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.
I am very certain you would fail a turing test, my friendI really want whatever drugs Danang is having. It seems to be quite a ride.
It can be realized if some people stop their politics and move on to drugs instead.
Any delicious drug is available, but they don't want politics staying around them. Everyone can be high no matter who and what. Deal?
"Separate Drugs from Politics"
Kami, speaking of rides I believe you had an ID icon of party-type people riding in a vehicle? Am I not right?Honestly, I don't remember.
You can look up the data for its path, and calculate it yourself.I strongly doubt that claim. Not that it's possible, just that he can do it.
That's different experience from JackBlack's. Also from mine.Yeah? Have you run the code and gotten a different result? Can you post what you have gotten?
If JackBlack is quiet about something ~ like in this thread ~, it means such "something" is already verified.
It's better to run statistic of experiment: whether pi is hard to get or easy to get. So far it's hard to get pi.
?"Formula equals experiment" is just an assumption.What do you want to say with this? Noone has ever said that a formula equals an experiment, that is like saying a mile equals a horse.
The universe's size changes in any moment, all the time. The universe goes bigger and bigger, along with anything and anyone in it.Yeah, the Universe is continually expanding, astrophysicists are quite sure of that. What does that have to do with pi?
Have you heard physicists said such statement?
Nope, pretty sure I have not yet hear mainstream media talk about the physics of hurricanes. Or why they rotate the other direction in the southern hemisphere. Or why they don't cross the equator. In RE, you can explain all that with the coriolis force. Also, hurricanes are kinda big. Hard to lie about where they are...Curious if FE has an explanation why hurricanes never cross the equator... Celestial currents?
Do we know that?
Or are we told that by the same [...] media that tried to cover up Fauci's indiscretions while the COVID narrative went on?
They also actually form sometimes in the equator.I hope you know that 'forming near the equator' and 'crossing the equator' are two different things...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tropical_cyclones_near_the_Equator
That's different experience from JackBlack's. Also from mine.Yeah? Have you run the code and gotten a different result? Can you post what you have gotten?
If JackBlack is quiet about something ~ like in this thread ~, it means such "something" is already verified.
Very simple experiment:
We draw two random numbers x,y between 0 and 1. Then (x,y) lies within the unit square. A circle with radius 1 covers an area of pi, the overlap of the area with the unit square is pi/4.
So the chance that the pair of random numbers is within the circle is pi/4.
Run the following python code snippet. See how if you increase the number of samples the result gets closer and closer to (the real value of) pi:Code: [Select]import numpy as np
n_samples = 10**8 #number of points drawn
x,y = np.random.uniform(0,1,size=(2,n_samples)) #draw the points
within_circle = (x**2+y**2)<1 #all points with x^2+y^2<1 are within the circle
print(np.sum(within_circle)/n_samples*4) #the number of points within the circle divided by the total number of points is pi/4
Certainly not the most efficient way to get pi, but the easiest.
The calculation is right, but you can ask Jack how he frustrated to approach pi. The experiment results generally go beyond pi.
So we're onto water powered engines now then? If they work, then just build one.I agree, no faster way to riches and fame than that!
Just jumping in to state: The black curve for years before 1880 seems to not be based on any data whatsoever, considering the data points and their uncertainties. Is there any explanation why it should look like this and is not pure speculation?
Because it is a fishbowl. In roughly an hour or less, I can probably draw those same stars on GIMP, after some practice. Your big s Science claims we are all insignificant creations in a vast lonely universe that doesn't care whether we live or die. You're psychopaths, and the psychopathic little g god of Science is what makes your life (and my life) so miserable. People stay glued to their tech (myself included, sorry), instead of being personal to one another.Agree with people's addiction to tech, that appears to be pretty bad for society. I am pretty sure that the picture is real, though, I have taken similar ones myself (with much worse quality, of course).
