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 - randomism

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
Flat Earth General / Re: ISS video - zero G fakery? if so, how?
« on: November 15, 2012, 03:51:11 PM »
Or they throw it into a simulator which alters their input from the outside.  Or simply alters the data as it travels to whatever interface it's setup to.  So unless the sensors record their data right on their own circuit boards, it's not hard to fake the data.

And if they do, it's not hard to rig up simulators that give the same effect to the sensors.

The problem isn't so much faking the data, although a lot of equipment does have sensors in chips (ever heard of MEMS?) and most of it would have custom circuits for sensor interfaces. The problem is coming up with this simulation that can fake the data correctly. NASA would, at the very least, need to know as much about the science as all of the third parties do. In reality it'd be a lot harder than that because it has to work for several different kinds of sensors simultaneously. And simulating physics perfectly is hard. Especially in real time. Where you direct ops crew (oh I'm sorry, "actors") directly and get their feedback directly, and where you also have almost instant camera feedback available in addition to whatever telemetry your stuff spits out. Maybe you think we can do the Matrix too, I dunno.

But you know better than this. This isn't a real challenge, this is the usual FET hand waving one-liner dismissal. I don't really know what you think you're stimulating with this, except making the FEers here like you more.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some incredible points about FET
« on: November 15, 2012, 01:23:27 PM »
The moon is yellow and diluted in your video. The effect doesn't occur right when the moon gets to the horizon, it is occurring at all times.

The wiki page says it's MORE diluted, hazy, blurry, whatever when it's nearer the surface to counteract whatever this mechanism is that makes it maintain the same apparent size.

... right, so it's done by invoking magic perspective arguments.

Clearly we can see that more distant objects move more slowly towards the vanishing point, even if you use Rowbotham's 1 degree of dipping behind the earth as a fudge factor eventually the velocity would have to be non-constant. Unless you look at a railroad track and don't see the rail boards getting closer and closer together in distance.

Where does the Wiki page say that it applies only to the start of the rise? When a jet at 45,000 feet passes over you and is constant when it is over your head and when it is near the horizon.

It must be nice to cite wild claims on a wiki you wrote as authoritative.. I don't care what the wiki says, you can't make some claim that perspective just never works. But by all means, please show me a video of this jet at 45,000 feet altitude moving away from you into the distance but while maintaining a (nearly) constant velocity through the sky and not changing in size.

The Lounge / Re: Would it be possible to request a permaban?
« on: November 15, 2012, 01:12:01 PM »
Sounds like an excellent opportunity to start practicing improving your will power. I know it's not easy but it's worth trying.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some incredible points about FET
« on: November 15, 2012, 01:09:43 PM »
It does. Have you never noticed that the moon near the horizon is yellow and diluted?

The fact that at sunset the sun changes color and you can easily look at it without squinting is proof enough the at the atmosphere greatly affects the sun and moon.

Why not look at the video I posted here? Clearly this doesn't happen. There's some minor distortion very close to the horizon but nothing like what you describe. And certainly nothing that's remotely proportional to the alleged magnification the moon is experiencing.

The constant velocity question was answered above in my first post in this thread:

2. Constant speed of the sun

... right, so it's done by invoking magic perspective arguments.

Clearly we can see that more distant objects move more slowly towards the vanishing point, even if you use Rowbotham's 1 degree of dipping behind the earth as a fudge factor eventually the velocity would have to be non-constant. Unless you look at a railroad track and don't see the rail boards getting closer and closer together in distance.

We're not talking merely at the start of its rise, it maintains the same velocity throughout the entire video.

Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 15, 2012, 01:04:42 PM »
Foucault's pendulum keeps changing direction because it, unlike us or the particles in the atmosphere, is a heavy ball suspended by a thin wire, meaning that it has a lot of inertial momentum while swinging and isn't as easily moved by friction.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Flat Earth Society is a conspiracy
« on: November 15, 2012, 12:46:38 PM »
I get confused about this in this forum many times... are you a REs or a FEs? was that comment for me against me or just a comment quoting me? do I have my own conspiracy?

