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 - Calen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
Wtf have the done to that poor piano?  Gonna need go-go-gadget legs to reach them pedals.

Still, it looks in better shape than one of Danang's ramblings.

2
Islam is the work of humans, and nothing more.  Just like all religions.

The Qur'an does not cast out the devil, it does not prove God, and it is not perfect. It's all just fable and legend.  And lazy with it, recycling older fables and legends.


3
Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the real flatties?
« on: June 20, 2022, 11:32:44 AM »
Did you really expect anything different from what is essentially Twitter for bairns?


4
turbonium2, I have some questions.

What are stars then, if we accept these floating fuzzy blobs to be actual images of stars? 

What causes the difference in colour?

What are the causes of their emission spectra?

What about other, easily visible celestial objects, such as nebulae, galaxies, etc? If those fuzzy blobs are stars in focus, then pinpoint stars are out of focus.  Why are galaxies, nebulae, etc in focus when stars are out of focus? 

Are only stars nearby, with other celestial phenomena being distant?  If so, then any issue with the idea of distant stars now moves to the other celestial phenomena we see.

Why does fine rain on my glasses at night cause distant lights to look pretty much identical to your in focus stars?  In a city, the distant lights even ripple and shimmer as your nearby in focus fuzzy blobs do. In fact, if I remove my glasses, all lights past 5 meters look light that.  Why?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chelyabinsk and Tunguska Events
« on: June 19, 2022, 12:39:07 AM »
Just an atmospheric hydrogen/helium (potentially) ice blast from the build-up on the dome.

Hydrogen freezes at 14 K (−259.15 oC) under atmospheric pressure, which is far colder than even the outer extent of the atmosphere.

Helium does not form a solid under atmospheric pressure, even at absolute zero (0 K, or -273.15 oC).

Neither hydrogen nor helium ice can possibly form within our atmosphere.

6
That was pretty interesting.

I've never listened to LBC.  What's it like as a news source, and does it have much of a bias?

7
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Dall-E AI
« on: June 16, 2022, 10:25:38 AM »
I've been seeing these on reddit.  Had a couple of goes, and it's not bad.

Gay rednecks


8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flying Land inside the Cloud Verified
« on: June 13, 2022, 12:49:53 AM »


Go to 2:12:05 and you can see the white line AKA EDGE of TRANSPARENT FLYING LAND in the cloud. The earth's land looks clearer after getting free from such transparent body.

Yeah, that's a contrail from another plane.

Seriously, Danang? Did you watch the whole twelve hours for that?  That's some dedicated idiocy.

9
Wife got COVID, the kids and I still in the clear. She's in self imposed exile in the bedroom. So I got the sofa which is impossible to sleep on. So I have gone a day, a night, the next day and am working tonight. NO SLEEP

Would be the worst time to get covid with my immune system whacked. Who knows. Maybe I'll evade it. I was vaccinated afterall :P

I hope your wife stays well, and you and the kids avoid it.

Not knowing your vaccine, I wouldn't count on it too much.  Both my hubby and I were vaccinated and boosted and still managed to get it.  The worst I've felt in my life.


10
Maybe not, but Srinivasa Ramanujan is a good example of mathematical genius arising in the most unlikely of places.  He was 13 at the time of his earliest discoveries and had little formal training. 

It is unlikely someone here would come up with a new idea about black holes, but not beyond the bounds of possibility.

11
A nice graph of Boris Johnson's popularity, courtesy of the BBC:



So basically he was at his most popular when in hospital, and people thought he might die, only to have that popularity plummet upon realising he'd survive.

Sounds right to me.

Source: Really long BBC url

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about gravity
« on: June 08, 2022, 01:00:37 AM »
Two words: atmospheric diffraction.

Try doing the same with a torch/flashlight through 10,000 km of atmosphere, rather than a few km.

You can make up any excuse you want, nothing could ever cause stars to all move and appear differently from other stars, by any external cause you dream up, including this one!

How would atmospheric diffraction cause each star to move and look differently, or 'appear' to?

I can't wait for you to make up an excuse for that one, so go ahead....

Seriously?

I live in a high rise apartment with an unobstructed view of around 15 miles. When I use a telescope to look at street lights in a distant town, and the focus is wrong, then street lights look pretty much identical to the videos of stars you posted.

