New Idea on Sunrise/Sunsets

I meant in terms of a viewable lightsource. You knew perfectly well what I meant. Deliberate misunderstanding reduces you to the level of someone like Parsifal.

I meant in terms of a viewable lightsource. You knew perfectly well what I meant. Deliberate misunderstanding reduces you to the level of someone like Parsifal.

But we don't yet have an adequate explanation for bendy light. Perhaps the spectrum of light emitted is meaningful.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 01, 2010, 03:30:38 PM

I meant in terms of a viewable lightsource. You knew perfectly well what I meant. Deliberate misunderstanding reduces you to the level of someone like Parsifal.

But we don't yet have an adequate explanation for bendy light. Perhaps the spectrum of light emitted is meaningful.

Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps you don't need an explanation for something that can't be experimentally demonstrated to exist? Now go back under your bridge and wait for the billy goats.

Quote from: Dino on January 01, 2010, 03:43:20 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 01, 2010, 03:30:38 PM

I meant in terms of a viewable lightsource. You knew perfectly well what I meant. Deliberate misunderstanding reduces you to the level of someone like Parsifal.

But we don't yet have an adequate explanation for bendy light. Perhaps the spectrum of light emitted is meaningful.

Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps you don't need an explanation for something that can't be experimentally demonstrated to exist?

I would say it needs a very, very good explanation.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 01, 2010, 03:49:59 PM

Quote from: Dino on January 01, 2010, 03:43:20 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 01, 2010, 03:30:38 PM

I meant in terms of a viewable lightsource. You knew perfectly well what I meant. Deliberate misunderstanding reduces you to the level of someone like Parsifal.

But we don't yet have an adequate explanation for bendy light. Perhaps the spectrum of light emitted is meaningful.

Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps you don't need an explanation for something that can't be experimentally demonstrated to exist?

I would say it needs a very, very good explanation.

Other things that can't be experimentally demonstrated to exist:
The Tooth Fairy
Werewolves
The Conspiracy
Auras

Quick! We need a very very good explanation for all these things, now! Because they exist!

Quote from: Dino on January 01, 2010, 04:13:26 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 01, 2010, 03:49:59 PM

Quote from: Dino on January 01, 2010, 03:43:20 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 01, 2010, 03:30:38 PM

I meant in terms of a viewable lightsource. You knew perfectly well what I meant. Deliberate misunderstanding reduces you to the level of someone like Parsifal.

But we don't yet have an adequate explanation for bendy light. Perhaps the spectrum of light emitted is meaningful.

Have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps you don't need an explanation for something that can't be experimentally demonstrated to exist?

I would say it needs a very, very good explanation.

Other things that can't be experimentally demonstrated to exist:
The Tooth Fairy
Werewolves
The Conspiracy
Auras

Quick! We need a very very good explanation for all these things, now! Because they exist!

Now you are just getting silly. You are comparing the Tooth Fairy to bendy light.

Both are unprovable and not believed by the general public.

Now you are just getting silly. You are comparing the Tooth Fairy to bendy light.

It's actually a very good analogy. There is precisely as much evidence for Bendy Light as there is for the Tooth Fairy.
Neither can be experimentally verified. Both theories are explanations which rely on an unverifiable assumption of truth (i.e. the existence of fairies/the existence of a flat earth. Take these things away and the theories collapse). Both have alternative explanations that fit other observed evidence.

Stay on topic people. This is the Debate board; I want the discussion to stay on the issue of sunrises and sunsets.

Stay on topic people. This is the Debate board; I want the discussion to stay on the issue of sunrises and sunsets.

The talk has turned to analogies for bendy light to highlight its uselessness, and the bendy light theory is relevant to sunrises and sunsets.
It. Is. On. Topic. 

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 02, 2010, 07:53:29 AM

Stay on topic people. This is the Debate board; I want the discussion to stay on the issue of sunrises and sunsets.

The talk has turned to analogies for bendy light to highlight its uselessness, and the bendy light theory is relevant to sunrises and sunsets.
It. Is. On. Topic. 

The topic is sunrises and sunsets. Inane babble about the toothfairy is not 'on-topic'. Disputing moderation within a thread is against the site rules, and you know that. I won't warn you about this again.

Please stay on topic people.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on January 02, 2010, 12:14:30 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 02, 2010, 07:53:29 AM

Stay on topic people. This is the Debate board; I want the discussion to stay on the issue of sunrises and sunsets.

The talk has turned to analogies for bendy light to highlight its uselessness, and the bendy light theory is relevant to sunrises and sunsets.
It. Is. On. Topic. 

The topic is sunrises and sunsets. Inane babble about the toothfairy is not 'on-topic'. Disputing moderation within a thread is against the site rules, and you know that. I won't warn you about this again.

I think he was trying to say that bendy light is mythological, in that it gives us an explanation for a phenomenon but does not have scientific support. Just like a child might explain the quarter under his pillow as evidence of the tooth fairy.

I'm not trying to argue against your authority but I think this has some relevance in a topic on light.