the frame of the box. It took 1.384930 seconds for light to reach the X receiver, which is a distance from center to x receiver of .5 light seconds. So the speed of light to the X receiver is .5/1.384930=.361c. So light takes two different times to travel the same distance in the box, so the speed of light is different in each direction in the box. AND it changes depending on the absolute velocity of the box! That makes Einstein's second postulate (which is not a science experiment) BUNK!


gib wrote:This is why they booted you out. You don't believe in experiments. You believe thinking is enough. You are not a scientist and therefore don't belong on science forums.


I am debunking Einstein's THEORY. Einstein didn't have a science experiment, he had a thought experiment, which is what my MD's Box is, a thought experiment!
Last edited by Motor Daddy on Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Nov 05, 2021 1:48 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:One is dealing with your own problem yourself. The other is asking someone to do it for you. One will make you strong. The other will make you weak and dependent.


If you're the one running the forum, then banning other people is "dealing with your own problem yourself" since you don't need anyone else to do it for you. This thread is entirely about how those who own this forum should run it. We're looking at things from their perspective since they are the ones who can ban people (regular posters don't have that privilege.)

If you're not running the forum, if you have no interest in running one yourself and if you're merely trying to influence those running it, then you're trying to solve the problem with the help of other people which of course means you're not trying to handle it yourself. And that can be, and it often is, a better path to take. Cooperation isn't necessarily a bad thing and teaming up with other people can easily improve your life in every regard. But of course, it depends on what kind of bonds you form. There are bonds that can increase your chances of survival and/or give you many other benefits while enslaving you. But not all bonds are like that. And you really seem to think in simplistic "Do it on your own = good, do it with the help of others = bad" terms. And that in the age when close and initimate relationships are being severely attacked from all sides with the aim to dissolve existing, and limit the creation of new, undesirable groups (so-called "domestic terrorists") with the hope to attach some, most or all of them to the government via imaginary entities brought to life by actors, musicians, instagram/pornhub/onlyfans models, politicians, influencers, life gurus, Elon Musks and others.

Good training.


Letting other people feed you shit is also a pretty good training. You learn how to remain calm during such situations.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5465
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Arcturus Descending » Fri Nov 05, 2021 3:24 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:Who is "J" You called me"J".


A man confused about what to do with his intelligence in a world that punishes it.


I like that statement. There is some self-awareness there. Are you "J"?

That man ought to do with his intelligence what a gardener would do with his garden. Plant beautiful flowers, many, many beautiful flowers, learn all about these flowers, cultivate them - care for them, water them, make sure that they are planted where the sun will shine on them. Pull out all of those nasty weeds, throw them away and then just forget about them. They are just there to strangle and disrupt your flowers, wishing that they could be flowers themselves.
This is your garden. You are its loving caretaker.

How can any man then feel like he is being punished for his intelligence? Feed it, cultivate it, give it room to grow, learn from it. The more it grows, the more that man will realize that he wants to continue to let it grow - blossoming and blossoming and blossoming - ad infinitum.
BE MELTING SNOW. WASH YOURSELF OF YOURSELF.

YOU WANDER FROM ROOM TO ROOM
HUNTING FOR THE DIAMOND NECKLACE
THAT IS ALREADY AROUND YOUR NECK!

DANCE UNTIL YOU SHATTER YOURSELF!

THERE IS A VOICE THAT DOESN'T USE WORDS. LISTEN!

LIFE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDING ON AND LETTING GO!

LET SILENCE TAKE YOU TO THE CORE OF LIFE!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15872
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Nov 06, 2021 4:39 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:If you're the one running the forum, then banning other people is "dealing with your own problem yourself" since you don't need anyone else to do it for you.


Yes. But unless you, Magnus Anderson, are the owner of the forum, then that is not your situation, and you are asking someone to take care of your problem for you.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Nov 06, 2021 4:41 am

Arcturus Descending wrote:I like that statement. There is some self-awareness there. Are you "J"?


Everyone on this forum is "J."
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby gib » Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:19 am

Motor Daddy wrote:Light travels a specific distance in 1 second Yup, I call that distance a DLTIOS unfortunately, which is a unit of measure of distance, just like the meter is a unit of measure of distance. Cool beans. The meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. So the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, AND 1 DLTIOS/s.

So far, so good.

