koti

It is binary but it also a utopian scenario. I don’t think there is any chance for people in the US (or anywhere for that matter) to agree to get rid of their guns. Off topic...is my mind playing tricks on me or have you said you were 16 early last year?

Right. I’m done here Eise.

I have a 600mW 532nm laser with a decent enough divergence to see the beam even in daylight. So what?

I really don’t have to learn that light from a passing beam in a vacum which doesn’t enter the eye is not visible - I have that knowledge. As for me being constrained - I will let this go right here. I understand your point of view on your semantical/philosophical issue but I don’t share your concern/need to analyze it.

After all the debates are done and everything is said, Its a binary issue at the end - very strict gun law vs. horrible things happening.

Again, I apologize for barging in but as a non US/Canada citizen who used to live in the US for 3 years as a kid I have a story that might be semi-relevant: I was 13-16 living in Michigan close to Detroit in a small town, republican town but I wasn’t aware of that at the time (kudos for being semi-aware to @Raider5678) So I was already assimilated after 10-12 months in the US, other kids accepted me as their own. After 2 years I was basically indistinguishable from the natives. So me and my buddy George had a thing for RC cars and blowing things up (teenagers) Georgie had an older brother who got us 2 pounds quality gunpowder at the mall and I used it to build bombs out large CO2 cartridges in my garage. It was me, 2 pounds of millitary grade gunpowder, bunch of large CO2 cargridges, some water proof wick, goggles in a garage - the whole shebang which you normally see in an 80’s movie. I managed to not get myself blown up which obvioulsy was a great possibilty, I built the charges and we used them...one of them at George’s house, we blew up his fathers tree by drilliing it at placing the charge inside the hole. Typical early teenage moron stuff. The crux of the story is...why the hell were we able (me and George) to get our hands on 2 pounds of fast burning, ammunition grade gunpowder at the age of 13 in a middle class small town. We did get in trouble when we detonated a charge in a lake...a bunch of fish died and the police came. That is my contribution to this thread. Oh...and maybe, just maybe... if there is less weapons easily available there will be less incidents? Doesn’t it come down to letting go of some of the rights that we have to prevent horrible things happening?

Why would you want to define seeing as seeing the reflected light when we see by perceiving both reflected and emitted light straight at its source? Its like saying that the number 24 is a 2 from now on and start to draw conclusions from this. You* are right Area54, I do tend to be emotional and Im sure it does constrain my comprehension skills at times... it enables me at times as well. *I used the word „You” to refer to the person called Area54 on this forum.

Thanks for your answer @zapatos

Sory to barge in on you like this folks, I have a related question though: How easy it is to get your hands on that AR-15 rifle in the state in which the recent school schooting took place, what is the exact procedure?

Saying colloquially that Eise used a „being a dick fallacy” is by no means equall to calling him a dick - I would not do that, I’ve seen his contributions to this forum and I have too much respect for him to insult him. Thats why I’m still in this thread trying to understand Eise’s alternative point of view. Eise you are making an argument based on your see1 and see2 distinction which I do not accept. I put an equall sign between the two to emphasize that there should be no distinction in my opinion. I find your distinction between 1. Seeing objects because they emit or reflect light and 2. Seeing light because it enters the eye. extremely frustrating and I’m sory but I don’t see the nuances mentioned by StringJunky. All I see is a false definition of „seeing” based on a null premise that there is a distinction.

For the record, I repeated Eise’s words, they are not mine. „See1 & See2” is not my „concept”

I am willing to leave my frame of thought for useful purposes, I refuse to leave it in this case, to find an alternative meaning to the word „see” as I am fairly familiar with both the physical and physiological aspects of what/how/why species see. I am overwhelmed by your statement that: „Now I see this distinction, and tried to make it explicit by defining: See1: seeing macro objects because they reflect or emit light (e.g. cars and computer monitors) See2: seeing light because it enters the eye.” The above „see1 & see2” distinction is plain wrong in my opinion. There can be no distinction between things we see caused by emitted or reflected light - its the same thing. There can be no distinction between see1 which is „light entering the eye” and see2 which is „exactly the same gd thing” The eye doesn’t care if the light which hits it comes straight from the source or from an object which reflected light.

I still think its nuts. You don’t see a laser beam in a vacum because physics not because „see1” and „see2”.

Eise please correct me if Im wrong: You are making a distinction between seeing emitted light and seeing reflected light and you’re basing your definitions of see1 and see2 on this distinction? This is plain nuts.

I must conclude that his line of thought is correct (which I think it isn’t) and at the same time he doesn’t need to conclude his stated line of thought is correct? Oh this keeps getting better and better... We might as well start defining the uses of the words „you” and „better” in various contexts and sentences. It would be asinine to do so.

Yes you did:

Its not hours, human body will start burning muscle for energy when severly malnourished, being ill for a long time without proper care - under extreme conditions. Even a few days without food for a healthy body will not cause it, its the last resort for the human body when all the other sources are gone. It also depends on what state your body is currently in. Its always good to consult these things with a doctor or a certified trainer who will give you answers based on your body type, state which it is in, etc. Only then you can get accurate answers.

Since you assert that the use of the word "seeing" is wrong, I see no point in continuing besides what I already stated in this thread. If you want a detailed explanation please use this tool: https://randomwordgenerator.com/

First you advertise your 2 definitions of seeing which I don't agree with and when I'm contradicting your line of thinking with my line of thinking you state that Im using your definitions. Its more of a "being a dick" fallacy than a strawman.

Cute strawman Eise. I thought you were better than that.

Its just a number in an equation. Note that energy and mass have different units, the speed of light squared acts like a „translator” between the two.

If youre refering to E=mc^2 it means: Energy equals mass multiplied by velocity of light raised to the second power. This equation tells us that energy and mass are equivalent. Before you get into relativity consider this example: If you put a piece of wood into a fireplace it will burn converting some of its mass into the heat which you feel. Knowing all the properties of that system (properties of wood, fireplace, air temperature, etc) you can calculate how much heat will be produced. Or the other way around. Matter is a different thing...its actually a physical thing which has properties like mass, temperature or velocity.

C^2 in an equation is not equivalent to the velocity of twice the speed of light in reality. Objects which have mass cannot travel above or at the speed of light. Mathematics is just a tool which helps us to describe whats going on around us.

Theres an anti spam thing which gives new members only 5 posts to post untill some time passes. As to your question of whether x comes from y with 100% certainty the answer is yes and no depending on the system. If we are trying to detemine childs mother, we can know with 100% certainty when we witness the birth. DNA tests never give 100% certainty.

The question whether light is visible or invisible is trivial. On top of it the above contains a false premise that "we never see the actual light"