Physics Professor Knows Nothing About Physics!

Originally posted by @alphazero
Does no one on here understand sarcasm/satire???

BigDog, apparently you are not that smart. I literally created the entire story to make fun of your question. How dare an instructor as such a question??? They are perfectly justified in asking such a question. Just as God is.

Anyone with an ounce of honest sense would see that you just proved my po ...[text shortened]... t.

Yet, the definition of a fool is someone who sees it and ignores it or refuses to see it.

I let your attempt at "satire" go the first time because it was plain bad. Unfocused, vague, and unfunny. I thought maybe you were having a bad day when you wrote it, so I gave it a pass.

You understand humor about as well as Sheldon Cooper.

Originally posted by @alphazero
Physics Class 3:9

The Professor asked us students to define physics...

Half the students get up from the class and run to the dean's office. demanding a new professor because clearly our professor knows nothing about physics - for crying out loud they asked us, the students, a question!!!

Now, being perfectly objective about this professor, one m ...[text shortened]... anyone fails to the see the sarcasm/satire go to bigdogg's post about God not being omniscient.

It is a great way to teach, asking a question that requires someone to ponder/muse over
the answer instead of just telling them. In the world of politics an alternate method of
getting what people want out of the masses is used. Instead of making people ponder
the details they do something altogether different, make the masses think what the
politician is saying is what they think too. Using some American campaign slogans and
political position rhetoric we have seen things like this; “Make America great again!” now
those that like the guy that is saying it will fill in the blanks on what “Make America great
again” actually means, with what they think a great America would look like. No details,
but they are in complete agreement.

When I first realized this was going on the phrase that was used was, “Hope and
change”, was being pushed, no details, everyone filled in the blanks on what they were
hoping for, and the changes they wanted to see. So, the campaign had followers without
details fighting hard for what they wanted, not necessarily what the politician was offering.

In the gun control debate the most popular slogan is right now in my opinion, “Common
sense gun law reform”, what does that mean, no one knows, but everyone who is
repeating it has something they think is common sense gun law reform, and as long as
anyone pushing for gun laws can keep from being specific the masses that are for new
laws will agree with them.

Those that are against the slogan will spend time trying to make others think those that
like these things that are said, actually mean something evil, and as long as they can
avoid being specific just cast a doubt, they can paint millions of people evil, even those
that have no intention of doing or thinking what is being suggested. Just get the herd to
move one way, and accepting the vague charges, you have a split in the population with
some hating others not for what they are doing, saying, or even thinking, but because
they can be linked to something that means something different to each person without
any specific details.

The devil is in the details because the details are where the reality of these slogans hits
the road, where the people elected start making the laws they wanted from the onset. As
long as details were never discussed, no promises could be broken, and no matter what
they do after being vague they can even claim to fulfill a campaign promise. Bottom line,
it is better to look at the details, look at the specifics, do the homework to grasp the true
meaning behind a theory, promise, whatever. Simply trusting in a slogan is laziness to
the nth degree. When we have the right to vote we should actually try to see past the
persons looks, looks don’t pass laws, look past the slogans since slogans don’t carry
details.

In classes listen to what the teacher is saying, then dig deeper, incase there is an
agenda driving the class. Be real thinkers, not just followers of anything, or anyone, test it
all.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
It is a great way to teach, asking a question that requires someone to ponder/muse over
the answer instead of just telling them. In the world of politics an alternate method of
getting what people want out of the masses is used. Instead of making people ponder
the details they do something altogether different, make the masses think what the
politician ...[text shortened]... da driving the class. Be real thinkers, not just followers of anything, or anyone, test it
all.

Exactly! What he put forth as satire can actually be a valid teaching method.

If he had a professor like this in real life, and filed a complaint, the faculty would laugh in his face.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Out of curiosity then, why did God say to Abraham "now I know you fear God." Why wasn't he already aware of that before asking him to sacrifice his son? What was the point of that 'test'? (And as an aside, why is it important to God that people fear Him and love Him above all else, to such an extreme length? )

P.S I'm aware of the 'usual' answers to these questions.