What you are saying is that you are taking my unit the DLTIOS and using the SAME NAME to define the length of the path that light travels in 2 seconds. You redefined the unit, just like if you would redefine the unit the meter, and claim the meter is the length of the path that light travels in vacuum in 1 second.

That's exactly right. So what's a fact? That a DLTIOS is the distance light travels in 1 second or that a DLTIOS is the distance light travels in 2 seconds?

Light has a single path length for 1 second of travel Sure, but then it's a brute fact of nature, not a fact "by definition", not two different path lengths. Duh? You are simply redefining names to mean two different things. That is the work of a dishonest hack, like Einstein's Fudge Factory!


An Einstein Fudge Factory? Is that like Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory?

Motor Daddy wrote:First you say that's not a fact, then you say fine, you'll give me that. Which is it? Is 2 + 2 = 4 a fact, or not?


I'm saying we can go either way. It's up to you. It all depends on what you mean. I'm showing you the logical options you have and where they lead.

Motor Daddy wrote:Then you're either a dishonest hack like Einstein, or you're not smart enough to figure out a diagram a 5th Grader could comprehend.


Ok, I dare you to find a 5th grader and ask him what it means. Actually, wait, my son is in grade 5. Just a minute... ok, I just asked my son if her understands it... he doesn't.

So I guess that leaves being a dishonest hack. But I know in my heart of hearts, I'm being completely honest with you when I say I can't make heads or tails of it. So I must inject a 3rd option: I'm too lazy to give it the rigorous thought it needs to (maybe) comprehend it. <-- And that's a fact!

Motor Daddy wrote:The typical response to my diagram from a dishonest hack is to say they have no idea what the diagram represents. What they are saying is they are too stupid to figure it out.


Even if that were true, it wouldn't prove that it's a fact.

Motor Daddy wrote:Absolutely not! The whole point of the diagram is to show that different absolute velocities of the box produce different times to the receivers. Change the velocity of the box and the times to the receivers change, which means there IS absolute velocity, and that Einstein's second postulate, that the speed of light is the same in every inertial frame is BS! Isn't that what I said? It took .65 seconds for light to reach the Z receiver So the radius in frame 2 is .65 light seconds, shown in frame 2 in MD's Box. It took .65 seconds for light to travel a distance of .5 light seconds Huh? So it took .65 seconds for the light to travel the distance light travels in .5 seconds? You mean it slowed down?, which is a speed of light of .5/.65=.769c in the frame of reference of the box So I guess it slowed down. That is the speed of light from the center of the box to the Z receiver, which is a single direction in the frame of the box. It took 1.384930 seconds for light to reach the X receiver, which is a distance from center to x receiver of .5 light seconds So it slowed down even more in the direction of the x receiver. So the speed of light to the X receiver is .5/1.384930=.361c. So light takes two different times to travel the same distance in the box, so the speed of light is different in each direction in the box. AND it changes depending on the absolute velocity of the box! That makes Einstein's second postulate (which is not a science experiment) BUNK!


Ah, I get your thinking. I don't think any scientist would disagree with this. But it does show you don't understand relativity. You are depicting the speed of light relative to an observer seeing the box move. Relative to that observer, light travels at c. That observer will see the Z receiver "activate" (or whatever it does) before the X receiver. But if you take the point of view of someone riding in the box, they will see the Z receiver activate at the same time as the X receiver. This is not a hole in relativity theory. It is exactly what relativity would predict. One of the fundamental tenets of relativity theory is that simultaneity is not absolute. Things that happen at the same time for one observer don't necessarily happen at the same time to another observer.

But let's take a step back and talk about facts again. You call the above analysis a fact. It is not a fact, it is a theory. Facts are what theories become when they are proven empirically. What you've done is demonstrate the logical structure of your theory (and I'll admit it is logical), but you'd have to demonstrate that this is actually what happens in reality before saying it's a fact. Lucky for you, it has been demonstrated, though I suspect you didn't realize this given you think it would have falsified relativity theory. But regardless, scientists wouldn't consider your diagram by itself a fact (maybe a logical/mathematical fact, but not a scientific fact). But coupled with empirical evidence, they would. Just trying to point out the distinction between scientific facts and logical/mathematical facts.

What exactly did they say on the science forum? Did anyone disagree with your diagram? I would think they would agree but would dispute that it disproves relativity theory. Did nobody explain the relativity of simultaneity to you?

