Your examples were not necessarily all examples of crackpots, but were instead a listing of those conclusions you simply disagreed with. — Hanover

I am an original thinker; you are eccentric; he is a crackpot.

An alternative to the experiment in the OP.

Set up a series of lights in a row, timing the second so that it illuminates just as the light from the first reaches it, the third so that it illuminates just as the light from the first and second reach it; and fourth at the time the other three reach it.

Viewed from perpendicular to the row, the lights come on in order: first, second, third, fourth.

From a point further along in the direction of the row, they come on at the same time.

Now, what is it that you think is the problem here?

Don't get shitty with Hangover. He's just a bit eccentric. . Explain what you think is the issue.

Meh. You're a rank and file liberal. I am in fact eccentric, but that speaks to my sense of humor, not my rationality or my day to day living. I get that not everyone finds dark sexual absurdity funny. Pity.

You're a rank and file liberal — Hanover

Rude.

No, calling someone a crackpot is rude. Reading your various political positions and categorizing them correctly is true. Calling you conservative in order to try to alleviate the rudeness of having called you liberal would be strange irony.

Of course, liberalism in the US is leftist, so maybe there's a communication break down down under.

The American people have gotten numb to the government's war machine. We dare not ask questions. If we do, our friends and neighbors label us "conspiracy theorists." — fishfry

That would not be a good thing.

Watkins pointed out the logic of conspiracy theories - the all-and-some proposition.

"All cats are black" can be proved wrong by presenting a non-black cat. But it cannot be proved true because one can never be sure one has checked every cat to see if it is black.

"Some dogs are asleep" can be proved true by presenting a sleeping dog. But it cannot be proved false, because for all the non-sleeping dogs you might find, there may be a sleeping dog you have missed.

Combine the two, and you can neither prove it true nor false. So consider "for every black cat there is at least one sleeping dog"... You can never be sure you have found every black cat, nor that you have not just missed that cat's associated dog.

Of course, being rude does not make a comment wrong.

It's an open question as to whether Hachem is indeed a crackpot. What I am asking is, what would be suitable criteria?

I don't see a conspiracy theory underpinning his discussion yet, but that may well emerge. And of course, some conspiracy theories may well be true.

But Hachem's lack of clarity combined with the wide number of posts and posited experiments does leave one puzzled.

Of course, liberalism in the US is leftist, so maybe there's a communication break down down under. — Hanover

I suspect I am well to the left of your liberals.

This isn't complicated. If you have a reasonable basis to reject an account (including believing the source isn't credible), then you should reject it. You don't then get to make up something else. — Hanover

I agree with you 100%. The official investigation was extremely shoddy. That crime deserves a serious investigation. I don't know what's true. I wasn't on the planes or in Cheney's bunker. I don't believe any particular theory. And I haven't "made up something else" except as a joke. I don't actually think Cheney personally flew all the planes. I don't believe he picked up the phone and said "Ok do it!" But as a philosophical question, how do you know he didn't? There is a lot of incredibly interesting circumstantial evidence. No proof of anything of course.

So what is your basis for believing Cheney didn't do it? I don't mean for that to sound crazy, like I think Cheney did it. [Note: Cheney and of course not W, who was totally out of the loop]. I'm asking as if we're in epistemology class. What is the belief system that says Cheney didn't do it? That the government is benevolent? That the government never lies to us? Kills its own citizens? That Cheney and company are such nice people that they could never do such a thing?

We could list each element of belief, and argue them and look at evidence. That's not crazy. It's part of rational inquiry. The cops in Law and Order see a dead body, they want to know who held the insurance policy. A rational investigation would make a list of everyone who profited and they'd check their alibi.

My point would be that you literally can't be curious and open-minded and conduct a rational inquiry into the events of 9/11 WITHOUT coming across as a total loon. Here's me, intimating that the executive branch of the US government ran the attacks on 9/11.

Do I believe it's true? No.

Do I believe it's possible? Most definitely. Just look at the crew that was involved. The day after 9/11 they were putting their war plans into place. Sure they could have been just "lucky" they got their Pearl Harbor and got to invade their 6 out of 7 countries. (Iran is next). But if you're the cops on Law and Order, you take a look at all the suspects, not just the ones you happen to want to go to war with.

So rational inquiry itself in a case like this looks just like crazy.

Just sayin'.

It is not the problem, but the question.

You are assuming that this will happen: all lights will appear on at once.

The experiment is to prove that this is the case... Or not.

So if the lights do not appear at once - what?

Why don't you try speculating (since it is all speculation) on this result? Use your, science-bridled, imagination.

A dodge. Why?