Yes, and what God knew was known before the whole of creation. God could have
judged evil as soon as it showed itself going against God, but what then? As people we
are called to be witnesses, we will judge, during judgment day even against angels. The
thing God is doing here I don't believe is because God didn't know, because it is now on
full display the truth of the matter. Had God judged Satan as soon as Satan rose up
against God and cast all of those that followed him into Hell. It would have spared the
universe of all the evil it has experienced yes, but to what end? Was evil really shown to
be worthy of that, or was God being such a control freak anyone step out of line is going
to cast into Hell? Allowing us to walk out this struggle is bloody no doubt about, and not
only that allowing us the make the choices we make is also costly, but in the end no one
will have an excuse before God and everyone will see evil for what it is, as well as love
and grace for they are too.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
It is a great way to teach, asking a question that requires someone to ponder/muse over
the answer instead of just telling them. In the world of politics an alternate method of
getting what people want out of the masses is used. Instead of making people ponder
the details they do something altogether different, make the masses think what the
politician ...[text shortened]... da driving the class. Be real thinkers, not just followers of anything, or anyone, test it
all.

It would seem that the vast majority of this site missed the connection.

The professor was perfectly justified in asking the question (I would know as a professor). It is a very good and valid way to teach.

The satire/parallel was that BigDog presented God as not being omniscient by asking a question. I made fun of it by presenting a ridiculous story where a professor asks a question and is then assumed to know nothing about physics.

Just because someone asks a question doesn't mean they don't know the answer.

The fact that BigDog, KellyJay, and others missed this just shows how little some of us can think or wish to think.

Originally posted by @alphazero
It would seem that the vast majority of this site missed the connection.

The professor was perfectly justified in asking the question (I would know as a professor). It is a very good and valid way to teach.

The satire/parallel was that BigDog presented God as not being omniscient by asking a question. I made fun of it by presenting a ridiculous st ...[text shortened]... g, KellyJay, and others missed this just shows how little some of us can think or wish to think.

Explaining only makes it funnier! 🙄🙄🙄

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
.... a bumbling schmuck with about a 120 IQ.

And your IQ would be more than 120 I suppose?
Those internet IQ tests have a lot to answer for!

Originally posted by @alphazero
It would seem that the vast majority of this site missed the connection.

The professor was perfectly justified in asking the question (I would know as a professor). It is a very good and valid way to teach.

The satire/parallel was that BigDog presented God as not being omniscient by asking a question. I made fun of it by presenting a ridiculous st ...[text shortened]... g, KellyJay, and others missed this just shows how little some of us can think or wish to think.

Flaming Cheeks of Embarrassment (a/k/a LittleMutt and PoodleBoy) received quite the spanking when he started his “God is not omniscient” thread and his OP was ripped to shreds in a matter of minutes.

He’s been trying to square that embarrassing circle ever since, but the belt marks on his fanny and his fire engine red cheeks are still in evidence.

He should have disappeared from the SF for six months in the hope people would forget about his boneheaded mistake but he keeps digging the hole deeper.

Sad!

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
And your IQ would be more than 120 I suppose?
Those internet IQ tests have a lot to answer for!

Did I strike a nerve?

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Explaining only makes it funnier! 🙄🙄🙄

Yes, I'm trying to figure out if you are just not very smart or just an unpleasant person

Originally posted by @alphazero
Yes, I'm trying to figure out if you are just not very smart or just an unpleasant person

I'm trying to figure out how the whole thing became some attempt at comedy and then got shot down for not being funny. I never found it funny. I just found it to be a fine argument using a hypothetical we can all understand and relate to.

Originally posted by @alphazero
Yes, I'm trying to figure out if you are just not very smart or just an unpleasant person

My guess is both.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
I'm trying to figure out how the whole thing became some attempt at comedy and then got shot down for not being funny. I never found it funny. I just found it to be a fine argument using a hypothetical we can all understand and relate to.

Thank you.

I wasn't exactly trying to be funny (probably not a strong point for me) - just a parallel hypothetical situation to 'jab' at bigdog's post.

I guess it hit a raw spot. BigDog thought he had a valid point. However, using the same sort of language he used in another setting it is utterly ridiculous and that was what my 'comedic' post showed. I actually thought it was rather original and a couple of my friends got a good laugh out of it (at bigdog's expense). I don't usually like online banter - for all I know bigdog could be a 13 year old kid. I've seen online users make fun of posts about a medical topic when the poster was an MD. It just shows we will say things online that we would never say in real person.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
Did I strike a nerve?

No.
You do use idioms strangely!
Anyway
And your IQ would be more than 120 I suppose?
Those internet IQ tests have a lot to answer for!

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
No.
You do use idioms strangely!
Anyway
And your IQ would be more than 120 I suppose?
Those internet IQ tests have a lot to answer for!

The idiom was perfectly in line, considering out of my entire comment (to someone else), you felt the need to reply on behalf of the other, focusing like a laser beam on my assignment of 120 as an unremarkable IQ.

Anyway
Did I strike a nerve?

In other words, might you have a similar IQ and thus find my comment insulting?