Motor Daddy wrote:I am debunking Einstein's THEORY. Einstein didn't have a science experiment, he had a thought experiment, which is what my MD's Box is, a thought experiment!


You didn't debunk Einstein's theory. His theory actually agrees with your diagram. What it disagrees with is your assumption that the time at which things happen must be the same for every observer. But again, you can debunk all manner of theory you want, if the evidence supports the theory you think you're debunking, you haven't really debunked it. It wins. You lose. Again, you're not a scientist. Einstein was. He not only had a theory, he had evidence.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

We're rich and we are hot. People want our money AND our bodies!
- Stolas

When I'm lonely, I become hungry, and when I'm hungry, I want to choke on that red *** of yours, toss your *** and lick all of your *** before taking out your *** and filling it with *** until you're screaming ********* like a f***ing baby.
- Stolas

As the stars start to align
I hope you take it as a sign
That you'll be okay
Everything will be okay
And if the Seven Hells collapse
Although the day will be my last
You will be okay
When I'm gone, you'll be okay
- Stolas
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9165
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Mr Reasonable » Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:57 am

magnus are you in here saying things and and referring to them as "mr reasonable's philosophy"?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.


Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 30209
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Motor Daddy » Sat Nov 06, 2021 1:28 pm

gib wrote:I'm too lazy to give it the rigorous thought it needs to (maybe) comprehend it. <-- And that's a fact!


You're too lazy to understand what is being claimed, but you'll give your opinion on it anyway. Got it! In other words, you don't understand it, but you'll talk shit anyway. That is precisely what the people on the science forums do, they don't understand it, but talk shit anyway!

gib wrote:You are depicting the speed of light relative to an observer seeing the box move. Relative to that observer, light travels at c. That observer will see the Z receiver "activate" (or whatever it does) before the X receiver. But if you take the point of view of someone riding in the box, they will see the Z receiver activate at the same time as the X receiver. This is not a hole in relativity theory. It is exactly what relativity would predict. One of the fundamental tenets of relativity theory is that simultaneity is not absolute. Things that happen at the same time for one observer don't necessarily happen at the same time to another observer.


ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am in the box, which is an inertial frame of reference. It's like being in my living room. My living room is moving in space (around the Sun, and at the same time revolving around the Earth's axis). I am in my living room and I have a light bulb at the center of the room. The receivers are at the center of each wall an equal distance from the light bulb at the center of the room. I turn on the light bulb and denote the time it takes for the light to reach each receiver (which are all the same distance from the light bulb at the center of the room). The light reaches the receivers in DIFFERENT amounts of time. That means in my living room frame of reference the speed of light is different for each direction to each receiver.

The ONLY way the light will reach the receivers at the same time is IF the room had an absolute zero velocity in space. We both know the living room is moving in space, though, don't we?


gib wrote:His theory actually agrees with your diagram.


NO! Einstein claims it always takes the same amount of time for the light to reach each receiver in the box (living room frame). He claims that because the distance from the center of the box to the receivers is all the same in that frame (.5 light seconds of distance) that it will take .5 seconds (or 1.0 seconds round trip). I clearly show that is IMPOSSIBLE if the box is in motion in space! But as you stated earlier, you're too lazy to comprehend it, so you wouldn't (don't) comprehend that!
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Nov 06, 2021 3:19 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:I like that statement. There is some self-awareness there. Are you "J"?


Everyone on this forum is "J."


Really? I cannot assume what the word for it is. Can you spell it out?

Can anyone in here spell it out?
BE MELTING SNOW. WASH YOURSELF OF YOURSELF.

YOU WANDER FROM ROOM TO ROOM
HUNTING FOR THE DIAMOND NECKLACE
THAT IS ALREADY AROUND YOUR NECK!

DANCE UNTIL YOU SHATTER YOURSELF!

THERE IS A VOICE THAT DOESN'T USE WORDS. LISTEN!

LIFE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN HOLDING ON AND LETTING GO!

LET SILENCE TAKE YOU TO THE CORE OF LIFE!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15872
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat Nov 06, 2021 3:20 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:If you're the one running the forum, then banning other people is "dealing with your own problem yourself" since you don't need anyone else to do it for you.


Yes. But unless you, Magnus Anderson, are the owner of the forum, then that is not your situation, and you are asking someone to take care of your problem for you.


That's right and there's nothing wrong with that as explained in the rest of my post.