I don't think you want to try going down that path.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some incredible points about FET
« on: November 15, 2012, 12:45:36 PM »
So why does the rising moon as shown in the video I linked not look hazier, diluted, and less intense when near the horizon vs much higher up? Can you explain why it maintains the same size, preferably less vaguely than "it's being projected"? Would also appreciate at least some FEer attempting an explanation regarding the moon moving at a constant velocity through the sky.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions about method of belief.
« on: November 15, 2012, 10:46:39 AM »
No it's not.  It's more a description of what I observe.  It's a statement of fact.

And if you were blind I suppose you'd think there was no earth at all?

It's not a description of what you observe, it's a description of what you don't observe. Anyone with the least bit of intellectual openness should be willing to accept that failure to observe something is not a contradiction of its existence. There is nothing in RET, in accordance with everything else we know about physics, that suggests your eyes should have detected curvature of the earth. Can you offer a zetetic justification?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions about method of belief.
« on: November 14, 2012, 09:03:52 PM »
But your entire premise, that there's no curvature of the earth because you can't see any, is a hypothesis. It's a proposed explanation for a phenomena. "I don't see curvature; one possible explanation for this is that there is no curvature." What you should do from here is gather more observations to rule out other explanations, rather than following that the absence of evidence is the proof of absence.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions about method of belief.
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:47:31 PM »
That's a pretty vague response. Can you do more than constantly insist the earth is flat because your eyes say so?

Let's put this another way. If you were never introduced to the cosmology of ENaG what would be your hypothesis regarding motion of major celestial objects like the sun, moon, and stars?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions about method of belief.
« on: November 14, 2012, 08:37:01 PM »
Saying that your eyes are lying by not detecting the minute curvature of the earth is like saying that your ears are lying to you when you think that there's complete silence around you. That's more of an omission of truth due to ignorance than a lie.

Flat Earth General / Re: LIVE Stream from ISS
« on: November 14, 2012, 03:01:43 PM »
I actually don't think there are that many trolls here. Irush is just the most obvious one.

The Lounge / Re: Ideas for a paper
« on: November 14, 2012, 06:20:44 AM »
Exactly.  Thork was trying to find out if there was a tolerance for the flatness of the glass and was turned away by the manufactures.  I don't see how you are proving RET here.

Thork, in the opening post of the thread, made the implied that there was zero tolerance based on the claim that the glass was flat. I don't know what he asked in his inquiry but if it was "is there a tolerance" and not "what is the tolerance" then it's already off base because we already know there's a tolerance.

Why do you think I'm trying to prove RET here? I'm merely saying that the flat glass claims don't provide sufficient evidence against it.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why No Accurate Maps?
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:59:35 PM »
THe maths and science will flow from our fingertips like bendy sunshine. We'll have 20 new irrefutable theories by the end of the day.  FES will never see a more productive day.

Meanwhile the earnest efforts of the opposition will undo thousands of years of RET D:

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Linux is superior for Gaming
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:55:18 PM »
That may be true now, but I think a lot of people will be upset with the restrictions Windows 8 will have inherently in the OS, and most of those people are at least smart enough to install Ubuntu.  At that point Steam will be in its infancy on Linux and will probably take off making more publishers consider making their content available in that medium.

When that happens people (and OEMs) don't migrate to Linux, they just refuse to upgrade their Windows. See Vista.

The Lounge / Re: How would we get along in real life?
« on: November 13, 2012, 09:37:26 PM »
randomism would probably talk about accelerometers the whole time.

Sweet, I made the list. Do you like emulators? I talk about those too. But that's pretty much it.

The Lounge / Re: How would we get along in real life?
« on: November 13, 2012, 06:16:46 PM »
I miss Nomad and Raist.

Aren't they both still posting??

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why would the earth being flat be covered up?
« on: November 13, 2012, 05:59:47 PM »
The thing is, FET isn't just about the earth being flat. A lot of things about physics and cosmology are totally different than they are in RET. Celestial objects like the sun, moon, and stars have very different properties. As a consequence, not only would the space agencies that don't understand FET be incapable of launching something into space, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to stay in space because FET doesn't let you escape the attraction to the earth or launch into orbit (obviously there'd be no such thing).

