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.
Well I guess this is the first time someone went against the requirement.They would have been bankrolling an entire film crew, as well as purchasing some incredibly expensive apparatus to create those parallel shadows. They've also released classified documents for other missions they've done.
And it's not any more coincidences that literally everyone who studied cosmology over the last 4000 years was completely fooled into thinking that the world was round when it was actually flat, and that every space agency ever is super corrupt and none of them have actually gotten good enough engineers to get into space?The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.
If the result were to show that the object were fully visible then one could assert that it is quite the coincidence that a chance mirage occurred at the time of viewing to make the object fully visible. Quite the coincidence that this mirage placed the object at the exact altitude it needed to be if the earth were flat. Quite the coincidence that it is a mirage that gives a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages. Quite the coincidence if this mirage were to occur again on another trial. A lot of coincidences.
Enough coincidences that it brands the Round Earther a Coincidence Theorist.
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.
Bobby has already posted a picture showing that slight modifications to the altitudes makes the horizon appear in line with the string that goes through the middle. This is a sensitive experiment. The slight altitudes and alignment in the foreground all matter very much. We need to see something that shows we can trust those altitudes and the alignment.And the point was that it misaligns the columns.
If we can't trust a pixel method, because bobby is tilting the camera willy nilly, how do we know whether the level is of the camera is the same at the water device?Gee, it's almost like there are TWO water columns for that exact purpose!
I moved the camera down by one pixel in my last illustration and it created a huge gap in the background.Strictly speaking, pixels only measure angles. And tilting the camera down wouldn't affect the alignment of the water columns in the image.
BRB taking pics to prove my pointAlright Tom, let's put this jelly bean thing to rest once and for all.
-snip-The camera was not leveled; it could have had a slight angle of attack.
Take a close look at this one. We can see that this is an example that it is clearly possible for the horizon to line up with the string depending on slight positioning.
The water levels in the water device are not lined up, it is alleged; but again, the camera is not aligned with the "jellybean points" in the scene. The top half is 434 pixels and the bottom half is 571 pixels. The camera is not exactly centered.
In most of these pictures the camera is always from below. What happens when the camera is from below and you are looking at an points above you in the foregound? Your line of sight with the foreground points and into the distance beyond is pointing upwards into the air! It is not pointing level.
Recall the jellybean analogy. You need to be looking at the jellybeans in the same center line of the jellybeans. You can't be slightly above or below the line of jellybeans which stretch into the horizon.
I forgot about Gulliver. A cursory glance at Gulliver's posts shows who he is. Gulliver was a serial bully who called everyone liars, offered $250,000 rewards for evidence that convinces him (Dogplatter actually takes him up on the offer and he reneged), and paraded around an "RE Primer" which contained amusing hypothetical experiments along the lines of "If you go to this place on earth at this time of the year and look at this point in the sky, you will see this star here... therefore the earth is round," despite no claim of anyone even performing the various tests in the document.Gee, sorta sounds like the early Flat Earth people: calling everyone liars, offering large sums of money for convincing evidence, and a book containing various amusing experiments (EnaG).
Right, and we've generated similar lists as an argument against the Earth being round.Where can I find one such list? I'd like to debunk it.
In most cases of rejection the decision over a manuscript makes only one person: an editor. He might get it all wrong, correct? It is not objective decision.Physical Review D has nine editors, as well as an appeals system if they get something wrong.
I guess, even Newton was not immidiately accepted: his book "Principia" waited many long years in the library for its first reader.[citation needed]
By the Freedom of Information Act, they are required to. It's not a question of why they kept a record.tl;dr: NASA would not be able to classify information concerning faking a Moon landing.This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! It's like robbing a bank and then keeping it on record. This is dumb.
These are the current rules for classification of information. §3.3(a) states that all documents from more than 25 years ago are automatically declassified, with nine exceptions outlined in §3.3(b):
- Information identifying a key intelligence source or weaken intelligence gathering.
- Information regarding WMDs.
- Codebooks.
- Information that would weaken a state-of-the-art weapons system.
- War plans that are still in effect.
- Information that would greatly weaken diplomatic relations.
- Presidential security detail or its vulnerabilities.