Magnus Anderson wrote:If you're not running the forum, if you have no interest in running one yourself and if you're merely trying to influence those running it, then you're trying to solve the problem with the help of other people which of course means you're not trying to handle it yourself. And that can be, and it often is, a better path to take. [..] [Y]ou really seem to think in simplistic "Do it on your own = good, do it with the help of others = bad" terms. And that in the age when close and initimate relationships are being severely attacked from all sides with the aim to dissolve existing, and limit the creation of new, undesirable groups (so-called "domestic terrorists") with the hope to attach some, most or all of people to the government via imaginary entities brought to life by actors, musicians, instagram/pornhub/onlyfans models, politicians, influencers, life gurus, Elon Musks and others.


You are basically against cooperation (which is what the dudes at the top want you to be) pushing the idea that noone should try to solve their problems with the help of others e.g. by influencing them through arguments. As if cooperating with your friends and your neighbours is the same as cooperating with the government.

It's helpful to note that the prupose of this thread isn't solely to influence Carleas. In fact, I don't even think it's possible for me or anyone else to influence Carleas to any significant extent. Instead, this thread is more about how people think forums should be moderated with Sculptor being an example.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5465
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby gib » Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:23 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:You're too lazy to understand what is being claimed, but you'll give your opinion on it anyway. Got it! In other words, you don't understand it, but you'll talk shit anyway. That is precisely what the people on the science forums do, they don't understand it, but talk shit anyway!


Well, it's too late now. You explained what you mean, I understand it, and I still reject it as proof that Einstein was wrong.

Motor Daddy wrote:ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am in the box, which is an inertial frame of reference. It's like being in my living room. My living room is moving in space (around the Sun, and at the same time revolving around the Earth's axis). I am in my living room and I have a light bulb at the center of the room. The receivers are at the center of each wall an equal distance from the light bulb at the center of the room. I turn on the light bulb and denote the time it takes for the light to reach each receiver (which are all the same distance from the light bulb at the center of the room). The light reaches the receivers in DIFFERENT amounts of time. That means in my living room frame of reference the speed of light is different for each direction to each receiver.


And when did you conduct this experiment? Was it in your head? <-- That doesn't count as a scientific experiment.

It appears that even when the actual science is explained to you you still refuse to accept it. I definitely understand why you were banned.

I know it's counterintuitive--how can two events which happen at the same time for one person NOT happen at the same time for another?--but everyone who understand the science behind this knows it's counterintuitive--that's what makes Einstein's insight so mind blowing--but they don't take this as a reason to say the universe is wrong and our limited ability to understand is right. Reality, as strange as it is, trumps human understanding.

Motor Daddy wrote:NO! Einstein claims it always takes the same amount of time for the light to reach each receiver in the box (living room frame). He claims that because the distance from the center of the box to the receivers is all the same in that frame (.5 light seconds of distance) that it will take .5 seconds (or 1.0 seconds round trip). I clearly show that is IMPOSSIBLE if the box is in motion in space! But as you stated earlier, you're too lazy to comprehend it, so you wouldn't (don't) comprehend that!


Sorry, Daddy, but at this point it is clear you just go into denial when it is explained to you why you are wrong. If we continued this dispute, it would go on for eternity. Every attempt I would make to show you what the science actually says would fall on deaf ears, and you would just reiterate your MD Box thought experiment ad nauseum. If I were a mod, I would (at best) close this thread (I don't want threads on my forum to continue forever if it's just repeating the same fallacious point over and over again). If I were a mod on a science forum, I would ban you for imposing junk science despite repeated attempts to reason with you about why you're wrong and your claims are the farthest thing from fact.

For that reason, I'm out.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

We're rich and we are hot. People want our money AND our bodies!
- Stolas

When I'm lonely, I become hungry, and when I'm hungry, I want to choke on that red *** of yours, toss your *** and lick all of your *** before taking out your *** and filling it with *** until you're screaming ********* like a f***ing baby.
- Stolas

As the stars start to align
I hope you take it as a sign
That you'll be okay
Everything will be okay
And if the Seven Hells collapse
Although the day will be my last
You will be okay
When I'm gone, you'll be okay
- Stolas
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 9165
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:43 pm

gib wrote:
iambiguous wrote:What man that every woman wants and every other man wants to be doesn't?


Well, there's me obviously.

iambiguous wrote:Not only that but he has his own collection of political prejudices.