They move and distort in a rippling fashion, with a blurry ring shaped appearance.

Do you have a telescope? Observed point light sources at a distance with one? Noted how similar they can look to stars through a badly focused telescope?

I'm guessing not.

After all, why go to the effort of making honest observations, when you can get everything you want to believe from Facebook and YouTube?


EDIT:

I initially decided to ignore your absurd question as to why two different stars appear different, but I kind of really want to point out your absurdity now.

Why would two different stars, in different locations in the sky, appear different due to atmospheric diffraction?

1. They are different stars.
Even naked eye observations tell you that stars are different from each other, having differing magnitudes and colours.

2. Different frequencies of light diffract differently.
The light from stars is composed of a spectrum of frequencies.  As each frequency diffracts differently, it is to be expected that each star will diffract different.

3. Each star is in a different location in the sky.
This means that the light from different stars travels through a different column of atmosphere and hence experiences different diffraction.

It's like asking why I (6 ft, fairly slim, pale skinned) and my neighbour (5 ft 2 inches, both in height and width, with ruddy skin) look different under out of focus magnification.

Absurd!

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How to make peace on earth?
« on: June 08, 2022, 12:34:36 AM »
Calen misunderstood my thought.

To summary :
Everyone work as usual, EXCEPT no money needed to make the production process keep going.
Everyone is a volunteer and they got "salary" by getting the access to free goods and services.

So I pay the hospital with potatoes? Or do I have to 'volunteer' at the hospital first?

And what if I need something the village can't provide, such as rosin for my cello bow.  Do I order on the internet and send them a sack load of wheat? I sure hope the shipping company needs carrots, as that's all that's left in the field.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: How to make peace on earth?
« on: June 08, 2022, 12:11:29 AM »
If you have a house with agriculture surrounding like in the village, you'll need no money for meal. Just go to the field and you got potatoes, fishes etc.
"The world is a global village".

What about when one needs healthcare? How would that be provided?  I'm fairly certain the field around the house cannot provide MRI scans or a course of mitomycin.

And what about a neighbour to this hypothetical house, who refuses to tend the fields, but regularly takes every bit of crop and hoards them for himself?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about gravity
« on: June 07, 2022, 11:52:06 PM »
Two words: atmospheric diffraction.

Try doing the same with a torch/flashlight through 10,000 km of atmosphere, rather than a few km.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: AUSTRALIA
« on: June 06, 2022, 12:03:13 PM »
I can't say I'm a royalist, but I do like having the Royal family.  They are like a slow moving soap opera, punctuated by glorious camp pomp and ceremony.  I'm a sucker for it every time.

I'll miss Lizzy when she's gone. I think William would make a good king.  Charles? Meh - though he has improved since shacking up with old Horse Face  Home Wrecker  Camilla.

17
I don't.

The best place for a greasy pig is a barbecue.


18
Equation of Time



Hmm, that's quite interesting. 

I understand the analemma, and the cause of it in photos, but I've never seen it derived that way using equations of time.

19
That is exactly how space flight works.  A craft travelling on one trajectory fires its thrusters and begins travelling on a different trajectory. Basic physics.
No, when you start from Earth, it is always the gravity force between Earth and your space craft that governs your trajectory a per Newton and Gallileo. Pushing a button cannot enable the gravity of the Sun to take over. But who cares? Space is a mystery that nobody can explain in spite of Einstein, NASA and other clowns.

I recommend reading up on Hill Spheres.  You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. 

Edit - grammar fix

20
That is exactly how space flight works.  A craft travelling on one trajectory fires its thrusters and begins travelling on a different trajectory. Basic physics.

21
https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/observatory/bus.html

Quote
Propulsion System

The Propulsion System contains the fuel tanks and the rockets that, when directed by the Attitude Control System, are fired to maintain the orbit.


Rocket Thrusters and Propellant    

Webb has two types of rocket thrusters. One kind is called "Secondary Combustion Augmented Thrusters" (SCAT), and they are used for orbit correction (like applied changes in velocity for each maneuver the spacecraft makes and also for orbit station-keeping). Webb has two pairs of them (paired for redundancy). They use hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, as fuel and oxidizer respectively, which makes SCAT what engineers call a "bi-propellant" thruster. The other kind of thruster on Webb is called a MRE-1, or mono-propellant rocket engine, since it only uses hydrazine. There are eight MRE-1s on Webb, and they are used for attitude control and momentum unloading of the reaction wheels.    