In my snowglobe fishbowl, God actually does care, and looks upon each of us like a creepy stalker, longing for our company.Yeah, but that is what science is all about. Finding out what is actually true, regardless of what you want to be true. I would love to be watched over by a benevolent, almighty being that guides me to a cushy afterlife full of happiness and fulfillment. But just because I want it to be that way, does not mean that it is that way. The truth is that we are living in an unbelievably large Universe and our entire planet is less than a speck of dust on the cosmic scales. And if this Universe has a creator, there is no sign that they give a crap about us.
This is the God I worship, not one who made a big universe randomly and life arose from a bowl of soup (as you think seems plausible) not the god of Science, but the God who looks on all things personally like a creeper. I don't mind someone crushing on me that way.QuoteBut now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.
You guys are literally so ignorant that you think the current definition of myth is the right one.Not a single cosmologist claims to know how the universe came into being. However, we do understand how the universe took shape and evolved from ~10^-30 seconds after the big bang up to today. We have dozens of independent observations that yield pretty much the same picture everywhere. If you ask any cosmologists how the big bang happened, they will only have one answer:"I don't know"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth
The word myth isn't about things being untrue. That's not its original definition, and it's not how I use it. The word I use when something is untrue is "scam" not "myth." A myth is folklore. It is an explanation of how things came to be.
This is secular people attempting religion. Nothing more. In other words, they're performing a scam to make the public think that because they are scientific, they somehow have the answers to such things.
Oh really. So where were you when the universe was made?
Cosmology is explanation of how the universe might have been made. It belongs in the domain of religion for a very important reason. This is because it is theory! We guess rather than claiming we know, we assign an outside force because of humility as much as anything else.
The one who created you can just as easily suck you back into the void!FMA is a great anime, but not really based in reality...
It is mercy that he doesn't. Have some damned perspective.
We aren't God. Trying to play God just makes us deluded.
Simple laws of perspective dictate that even the biggest object would eventually reach a point where the distance closes in against its angle, and it cannot be seen by our eyes. We might be able to see a huge object as very tiny a few hundred miles away. We won't however see any object millions of miles away. Our eyes simply aren't that good, telescope or no telescope.You are actually making somewhat of a valid point here. Stars are indeed too small to be resolved by our eyes (or even our best telescopes, apart from a few rare exceptions). The 'size' of stars that we observe is only dictated by the blurring of the atmosphere and the finite resolution of our eyes.
We have a few points of light that our astrologers tell us are super far away, and they list big numbers. We are suitably impressed so when the magi who now call themselves "astronomers" say this stuff, we accept that they are scientists because they spew random numbers that seem to be really big, and we don't question that maybe they are false.All these numbers, and how scientists got them, are literally publicly available. You are just too lazy to check.
There is not a single person who can see the Milky Way with the naked eye or with an amateur telescope, except by using their projection slide show.You can see the milky way everywhere on earth if you go to a place that is dark enough. If you mean 'we can't see our own galaxy like in the picture' you are right, because we are inside of it. And we will never get pictures of our own galaxy because it is impossible to send a probe this far out. We have barely made it out of our solar system.
Look the Milky Way.See above
Oh wait, no that's an artist's rendering of the Milky Way.
These comets are close by.Please show any evidence that electromagnetic radiation can only travel a finite distance in vacuum.
These stars are close by.
They could not project electromagnetic radiation enough to see at the distance these "scientists" say they are at.
I do not trust the words of sorcerers. I trust in what God tells me first, and then the common sense of my own mind second.So you trust an imaginary voice in your head and a 2000 year old book more than you trust hundreds of thousands of people working towards understanding the world and making all their work publicly available for everyone to see and check. That amounts to denial of reality.
So when my own mind notices that these stars don't look light years awayYou can not see 3d, and thus not intuitively estimate distances, for objects that are significantly further away than 100ft.
(or I would not be able to see them with naked eyes that can't even read the full lines from 20 ft away)Stars are a lot bigger and brighter than those lines...
looking at the horizon,Because you 'just know'? Or what makes you come to this conclusion?
and looking at the stars,
I realize the latter can't be light years away.
I literally did the math for you on that. Are you just choosing to ignore that?Who weighs that?With some reasonable assumptions, gravity can be approximated by Newton's inverse square law which states that masses attract each other (similar to the electromagnetic force, just weaker and in the opposite direction).Ok give me an example of mass attracting mass.