^ Uh-oh, you mentioned "political prejudices". I'm out!


Note to others:

Here's what he's "out" regarding:

Not only that but he has his own collection of political prejudices. Down at the other end of the spectrum. And, I suspect, just like yours, they are rooted deeply in dasein.

I mean, you're not a fulminating fanatic objectivist are you? An actual Trumpist?!!


And:

gib wrote:Oh, the cognitive dissonance!


Same here. Your take on that vs. mine.

You know, given a particular set of circumstance.


And especially this part:

Come on, I'm sure there are those here who believe that if anyone can put me in my place, it's you.


So, by all means, do your best to persuade him to change his mind. I am convinced that I would make better arguments than him in a "straight discussion"...or make a fool out of him in a Rant romp.

Please, don't make me fall back on the "C" word here. 8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Motor Daddy » Sat Nov 06, 2021 5:51 pm

gib wrote:Well, it's too late now. You explained what you mean, I understand it, and I still reject it as proof that Einstein was wrong.


Oh, so now you understand it. Laugh Out Loud! You understood it from the beginning, you were just playing the stupid card because you have no real reply to my truth! It refutes Einstein's BS and you have no explanation, because there isn't one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to reach the receivers in the box at the same time, while not reaching the receivers at the same time according to another person. The light either hits the receivers simultaneously, or it doesn't. There is no "it's counter-intuitive" BS explanation. You are sticking to your RELIGION! Whodathunk?? (rolls eyes)


gib wrote:I know it's counterintuitive--how can two events which happen at the same time for one person NOT happen at the same time for another?--but everyone who understand the science behind this knows it's counterintuitive--that's what makes Einstein's insight so mind blowing--but they don't take this as a reason to say the universe is wrong and our limited ability to understand is right. Reality, as strange as it is, trumps human understanding.


No, what you know is that you're standing by your religion, regardless if it is shown to be IMPOSSIBLE. It's like Pood claiming that 40,000 years elapsed on Earth, but only 6 years elapses for a traveling twin. It's all so counter-intuitive. (rolls eyes)

It's not counter-intuitive, it's BULLSHIT! But go ahead and stick to your RELIGION if it makes you feel better. The truth does indeed HURT!


gib wrote:For that reason, I'm out.


You're out because I've defeated your BULLSHIT with TRUTH, and there is NO WAY you can refute it, because it is showing your BULLSHIT to be IMPOSSIBLE! Maybe you don't understand what impossible means? You can't refute "impossible" with "counter-intuitive." DUH?
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:04 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:In the last month or so, I have covered extensive ground on topics that interest me deeply. Possibly I am the only one rewarded by it, but on the other hand I am the only one I am interested in rewarding. Eventually I get to a place where the person I'm talking to has the "does not compute, switch to troll mode" moment and I move on. And I don't get cowed because I actually like a bit of a fight. I won't get stuck for months going at it with someone like iambiguous/kropotkin, but every now and then it's fun to invest some time into the old scratching post. Nothing wrong with it. When you are discussing politics, specially, feelings will get involved and insults will be forthcoming. That is just the way it is. I can't tell you I want to force you to live a life you are against for any reason and expect you to be calm about it. There are enemies in politics and that is life.


Okay, note these topics you discussed that interest you deeply. If they interest me as well, we can sustain an exchange that explores them substantively. And civilly. I'll respect your intelligence, you'll respect mine.

We'll see who configures into the "troll" first.

Here, go to this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 6&start=25

I mean, it started out as a more or less substantive exchange. But it wasn't long before [in my opinion] you configured it into just another Corner exchange. One or two sentences -- or even one or two words! -- at a time.

Leading me to conclude this:

Actually, I'm amazed it took me this long to reduce him down to "answers" like this.

Here's the thing though...

With others on other threads, he actually is able to sustain rather substantive discussions.

But with me?

Nope.

My guess -- and that's all it is -- is that this revolves around the fact that in regard to either religion or politics or morality, he really is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist. And the very last thing this sort will tolerate is even the remote possibility that their own precious Self might instead be but another run-of-the-mill embodiment of "I" derived existentially from dasein.

With others, the objectivist can argue back and forth about who is right and who is wrong. With me, however, the very question of right and wrong itself comes into question.

Better to be wrong about something relating to religion and morality and politics than to be "fractured and fragmented".


