Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Curiouser and Curiouser

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Impossible problems of geometry - 1
« on: November 11, 2018, 09:20:22 AM »
Classical geometry does not address whether observers can see objects.

The only impossible aspect of this problem is deciphering the question.

2
You sure like bendy rulers and bendy balls to make your calculations. Maybe cuz you have a bendy brain?

3
It's adorable that you think that's what people are here for.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: FE explanations
« on: November 07, 2018, 07:11:47 AM »
In a post below, a FE proposed explanations for why bouncing radio waves off the moon has a delay measured to be exactly what the RE geometry predicts.

Watch your mouth!

5
Flat Earth General / Re: how to prove the earth is flat beyond criticism
« on: November 02, 2018, 02:45:35 PM »

Wouldn’t it be easier if there was some type of laser or radar you could point at the near moon and have it bounce off it and get that signal back nearly instantly to confirm a near moon?


Existing discussion in recent topics with "moonbounce" in title.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: how to prove the earth is flat beyond criticism
« on: November 02, 2018, 11:29:39 AM »
Please explain how the participants know the distances between points that are far apart.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Why do clouds stay up?
« on: November 02, 2018, 06:35:57 AM »
No the property I mention is something that is not understood. Clouds stay up because they have the same property (not density) that causes the earth to accelerate.

Hmmm. A supposition of a property that is not understood that attempts to explain one and only one aspect of a phenomenon posited by one person versus a clearly understood field of study explaining quantitatively all aspects of a myriad of phenomena and which is used in practice every day in hundreds of industries.

Which, I wonder?

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Second try at moonbounce post
« on: November 01, 2018, 01:40:15 PM »
Distance assumes radio propagation through vacuum. If lumiferous aether or firmament glue or whatever has a different propagation speed, the delay will be longer and this assumed distance larger.
And what is the relative permittivity of your magical aether to delay EM radiation by a factor of over 77?
Now I assume that your magical aether is non-magnetic (and I've seen no rockets getting stuck in it).
So if I haven't forgotten all my EM radiation theory, v = 1/(ε0µ0)1/2. Hence the relative permittivity of your magical aether must be almost 6000!

Argument by incredulity. How adorable.

Materials exist that slow the group velocity of EM waves down to a few tens of meters per second.

Then more magical still,  this wondrous aether must slow radar signals from Venus, closer to earth at times than the moon, so that they take about 5 minutes to return :D.

Your magical aether is certainly wondrous stuff, knowing to delay these planetary radar return times to match the times predicted by the heliocentric solar system.

What does Venus have to do with this post? Are you suggesting that these hamateurs claim to have bounced radio signals off Venus? Please, stick to the question.

It looks as though your magical aether knows that the earth is a Globe and the moon is about 384,000 km away even if you Flatardians don't.
Ole Christensen Rømer way back in 1676 knew far more about light propagation times than you Flatardians!

I guess someone didn't read the bit about "Please do not call names".

It's interesting what assumptions you make. Please point out exactly what in my previous post is factually incorrect.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Second try at moonbounce post
« on: October 31, 2018, 03:25:39 PM »
Distance assumes radio propagation through vacuum. If lumiferous aether or firmament glue or whatever has a different propagation speed, the delay will be longer and this assumed distance larger.

10
Sure! but also it would be an easy publicity campaign on NASA's part, i suspect they know way more then they are telling us.   Mwahahaha
1. Of course they know way more than they are telling us. That happens everywhere.
2. What they are telling us and what they are telling you are very different things.
What dyou mean?

1. No organization discloses everything. All organizations know more about their topics of expertise than they disseminate.
2. To you "what they are telling us" is what gets reported in the media. People who have a slighly more nuanced understanding of the situation know where to find real information.

11
A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!
The installation of COSTAR was not complex, but specifically designed to make it as simple as possible for the astronauts. And all this talk of NASA's accomplishments and failures ... it was not NASA, but a contractor who failed and a different contractor who thought of, designed, and did all the work necessary to make the fix a success.

Though the actual error in how the mirror was tested was made by Perkin-Elmer, the main contractor for the mirror, NASA, the customer, should have had procedures in place to avoid such an eventuality. The mistake was a massive embarrassment for NASA and was politically very damaging at the time. COSTAR was indeed the brain child of James Crocker an engineer who worked for Ball Aerospace, which goes to show how NASA relies on so many subcontractors for their manufacturing, which makes the idea of a conspiracy even more incredible. But at the end of the day it’s NASA and it’s management who are ultimately responsible.
I would give credit for the initial idea to Murk Bottema, while Crocker deserves credit for the innovation of the implementation.