Strange question for a philosophy forum.

I will reply anyway.

You seem to accept the rationality of the experiment, and therefore the possibility that it could lead to either of the results.

In my other threads I try to show that there are alternative explanations to many light phenomena.

In this thread my whole aim was to show that it is possible to devise an empirical experiment to answer the question: is the theory (of the dual nature) of light valid, or is it just an erroneous belief?

not really. It’s the logic of your posts that is interesting. You haven’t given any reason to think that the result of the experiment would be other than I predicted. What do you think will happen? Make it worth my while to take an interest.

either result. But what is the result you predict?

You haven’t given any reason to think that the result of the experiment would be other than I predicted — Banno

You are expressing your belief in the theory as it is understood now. Nothing wrong with that. But you have no proof either.

The experiment's aim is to provide this proof, either to support your point of view, or mine. And my prediction is that we will see each light turned on, one after the other.

Try this.

Suppose we put a bunch of satellites up in the sky, each sending out very accurate time signals, as radio waves.

If the speed of light is finite, we could compare the time signals from each satellite - being ad different distances we could tel how far each was from us, and using a bit of triangulation, we could fix the point on the surface of the earth from which we are doing our measuring.

Now we have such a bunch of satellites, and I can see the result, accurate to a few meters on my iPhone.

But if the radio signals arrived instantly, the system would not work.

So, a question for you: how does an iPhone know where it is?

I do not deny the existence of e.m waves, I just do not agree that light should be considered as such.

It is obvious, even to me, that e.m waves can and do create light phenomena. But I am convinced that these phenomena are local phenomena.

In other words, I do not believe that light travels indefinitely through space, even if e.m waves do.

I know how crazy my ideas sound. Still, even though there are many reasons to take the dual nature of light as a given, there is not a single proof of its validity.

This experiment could end this uncertainty.

In other words, if all lights appear on at the same time, then I will be the first to trash all my threads.

so if you are right, how does the iPhone know where it is?

I do not understand. Are you suggesting that cell phones and satellites are light-powered?

Heinrich Hertz
"Electric waves: Being Researches on the Propagation of Electric Action..." (1893/1963)

In this translation Hertz describes his discovery of e.m waves. I will not go into details, suffice to say that two coils were used, each with a small gap.

When one coil was put under current, a spark appeared in the gap, and then a second spark appeared in the gap of the second coil that was located at a distance, with nothing linking both coils.

The question now is: did the spark jump from one coil to the other?

That is of course not very likely. Even though something must have jumped to the second coil that had the second spark as an effect.

We can now speculate about whether light itself is an e.m wave, or just an effect, or maybe epiphenomenon.

You are trying to explain the behavior of cell phones by a spark jumping through space and replicating itself some distance away.

That is of course no less mysterious than the idea that an e.m wave did just that.

If Bob is murdered, we look first to those with motive (enemies, business partners, spouse), and we then look if opportunity existed (do they have an alibi). From there we take statements, interview witnesses, locate recordings, receipts, etc. and look at the physical evidence. If the proof is there, we convict him.

The point being that motive and opportunity allows us to form a theory. The proof comes next. You can't conclude anything just because you have identified motive and opportunity.

So, you think Cheney had motive and opportunity to blow up the twin towers. If from there you argue he must have done it without supporting evidence, a crackpot you are.

Please stay on topic. You are spamming my thread.

Ironic post. The topic of our side discussion is trying to decipher what the topic of the conversation was in the first place.

In other words, clarify the OP and then you'll be in a more solid position to argue why the sidebar is unrelated to the OP.

I am filing a complaint for violation of the rules. You are abusing your position.

You posted an unclear OP, which generated an epistemological discussion. I'm not interfering in your conversation by talking to Banno and Fishfry about that, but you feel the need to interfere in my conversation with them.

So, you think Cheney had motive and opportunity to blow up the twin towers. — Hanover

The motive is in his own words, in a document authored and signed by many people who were in official posts in the government on 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Regarding opportunity, there is quite a bit of admittedly circumstantial evidence, including his role in the infamous NORAD standown. This is not the place to read you chapter and verse, all the info is out there.

If from there you argue he must have done it without supporting evidence, a crackpot you are. — Hanover

I've done no such thing.

But you will find that the 9/11 commission itself draws many conclusions with insufficient supporting evidence. The official 9/11 commission's account is the most preposterous conspiracy theory of them all. If you reject theories that lack supporting evidence (as I do) you must reject the official account.

Which brings us back to the main point. I'd like to see a real investigation. Wouldn't you?

I am disappointed in you fishfry. Are you spamming this thread also?