Any other rubbish you want to spout?

22
JWST orbits L2 according NASA, but it is also impossible, i.e. fake news.

https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html

Quote
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.

You are lying, yet again. NASA says no such thing.

You keep saying this, so show me one quote from an official NASA source that says JWST will orbit the Earth or L2.
Why do you get so upset? I just copy/publish what NASA publish since 1958, i.e. fake scientific (LOL) news about space. NASA just publish lies since 1958! Let's face it.

Bless your cotton socks for thinking your feeble attempts at trolling could upset, well, anyone.  At even that you fail.

So, no quote in support of your assertion that NASA says the JWST orbits the Earth? 

Nothing?

23
JWST orbits L2 according NASA, but it is also impossible, i.e. fake news.

https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html

Quote
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.

You are lying, yet again. NASA says no such thing.

You keep saying this, so show me one quote from an official NASA source that says JWST will orbit the Earth or L2. 

24
The vast majority of knowledge concerning blackholes is entirely mathematical and requires no resources to know.  All that is needed is study.  Something many of us have no difficulty with.

Now that is interesting. While some of the great minds of recent years like Hawkings have indeed probed the mysteries of black holes using mathematics few in reality have the capabilities and advanced knowledge to do this.
You say you have studied black holes, a very easy thing to say on a forum like this, so what has been the nature of your Ďstudyí and what have you been able to discover?
Let remember reading an article in a scientific journal is a far cry from actual study.

Perhaps you could point out in my post where I stated I have studied black holes, or where I claim to have made discoveries concerning them. 

While the equations concerning black holes are indeed difficult, they are not beyond the understandings of someone with a decent grasp of geometry and Relativity, especially non-rotating Schwarzchild black holes.  Kerr blackholes are more complex, having multiple horizons and an ergoshpere that does not coincide with any horizon, but are still within understanding of any reasonably intelligent person willing to invest time and effort in studying the underlying mathematics.

I note that, as often seems to be the case (at least in my limited interaction with you, and in your interactions here with other people), you failed to counter the substance of my argument, resorting to the construction of another strawman for your army.  They may be legion, but they are weak.

I quote again:

To know something about black holes requires resources far away removed from what 'YOU', yes 'YOU' have at your disposal.

This is substantially incorrect.

As most of the knowledge available regarding black holes is purely mathematical, no resources far removed from the reach of any intelligent person are required.

Resources far removed from the reach of ordinary folk are required to gather data and evidence of the validity of current theories concerning black holes.  Such resources, however, are unnecessary for the understanding of those theories.  A decent education and effort are sufficient.

For the record, I do not consider "reading an article in a scientific journal" to be actual study.  Taking the time to understand the mathematics behind such a paper, and then applying that understanding to other papers and scientific literature, does.

Care to enlightenment me as to what you consider study to be?

You implied.
Regardless of whether you do study black holes or donít does not change the reality or facts of the matter.
Iím not sure if you are from the USA but as a nation they are way down the international league table of mathematical attainment. Thatís a fact . I doubt the overwhelming majority of people in the USA for example would not be able to follow the mathematics used to describe the structure of a black hole or understand the concept of black hole evaporation through Hawking  radiation as developed by the late prof Stephen Hawking.
There is one being able to follow a mathematical concept and quite another in actually developing one.
I think what you say ignores reality. No one on this forum could develop a new mathematical concept or any other concept  for Black holes that could stand up to peer reviewed  scrutiny or be supported by observation. The OP who said he had an idea! was talking utter bollocks. You or any other poster on this forum could of course prove me wrong by writing a paper and having it published in Nature. If itís so easy and straight forward as you are implying give it a go and see how you get on. Whatís stopping you?


You entirely miss the point.

Firstly, I did not say anything about making new mathematical concepts about black holes; I spoke only about knowledge concerning them.  But sure, go ahead, and twist an argument again, to build yourself a straw army.