The story I read had Crocker having a revaltion while in the shower.

Murk conceived of the idea of using pairs of small corrector mirrors to redirect light from equivalent places in the focal space and did the initial work to show tha the idea was a viable optical solution. Crocker figured out the folding arm concept of how to get the mirrors where they needed to be.

12
Sure! but also it would be an easy publicity campaign on NASA's part, i suspect they know way more then they are telling us.   Mwahahaha
1. Of course they know way more than they are telling us. That happens everywhere.
2. What they are telling us and what they are telling you are very different things.

13
A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!
The installation of COSTAR was not complex, but specifically designed to make it as simple as possible for the astronauts. And all this talk of NASA's accomplishments and failures ... it was not NASA, but a contractor who failed and a different contractor who thought of, designed, and did all the work necessary to make the fix a success.

Though the actual error in how the mirror was tested was made by Perkin-Elmer, the main contractor for the mirror, NASA, the customer, should have had procedures in place to avoid such an eventuality. The mistake was a massive embarrassment for NASA and was politically very damaging at the time. COSTAR was indeed the brain child of James Crocker an engineer who worked for Ball Aerospace, which goes to show how NASA relies on so many subcontractors for their manufacturing, which makes the idea of a conspiracy even more incredible. But at the end of the day it’s NASA and it’s management who are ultimately responsible.
I would give credit for the initial idea to Murk Bottema, while Crocker deserves credit for the innovation of the implementation.

14
A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

The repair was a pretty neat bit of problem solving that involved a very complex retrofit by the shuttle astronauts. NASA demonstrated they have the skill set to solve complex problems while at the same time haveing the capacity for monumental cock-ups!
The installation of COSTAR was not complex, but specifically designed to make it as simple as possible for the astronauts. And all this talk of NASA's accomplishments and failures ... it was not NASA, but a contractor who failed and a different contractor who thought of, designed, and did all the work necessary to make the fix a success.

15
A lot of extra money "spent'' on the fix. No better way to get money than to convince people they'll lose all the original investment.  And no one now blames NASA on the error, they laud them on the repair.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What direction is "down"?
« on: October 24, 2018, 05:24:01 PM »
Well, addressing the OP, and as many others before me have stated, "down" just means traveling down a straight line perpendicular to the center of the earth.

OP asks about flat earth.

17
Midnight clouds everywhere. Case closed.  8)

As always, Danang hasn't the slightest idea what a proof is.

18
To many observers on the ground, it looks flat.

Go.

Remember, you said that YOU would prove it wrong.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I will debunk the flat earth theory.
« on: October 22, 2018, 08:23:31 PM »
It would help your credibility if you knew the difference between cite and site.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Ice wall warming
« on: October 22, 2018, 05:05:06 PM »
Apparently "a scientist" = "all scientists."

Also, learn how to interpret sensationalist journalism.

Stupid turd.

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Phew Formula Updated
« on: October 19, 2018, 08:47:46 AM »
Why use a precision measuring device that might debunk my junk theory when I can use a sloppy plastic ruler and get the answer I want to get?

Your Baez Crackpot Index is totally through the roof.

22
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Phew Formula Updated
« on: October 18, 2018, 08:38:54 AM »
Take it easy, don't be scared. It ain't evil at all :')



Pleased to see you finally found someone else to do the work and show it's not a circle.

23
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Phew Formula Updated
« on: October 17, 2018, 09:06:20 AM »
It's all the same fault if you conclude 3.14159. Whether using calculus or series. What matters is, 0.261 test cannot be debunked. So whatever method you use, if you cannot pass the 0.261 test, that means pi is over and all claims supporting pi will become fake.

Bendy ruler not a circle.
Grab your wiener, one good jerk'll
Take your mind off stupid phew.
Go and dunk your head in poo.

Not nonsense. You claim that if you constrain a ruler's endpoints to a dimension less than the length of a ruler, the ruler will bend in a shape that is a segment of a circle. That claim neither has merit, nor have you attempted to show it, nor have you even addressed the issue.

Not a circle.

24
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Phew Formula Updated
« on: October 16, 2018, 07:35:12 PM »
It's all the same fault if you conclude 3.14159. Whether using calculus or series. What matters is, 0.261 test cannot be debunked. So whatever method you use, if you cannot pass the 0.261 test, that means pi is over and all claims supporting pi will become fake.