Let's use a small model boat and a supertanker 10 feet apart.
Do you think the small model boat is going to stick to the supertanker?
Aren't you forgetting about the ~5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000,000kg rock they are both on top of?
Isn't your rock in a supposed space vacuum just spinning against nothing?
Any idea about how this mass works in that scenario...say...against the other smaller piece of rock you claim is your moon?
Anyway back to the model boat and the supertanker 10 feet apart. Any idea why the mass doesn't attract the mass?
Wow, that is a long word salad for "I don't understand it, therefore it doesn't exist". Nowhere in your rambling did you ever have any coherent argument, you always just say "this can't be". Regarding the extraordinary evidence: How about a literal picture that they posted in their paper?The presence of mass and energy curves the fabric of spacetime. This causes a lot of (measured and proven) effects, the most prominent one is gravity. With some reasonable assumptions, gravity can be approximated by Newton's inverse square law which states that masses attract each other (similar to the electromagnetic force, just weaker and in the opposite direction).
Gravity explains how the solar system formed, why all planets (and the sun) are ball-shaped, how the sun maintains nuclear fusion, how the orbits of planets work, and how tides work. Would you like me to explain how gravity causes tides?
When all of this BS came out, over many years, and many other excuses along the way, this is a part of what they finally settled on, to claim as being all truths.
Now, they're telling us that they have seen a monstrous-sized 'black hole' in 'space', way, way out in 'space', which nobody else has ever seen, or ever WILL see, except for only THEM to ever see, with their own eyes, etc.
How could anyone believe this crap, is just baffling.
If they claim that they have seen, or 'detected with instruments', some gigantic-sized thing they spewed about being 'out in deep space', or said it was most likely to exist, anyway, until now, or recently, at least.
But now, they claim to have SEEN an 'actual black hole', out in deep, deep, space, right?
This would certainly be considered a most EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM, and would certainly require to show that it has the most extraordinary proof for it, too, while it has absolutely NO proof at all, and worst of all, they don't allow anyone else to see this most incredible sighting, which nobody ever had seen, or known to even EXIST, at all, until now.
But we're never going to see it, because it's complete BS, claiming to see something out in 'space', but never allowing anyone else to see it, to confirm it is true, or if it is all BS, which it always is, or they'd allow us to see it, and they WOULD, and MUST, allow others to see it, and confirm it is true, or not true, if this was an actual science, but it's the very opposite of actual science, and all their claims are based entirely on what they claim to have seen, which nobody else has ever seen, which could only be PROVEN AS TRUE, or false, with OTHER PEOPLE seeing what they've claimed to see 'out there, in deep space', right?
That's not science, it's a perversion of science, claiming to be actual science. They use half-truths, to give the appearance of being legitimate science, to spread their many lies, for all of the rest, once in while. Lie after lie, with little of truth, if any at all.
'Space' is nothing that we clearly have seen, they have lied about everything about 'space', which is an illusion they created as being true, for the entire story.
After they said Earth was a ball, speeding through endless space, without any proof at all, and yet everyone still believed it was all true, we were all doomed, right there. It's so sad.
Sure. After you attend a lecture (or read a book) on topology and differential geometry I am happy to explain the field equations of GR and how they cause gravity. The honest answer here is "it's complicated". Honestly, calculating gravity with GR outside of the Schwartzschild solution is extremely complicated and rarely ever done. So let's just go with "Gravity is described by Newton's inverse square law" for now. That one is easy: Masses attract each other according to F=G*m1*m2/r^2, where m1 and m2 are the masses, r their distance and G the gravitational constant.Can you honestly explain to me what curved spacetime is and how it causes this gravity force?
The presence of mass and energy curves the fabric of spacetime.
This causes a lot of (measured and proven) effects, the most prominent one is gravity.
I don't mean offer me a section of a book, I mean can you explain it to me from your point of view of understanding it?
