John T wrote:You [John T] don't seem to understand analogies...Spin
Yup, You couldn't cope with the analogy so you went off on a tangent about light. I showed you the stupidity of your approach with another analogy regarding you producing a lot of hot air, so that you might see that the producer was not the product and hence the flame is not the light. Again you failed to grasp the issue, derailed by your own vain commitments.
My original answer was in response to your smart-alack analogy...
The reason you gave your simplistic polemical response was that you refused to deal with the analogy honestly. You call it here "smart-aleck", showing your unwillingness to consider the analogy rationally. The song and dance you have performed thus far merely shows how poorly you allow yourself to think freely.
...but instead I used the form of a simple scientific fact and I stand it now...
You simply demonstrate that you are refractory and are still not dealing with the topic.
"Just because the flame no longer shines does not mean the previous light from that flame died with it."
The statement is basically correct, but irrelevant, as the topic was not the light, but the flame.. And as you are analogy-challenged, you make it hard for yourself to see your blunder.
Now you are trying to spin...
You've had enough opportunity to stop breaking netiquette, but you continue to misuse my nick. You attempts at wit merely show your puerility.
...your way out by switching to the topic of analogies?
Stop spinning and own what you wrote.
You used the word 'incandescent' not me. I provided the definition to show you it is nothing but a fancy word for light.
You can't even see how fucked up you are! You gave a dictionary definition which was correct and you proceeded to contradict it. That which produces light (incandescent) is not light. The producer is not the product, ie "flame" is not
a fancy word for light, but
a producer of light. But there's no backing down here: you've made your blunder and you're sticking to it. You could not respond to the original candle analogy honestly now if you tried.
Now, in your latest attempt at spin, are you trying to say a candle can have a flame but not emit light?
This is an enthrallingly stupid conjecture on your part. The flame, we have noted, is incandescent, ie it produces (=emits) light. How can you persist with such blundering? It is only entertaining up to a point and then one starts feeling embarrassed for you.
And let's just remember that you are equivocating regard the significance of light:
Light continues to travel until it is absorbed and takes on a new form. Clearly you are talking on a subatomic level as to the significance of light, ie particles (photons) that continue to travel until they are absorbed into bigger particles. The term "light" is also commonly used for a light producer, as in "turn on the light", "headlight", "flashlight". You exclude the common usage of "light" when you talk of light traveling until absorbed. A flashlight does not travel until it is absorbed.
(For any other person who might venture to read this stuff: the problem regarding the significance of light evinced by John T is similar to the use of certain terms used on this forum frequently. Consider the usage of "historical" which has a common meaning of "factual" and a number of more complex meanings. One can slip from one meaning to another without being aware.)
Are you thinking of one of those trick birthday candles that you can blow out and it lights back up?
You are a hoot spin.
Let's play some more.
Don't you think you've made enough a fool of yourself for one day?