Bendy ruler not a circle.
Grab your wiener, one good jerk'll
Take your mind off stupid phew.
Go and dunk your head in poo.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 1m Wave block 100m building
« on: October 15, 2018, 03:30:52 PM »
Interesting how some people claim light bends over water when it suits their needs, and insist it goes straight over water when defending Rowbotham/Bedford.

26
"When you bend your 30cm ruler to achieve a chord length of 27.01cm or 26.754cm, thereby making a bowing deviation of 5.5cm or 5.6cm:

1) The shape the ruler is not a segment of a circle. FAIL.
2) You've shown no ability to be able to measure actual objects with a precision of 1mm. FAIL.

Phew, you stink."



Try again.  8)
There's no reason to suppose the curve of your bendy ruler is a portion of a circle. You just wish it to be so, and so assume it is.

27
"Some evidence would be nice."

>> Okay, another test for 90° logic of diagonal : neck = √2 : 0.2929
Let's say Phew/2=1 5858 and Pi/2=1.5708. Both are regarded as a ruler that equals 30 cm.
Pi needs only 2.99 cm shortening for 30 cm of 90° arch to be 27.01 cm of diagonal.
Phew needs 3.246 cm shortening for 30 cm of 90° arch to be 26.754 cm of diagonal.

Pi has to be able to create 5.6 cm of neck.
Phew has to be able to create 5.5 cm of neck.

TRY THIS AT HOME.

When you bend your 30cm ruler to achieve a chord length of 27.01cm or 26.754cm, thereby making a bowing deviation of 5.5cm or 5.6cm:

1) The shape the ruler is not a segment of a circle. FAIL.
2) You've shown no ability to be able to measure actual objects with a precision of 1mm. FAIL.

Phew, you stink.

28
WHERE ARE THE STARS IN #1? WHERE ARE THE STARS?????

See an explanation on camera settings.

On which page of the Navy manual?   ;D

This is not in reference to any Navy manual. :-(
You can find the information in many books on photography.
If you set your camera lens opening and shutter speed for taking a picture in bright light, such as on the moon, dim lights, such as the stars, will not show up in the photograph. It is a rather elementary subject, even to amateur photographers. It is just a matter of exposure settings for bright or dim lights. This has also been covered in previous posts.

Just as an aside on the subject of exposure. Cameras and the human eye act alike . If you are in a brightly lighted room indoors and then go outside immediately in the dark , you will have trouble seeing the stars until your eyes adjust to the dark. You will not be able to take pictures of the stars until you adjust your camera settings. You could also get some insight on the subject by joining or visiting a camera club. I am sure they would be happy to explain it to you if you would just listen to them.

If you want really want to get into reference on "Navy Manuals" LOL
You could look it up to see  if there any for the Photographer's Mate (PH) Rating.
But this rating no longer exists.
It has been merged in the Mass Communications Specialist (MC) Rating.
I feel certain the subject of exposure settings would be included in their class studies in a Navy School or a Manual for those on sea duty or on a shore station.
The Navy has many "Class A Schools" for all the different Special Ratings.
These are sort of an "entry level" for those who have just completed their Recruit Training ("Boot Camp") but who are not going into sea duty immediately.
I feel certain the school for PH or MC would include the subject of films and cameras for taking pictures in all kinds of light.

At first I thought you might be in on the sarcasm. With this post, not so much.

29
Nobody can deny 0.261 test.

What "test"? You just keep shouting "no way!" with no evidence presented.

Some evidence would be nice.


30

By direct experiment you can prove that 0.8mm pressing can NOT form a 0.855 cm of neck as required by 15° arch.
Phew claims such neck can be form by the difference length of [ 3.17157/4 * (15/45) - 0.261 ] * 100 cm = 26.429 - 26.1 = 0.329 cm.
Pressing as far as 0.329 cm for a straight object (ruler) of 26.429 will result a 15° neck of 0.855 cm.



Despite the fact that the shape of the arch formed is not a circle (it's likely a catenary) your measurement is quite in error. We have only your word in capital letters ("NOT") that the ruler will not bend for a 0.8mm pressing. It's actually quite easy to show that only a small shortening of the endpoints (0.8mm) produces a significant bend (0.85cm).

Shortening it by over 3 mm (0.329cm) will easily bend it by about double the 0.85cm.

It's pretty easy, but does require some care in measuring.

As I've pointed out before, you suck at measurement.

But it's a measurement any competent person can reproduce.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26