Secondly, I implied nothing of the sort. You inferred that.  I stated that many here would be capable of studying enough to gain knowledge about black holes, myself included. I do not, however, have either the inclination or interest to do so.

You stated that knowledge of black holes requires access to vast resources.  While the US may be down in mathematics league tables, it certainly would not take "vast resources" to educate someone to a level where they are able to gain knowledge about black holes.

Quoting yourself:

To know something about black holes requires resources far away removed from what 'YOU', yes 'YOU' have at your disposal.

To know something.

Not to be an expert, a maths genius or to formulate advanced theories and conjectures.

25

Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.

As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.

Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.

No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm

https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html

Quote
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.

Stop lying and making up shit, Heiwa.
I think you have misunderstood what an orbit is. Any spacecraft starting from and leaving Earth by definition orbits only Earth and cannot start orbiting anything else.

No, Heiwa.  I fully understand an orbit; it is you who does not.

That is not a definition of an orbit, rather your own asserted rubbish.
Sorry. JWST took off from Earth >5 months ago heading for L2 and, arriving at L2, we are told JWST started to orbit L2 after some mysterious actions!?!? . it was complete nonsense then as today. You really have to understand what an orbit is. No object in space can change "orbits" by itself from eg around Earth to around the Sun.

No, we weren't.  We are told that the JWST orbits the Sun.

No natural object in space changes its own orbit. Satellites and space telescopes, however, are not natural, and as such can be set on any trajectory we wish - even a complex one, that you are unable to understand, which can eventually settle in an orbit that is not around Earth.  There are many extant examples of this, including objects that have entirely left the solar system.

They also have control mechanisms to adjust their trajectories.

That your education failed to provide with the tools to understand this, is sad, but of no consequence to fact.


26

Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.

As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.

Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.

No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm

https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html

Quote
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.

Stop lying and making up shit, Heiwa.
I think you have misunderstood what an orbit is. Any spacecraft starting from and leaving Earth by definition orbits only Earth and cannot start orbiting anything else.

No, Heiwa.  I fully understand an orbit; it is you who does not.

That is not a definition of an orbit, rather your own asserted rubbish.

27
I can personally guarantee God did not give the Jews permission to lend on interest.

Howso?

Are you talking about נשך or מרבית‎?  And do you mean loans made to fellow Jews, or people of other Abrahamic faiths, or to people not of those?

Do you have access to a long lost Torah that has different rules, where you can clearly show that the text has been corrupted?

Or is this based on Islam's claim to perfection (the Qur'an's many factual, logical and scientific errors notwithstanding)?


28

Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.

As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.

Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.

No, it is planet Earth and you and me that orbits the Sun. JWST orbits L2 according to NASA one way or other nobody understands. L2 is just a point that you cannot orbit around. See http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm

https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html

Quote
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2.

Stop lying and making up shit, Heiwa.

29

Hm, JWST is not parked anywhere but magically orbiting L2 at high speeds/directions taking pictures. Myself I just look out of my window.

As you have been told numerous times, the JWST orbits the Sun at L2.

Repeating the same lies ad nauseam convinces no-one.

30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: My impossible challenge for FE'ers
« on: June 04, 2022, 02:39:28 AM »

Level means flat, and straight, and is parallel, to any other flat, straight lines, paths, or surfaces.

No, it does not.  You are arguing semantics using words that are ill-defined in common use.


Take for example a piece of corrugated iron.  It can be perfectly level with respect to the Earth, but curved (hence not flat) at every point along its surface, expect in one direction along the ridges and troughs.

A bowl sat on the surface of the Earth is curved, yet to bowl is still level. Taking a slice through the bowl at any point will describe a circle that is curved around its circumference, yet level with respect to the Earth.


There's nothing level or parallel to a sphere, objects have to CIRCLE a sphere, which is round, not flat or level to anything else. A ball is not flat, or straight, to BE level to anything else.


A circle drawn around another circle where both share the exact same centre, are parallel to each other.  At no point do they converge or diverge, and at every point they are the same distance from each other, hence parallel.  An example of the would be train tracks.  If they were not parallel at every point (including around curves), trains wouldn't be able to travel around turns.


It is clear from your arguments that you do not understand curvature, flatness or parallel in any rigorous way, and most definitely not in any mathematical or scientific way.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16