Then it devolved into the Rant Room.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sat Nov 06, 2021 7:54 pm

My intelligence dwarfs yours like a big planet over a small pebble.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 11109
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 06, 2021 10:17 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Pedro I Rengel wrote:In the last month or so, I have covered extensive ground on topics that interest me deeply. Possibly I am the only one rewarded by it, but on the other hand I am the only one I am interested in rewarding. Eventually I get to a place where the person I'm talking to has the "does not compute, switch to troll mode" moment and I move on. And I don't get cowed because I actually like a bit of a fight. I won't get stuck for months going at it with someone like iambiguous/kropotkin, but every now and then it's fun to invest some time into the old scratching post. Nothing wrong with it. When you are discussing politics, specially, feelings will get involved and insults will be forthcoming. That is just the way it is. I can't tell you I want to force you to live a life you are against for any reason and expect you to be calm about it. There are enemies in politics and that is life.


Okay, note these topics you discussed that interest you deeply. If they interest me as well, we can sustain an exchange that explores them substantively. And civilly. I'll respect your intelligence, you'll respect mine.

We'll see who configures into the "troll" first.

Here, go to this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 6&start=25

I mean, it started out as a more or less substantive exchange. But it wasn't long before [in my opinion] you configured it into just another Corner exchange. One or two sentences -- or even one or two words! -- at a time.

Leading me to conclude this:

Actually, I'm amazed it took me this long to reduce him down to "answers" like this.

Here's the thing though...

With others on other threads, he actually is able to sustain rather substantive discussions.

But with me?

Nope.

My guess -- and that's all it is -- is that this revolves around the fact that in regard to either religion or politics or morality, he really is just another run-of-the-mill objectivist. And the very last thing this sort will tolerate is even the remote possibility that their own precious Self might instead be but another run-of-the-mill embodiment of "I" derived existentially from dasein.

With others, the objectivist can argue back and forth about who is right and who is wrong. With me, however, the very question of right and wrong itself comes into question.

Better to be wrong about something relating to religion and morality and politics than to be "fractured and fragmented".


Then it devolved into the Rant Room.


Pedro I Rengel wrote:My intelligence dwarfs yours like a big planet over a small pebble.


Again, although I do admittedly set you up over and over and over again, you are still the one who actually does choose to post embarrassing dreck like this.

You bitch about not being taken seriously about the things of most interest to you and when I do offer to take you seriously, you back off and post, well, whatever it is you want to call this. Something, say, other than dreck?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 43721
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Nov 07, 2021 6:24 pm

gib wrote:I know it's counterintuitive--how can two events which happen at the same time for one person NOT happen at the same time for another?--but everyone who understand the science behind this knows it's counterintuitive--that's what makes Einstein's insight so mind blowing--but they don't take this as a reason to say the universe is wrong and our limited ability to understand is right. Reality, as strange as it is, trumps human understanding.


It's not merely counter-intuitive, it's also logically impossible. It's like saying that 2 + 2 is equal to 5. That's both counter-intutive (it goes against what we intuitively think it's true) and logically impossible (it contradicts existing definitions.)

If I were a mod on a science forum, I would ban you for imposing junk science despite repeated attempts to reason with you about why you're wrong and your claims are the farthest thing from fact.


But you wouldn't ban Sculptor. Banning Sculptor because he's rude is a leftist thing to do but banning Motor Daddy because he disagrees with you is obviously not.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5465
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Petition to ban Sculptor

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Nov 07, 2021 6:46 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:First you say that's not a fact, then you say fine, you'll give me that. Which is it? Is 2 + 2 = 4 a fact, or not?


gib wrote:I'm saying we can go either way. It's up to you. It all depends on what you mean. I'm showing you the logical options you have and where they lead.


You can't go either way. 2 + 2 = 4 is either a fact or it is not. You are merely saying that if we change what that expression stands for that we can make it false e.g. if what we mean by "2" is "three", it becomes false. But what you're doing here is changing the meaning of the expression. You can do the same with any other kind of statement. You can do it with "The Earth is flat" too. But you don't say that. You don't say we can go either way with "The Earth is flat". You don't say that if we define the word "flat" to mean "round" that we can make that statement true. Basically, what you're failing to realize is that the truth value of a statement is determined AFTER its meaning is established. You first UNDERSTAND what someone is saying and THEN determine whether or not what they are saying is true or false.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5465
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users