Sorry, gonna go with metric here, imperial units are for suckersQuote from: KamiWith some reasonable assumptions, gravity can be approximated by Newton's inverse square law which states that masses attract each other (similar to the electromagnetic force, just weaker and in the opposite direction).Ok give me an example of mass attracting mass.
Let's use a small model boat and a supertanker 10 feet apart.
Do you think the small model boat is going to stick to the supertanker?
That is just wrong. Tell me any of the things I mentioned and I am happy to explain it to you.Quote from: KamiGravity explains how the solar system formed, why all planets (and the sun) are ball-shaped, how the sun maintains nuclear fusion, how the orbits of planets work, and how tides work.Just regurgitation of the books if you're honest because you have no clue what any of it really means.
I believe I did that. For our purposes, it is a force that acts between all masses.Quote from: KamiWould you like me to explain how gravity causes tides?Absolutely once you explain what gravity actually is.
It makes more sense to you because you do not understand the globe model.It is truly baffling how some people are so scared of their own insignificance that they have to make up a complete fantasy just to feel relevant in the grand scheme. It's okay, scepti, you're not alone!The fantasy is the spinning globe and all the stuff that goes with it.
What I go with may also end up being fantasy but it makes much more sense to me than the guaranteed fantasy of a spinning globe, that's for sure.
As for being insignificant. It depends on how you view it from your perspective. To you and many, I'm a nobody and happy with it.Fair enough, good approach to life.
To others closer I'm significant and that's what counts.
The thing is, you and everyone else are the same.
You made the claim that this is `an absolute fact'. If you claim stuff like that, be prepared to back it up with evidence.Quote from: KamiI'm sure you can find plenty if you want to look up bringing objects back into view with a scope or camera.
Regarding your points:QuoteBut you know for an absolute fact that a telescope can bring anything back into view because you know It's the atmosphere that obscures the light back to our eyes.That is news to me. Please show one instance where this happens.
The presence of mass and energy curves the fabric of spacetime. This causes a lot of (measured and proven) effects, the most prominent one is gravity. With some reasonable assumptions, gravity can be approximated by Newton's inverse square law which states that masses attract each other (similar to the electromagnetic force, just weaker and in the opposite direction).Quote from: KamiCan you explain how this happens?QuoteHow does yours work with your space moon and fiery 93 million miles burning fusion?Simple: gravity.
Can you explain gravity?
I mean as a reality of a force of whatever it is.
It's been asked many times but nobody's given a realistic answer.
But you know for an absolute fact that a telescope can bring anything back into view because you know It's the atmosphere that obscures the light back to our eyes.That is news to me. Please show one instance where this happens.
How does yours work with your space moon and fiery 93 million miles burning fusion?Simple: gravity.
The sun isn't below some imaginary curve. If the sun could be seen from more than 90 degrees around a ball, as your shitty picture claims, you would only have six hours of darkness each day! That is, you have it visible far below the ninety degree line. Extending out to where that sun is, that's an 8 to 6 (hYou don't understand scale. The earth's radius is ~6700km, the clouds are ~2km high. So it is not far blow the ninety degree line, it is a tiny fraction below the ninety degree line.
10 hour) night at the North Pole where he's standing on the ball, where from my experience not on the poles, days are more like 6 to 6.
Btw, nobody I know (you don't count) has visited the so-called "South Pole" so we cannot confirm the same there, but for months of the year, there is 24 hour sunlight in the North Pole. There is no possible way to account for this in a ball model, as either it curves vertically, enabling him to see a sunrise from that position, or this is completely bogus position of the sun, which should have him standing sideways and the sun near the 90 degree angle, crossing towards him.I have worked with data from the South Pole Telescope and personally know someone who was there to fix it when there were problems.
In a flat Earth model, 24 hour daylight is easy to account for. The North Pole is at the center (the "South Pole" is a rim), and when the sun gets far enough north, sunlight is cast all day. Your model just proved that you literally can't understand your own theory.So what about the southern hemisphere? There are inhabited places in south america that get 24h of daylight in their summer.
It is behind it. Round Earthers obviously flunked geometry or had a shitty teacher.I thought all education is just round earth indoctrination?