An analogy might be if NASA suddenly announced that they went on a mission to Alpha Centauri and took pictures. You'd probably be pretty pessimistic, because this violates everything you know about physics. You'd probably think it was more than likely a hoax and if people believe it they're being naive.

As to why they believe the whole FET deal itself, well, I guess they just find it more convincing than RET. Most of the big arguments and groundwork for the theory come from the seminal work of Samuel Rowbotham, Earth Not a Globe. So of course the evidence isn't simply "the earth is flat", although some just respond with "it looks flat" as a justification.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why would the earth being flat be covered up?
« on: November 13, 2012, 05:44:41 PM »
To be honest, simply saying that you/they do not believe that anyone ever went in to space is just a load of BS! Do you have any evidence for this theory that no one ever went into space, cause the astro and Cosmo naughts would disagree! Saying that all the pictures of earth from space are photoshopped is a load of rubbish! You expect people to believe that they are all created to trick the public, I'm sorry but what have you been smoking?

I don't know what you're adding to this exactly..

Space travel being a hoax is a big component of FET. Of course the relevant parties would disagree, that's an important aspect of being a conspiracy. If you want to counter the claims that the pictures are fake please do so with actual counter arguments, not just shouting "nuh uh!!" And I haven't been smoking anything, I'm just trying to answer your questions. You asked what would be gained from denying the flatness of the earth. I told you that (most) FEers believe in a space travel conspiracy, not a flat earth conspiracy. Space travel conspiracy theories aren't exactly unique to FET; while a lot of people only believe that some of them (such as the manned moon landing) are fake the motivations for faking them would still be similar.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why would the earth being flat be covered up?
« on: November 13, 2012, 05:06:45 PM »
The reason the SOVIETS (not Russia, Russia was only one country in the union) would know better is because it was a "honest mistake" by your words. The odds of NASA and the soviet space program both making the same mistake is absurd. Also that still doesn't answer my point of science does go back on its self if it finds it's self to be wrong! Why would they not just say that they where wrong like every other debunked theory!

I don't think you're getting it. FEers believe that ALL space travel is a conspiracy. In other words, Russia (sorry, I'm not going to stop using Russia, the controlling nation, to describe the USSR) made the first lie and the US one-upped them.

FEers believe that the whole world was and still is under the mistaken belief that the world is round, and that since no one ever actually went into space there hasn't been any new information to convince them that they're wrong. IF they now realize they're wrong then they wouldn't admit it because that'd be admitting that space travel was a hoax and they fabricated pictures of a round earth.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Romney is winning by a landslide
« on: November 13, 2012, 04:53:26 PM »
The money rich people invest is invested into other rich people in the upper 5% of society. It's not in circulation among the masses.

You mean there's no trickle down?  :-[

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Linux is superior for Gaming
« on: November 13, 2012, 03:06:36 PM »
What sort of Windows specific optimization could a game even receive, outside of being programmed to use DirectX? Or are we talking about anything else?

If DirectX were made available on Linux somehow (or if Wine's DX to OGL translations had zero overhead somehow) then a Linux port would probably run very similarly to the Windows port.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why would the earth being flat be covered up?
« on: November 13, 2012, 03:02:09 PM »
Im sorry but if NASA in the 50's where to have had such and honest mistake, than the soviet union would have pointed it it out! The soviets picked on anything they could to bash the us at anything it did, weather it be space treavel or military (and it is the same for the US towards the soviets). As the soviets did actually go into sace, they would have seen that the earth was flat and completely de-bunked the RET!

I know that some people will say things like 'the US blocked the soviets mocking from the public and the rest if the western world' and all that crap, but then why did the US not block things like the soviets getting the first satellite, man, woman and animal into space?

Finally NASA and the scientific community in general go back on many theories, it was only a few months ago that we where thinking that all of Einstiens work was falce and we where ready to ditch it all! NASA being to scared to say the earth was flat because of a "honest mistake" is frankly one of the most stupid things I have ever heard!

The people making these claims believe that ALL space agencies and governments incorrectly believed the earth to be round. Which would have to be the case (if not a conspiracy), since this was common knowledge; only a tiny tiny percentage of society believed the earth to be flat.

It's a fair assertion at least - if the US was mistaken why would Russia know any better, if both were lying about going to space?

Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse Nov 14, 2012 or 13th for some
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:59:26 PM »
It's just not going on where you expected it to be:,56541.0.html#.UK

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS video - zero G fakery? if so, how?
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:56:57 PM »
If you want to know about how easily they can fake anything and pass it off as real, take a look at the new big bang theory episodes coming out.
One of the actors is on the fake ISS and is floating about in so called zero gravity, so the question he really on the ISS or in a plane or in a studio among special effects.

Sure, you can pretty convincingly make a movie faking weightlessness, but I don't recall seeing the things described in this thread (like floating water or floating hair) and on the Big Bang Theory. I'm sure that given enough time and budget you can convincingly fake those things too, but probably not as a real time response made to an impartial request.

Personally I'm less interested in videos of people on ISS and more interested in what they do there.

For instance, consider the following: the company I work for has accelerometers in ISS that measure background vibration. On earth these show a magnitude of about 1g, while on the ISS they show close to nothing (I've seen the data firsthand). In order for this to be coming from anywhere on earth the data must be fabricated, meaning that they've tampered with the accelerometer unit itself or the devices that talk to it. That'd mean they at least understand a fair bit about how the system works. Bear in mind that we've actually received units back from flight, that not only show no signs of having been tampered with but also show that the accelerometers have experienced launch (bias shift due to vibration).

But okay, it'd still be conceivable that NASA could fake the accelerometer data somehow - they'd probably have to spend as much money doing it as they paid us to make the thing, but it's not impossible. So let's look at why the accelerometers are up there in the first place. It's not to prove that the ISS is really orbiting the earth, but to detect acceleration events. The reason why is because this information is important to the many experiments running on board the station; the primary reason to perform experiments on the ISS is to gain access to a (nearly) zero-g environment. It should therefore stand to reason that acceleration events would disrupt these experiments, so it's important that the experimenters have access to reports of such events so they can determine that the environment was bad instead of their experiment.

Now think about it a little further.. if these experiments are being done on the ISS in order to escape gravity that means it should be very obvious if the results all look the same as they did on earth. So NASA would have to be faking not just the results of our accelerometers but the results of everyone's experiments. And while NASA has access to how we design our equipment since we work for them, the same can't be said for everything on the ISS given that a lot of private companies have experiments running there. So NASA would have to be faking the experimental data recorded by a wide variety of sensors, applicable to a wide variety of fields, likely by modifying part of the internal design of the electronics. Not bad for an organization that allegedly doesn't even employ engineers. Sounds to me like the conspiracy would have to be known by a lot of technical workers afterall; that or it would have to extend to a lot of private organizations outside of NASA.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Linux is superior for Gaming
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:39:09 PM »
OpenGL works right out of the box.  In fact, in the days when DirectX was new, most games were made with OpenGL.  The Q3 engine was all OpenGL.  Doom 3 was both OpenGL and DirectX.

Since DirectX was the windows rendering software and Windows was the most popular OS, the software developers decided to just use the windows stuff.  It wasn't about if one was better than the other, it was about knowing that the windows game would work in windows even if Microsoft blocked OpenGL from running.

Ask yourselves, what (functionally) is better about DirectX than OpenGL?

iD has always had a soft spot for OpenGL but I don't think they represent the whole industry. In the earlier days, like pre-2000, a lot of vendors were struggling with OpenGL support. nVidia, by virtue of being made up of a lot of ex-SGI employees, did a good job, but everyone else not so much (including ATI which wasn't nearly as competitive as they later became, but also 3dfx). Their Direct3D support wasn't necessarily great either, since most of them were coming off of proprietary APIs, but it still tended to be better than their OGL support.

I haven't personally ever used Direct3D myself, but from what I've heard from numerous developers it sounds like DX gained a huge lead over OGL. I mean, DX9 came out two years before OGL 2, meaning that you had this huge gap of time before you even had programmable shaders, and from what I understand OGL 2 was still way behind. It's not hard to see why this would happen.. OGL is designed by a slow moving committee (Khronos) which has to agree on the features and you're going to get parties who have their own biases for not wanting something in. With DX Microsoft unilaterally decides the spec and has enough market position to force hardware vendors to fall in line. OGL also moves more slowly because it has an extension model and GPU vendors become reliant on that instead of pushing on real standardization, which means some cards get ahead of the standard while others stay left behind - but this is very undesirable for developers.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why would the earth being flat be covered up?
« on: November 13, 2012, 02:14:11 PM »
This (along with probably the majority of first posts) is asked and answered all the time. I'll go one step further than asking you to read the FAQ/wiki or browse the forum, maybe you should ask yourself "is this the kind of thing that probably gets asked all the time?"

... anyway, the most common answer is that there wasn't every a conspiracy to cover up the earth's shape, but rather NASA mistakenly assumed it was round while perpetuating a space travel conspiracy and are now stuck with it. The reasons for why there's a space travel conspiracy are predominantly to pocket a bunch of taxpayer funding and to look stronger/more impressive as a country.

A few people do believe that the notion of a round earth (so-called globularism) has been a deliberate hoax for thousands of years and was never or nearly never much of an honest mistake. But they're the fringe who tend to have a bunch of other pretty unconventional ideas.

Personally, I don't see how the world's leading powers of the 1950s could be mistaken about the shape of the earth (or at least not be aware that it matches FET's description), so I'd see a deep seated round earth conspiracy as pretty much a prerequisite... but I'll save that for another thread.

What makes eyes necessarily better than a camera? They both gather light with lenses. Certainly a lens's distortion can be stronger, but it can also be nearly zero, especially if the camera is compensating for it.

Does anyone have the math to determine how much of the horizon should be visible given a height, view frustum presumably defined by focal length, and what I'm guessing is an eyeline tangential to the surface of the earth? Nolhekh maybe? This feels like too much brain power for me right now and googling hasn't turned up anything >_> But my gut feeling is that you'd see the horizon span a much greater distance than your height above it...

Flat Earth General / Re: Stars and light years.
« on: November 13, 2012, 01:33:13 PM »
Look what we are told.

We are told that scientists have discovered a planet that can potentially support life which is supposedly 600 light years away.

Now how did they see this planet?
If you can only see a planet 600 light years away as it was 600 years ago, it means that all they are viewing is 600 year old light from it, so how can they see it.

This is where it gets bizarre and the reason they amaze us with the news and baffle the hell out of us with the physics behind it.

I think you're reading too much into the discovery of Kepler-22b. All that NASA is claiming about this exoplanet is that it's within the habitable zone of its star, which is a little cooler and smaller than ours, and that it has a year that's not that different from our year. All that means is they haven't found any obvious things that rule out the possibility of life surviving there. It's like saying that you've confirmed a person could win the lottery tomorrow because you've confirmed that he's over 18 years old.

The light from the star being 600 years old is probably the least of one's worries regarding the viability of life on the planet.

Astronomers aren't just guessing the distance of stars. For relatively close stars parallax can be employed by looking at how much the stars move relative to how the earth has moved about the sun (of course this assumes that the earth actually rotates about the sun at a known radius, of which there's numerous evidence I won't get into). The parallax we can measure has increased tremendously since we've started observing the sky with satellites.

The other major method employed involves the star's apparent brightness. A star will get dimmer the farther away it is (because less of its light reaches us), so if you can determine what its natural light output is you can determine how far away it is. There are some good indicators of luminosity such as pulsation periods.

There are some more minor methods like looking at average independent motion throughout the sky. The key point is that when you can show that multiple methods produce similar results for a given star you've greatly increased confidence for each method.

I don't discourage you from questioning things and not accepting what you're taught at face value, but your response seems very emotional - that you reject something because it feels wrong and makes you uncomfortable for some reason. If you make a concerted effort to stick to empirical reasoning you may be amazed at how subjective your intuition can be. Phrases like "that seems crazy" aren't useful on their own, you should really make an effort to justify this factually.

I don't know how you've determined that the ISS's height is not giving you enough field of view to have a big enough arc length of horizon to detect curvature.

If you have a camera that starts out on the ground with the horizon looking flat but then shows the horizon looking curved at higher altitudes then it's because the it's actually curving, not because of the lens. This is exactly what you see in the Qu8k video. FEers don't deny this, they merely claim that you're seeing the edge of the sun's illumination of the earth instead of the actual horizon.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8