- Weaknesses in national security emergency preparations.
- Information whose declassification would violate a treaty or act of Congress.
I must ask, which of these would faking the Moon landings fall under?
According to this, you've published 3 papers in Physical Review E, and one in the European Physical Journal B. Neither deals with cosmology or quantum physics, so I'm not sure how you can credibly make arguments based on those.https://www.etis.ee/CV/Dmitri_Martila/eng?tabId=CV_ENGWhat the heck is this Physical Review stuff? I've certainly never heard of it....... moved to Complete Nonsense.So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
Warned.
What the heck is this Physical Review stuff? I've certainly never heard of it....... moved to Complete Nonsense.So, again the author of Physical Review has produced complete nonsense and was warned by a man without record in Physical Review.
Warned.
It's still a rhetorical device though, so it's a valid argument. It just relies on their credibility.It's 'science' and the stuff they brainwash... sorry, 'teach' in schools that is the problem. All we are seeing now is an awakening of people that are questioning things that we are told not to question. Oh but 'science' says it, therefore it MUST be true. No, its not.
As I pointed out separately, argument from authority is one of the standard logical fallacies. 'S says that p' does not logically imply that p.
We should question everything.
Then you tell me how, given a round Earth, we could observe extraterrestrial life.Our largest telescopes can barely make out exoplanets as tiny dots. Do you really think that we'd see aliens?
No, they don't? You're only referring to visible spectrum telescopes trying to visibly look at planets. That's a very shortsighted way of viewing the universe.
On the other hand, it kinda makes you look silly if you're presented literally a joke correlation and try to take it seriously. Thank you for my new sig quote.Ah, so pirates prevent global warming? Got it.Do you have evidence they don't? Pirates cut down on shipping lanes, and shipping is by far the largest contributor of CO2. Dismissing a correlation just because you think it's silly is a good way to make you look silly instead.
Because the only thing, as far as I know, precluding life on Europa is that its oceans are frozen. If I hypothetically thaw its oceans and keep it that way for billions of years, why shouldn't life form?Perhaps I should restate it: how does the fact that Europa is a sphere preclude the formation of life?
How does it not?
The point of that is that it's p-hacking.An idea parroted by people who have never once touched the subject of data analysis in their entire lives.Dude, come on!
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
And? Have you investigated all of those correlations and concluded that they're 100% unrelated and can't possibly ever be equal? The argument was "correlation =/= causation", which is wrong. Correlation and causation are equal sometimes, and not equal at others. Plainly stating that they are unequal all the time is just a way to show how uneducated you are regarding statistics.
From the rest frame of Earth, planes are not in orbit. We don't simulate planes and satellites relative to the Sun, we just assume that they follow Earth's momentum with negligible deviation, and model their velocity relative to Earth. In this regard, satellites follow Kepler's laws, but not planes. Planes are not in orbit.Planes don't follow Kepler's laws because they aren't in orbit. As I said, they don't move at orbital speeds. If they did, they'd go around the world in 6 minutes.
If planes aren't in orbit than RET is wrong, because in RET everything is always in orbit around something else. In RET, a plane would be in orbit around the Sun, just like the rest of the Earth. How are you supposed to defend RET if you don't even understand your own rules?
If an airplane isn't in orbit, how does it stay up? It has its own propulsion, and so do your supposed "satellites"Planes have lifting surfaces that actively counteract gravity. Satellites are going too fast to hit the ground so they just fall in circles.
If a theory is sound and solid, but is hurtful for many people, it is being rejected. The humans in the peer-review are almost all - nihilists, it means: truth haters.If a theory is sound and solid, then it gets through peer review. End of story. Peer review is intended to stop confirmation bias, statistical errors, and holes in a proof. Nothing more.
He said it himself: "By rights we should not be here. By rights we should have been disintegrated in the moment of Big Bang." The atheism is the self-denial. His point is self-denial.His point isn't "we definitely shouldn't exist", the point is "we don't know why we exist". That's not atheism.
Look at Hitler's rocket programs during WWII. Without getting into earth orbit he could only get his rockets to an operational range of 200 miles or so.They could get rockets to 500 miles according to my source. At that point, it's not much Δv away from intercontinental.
After WWII ended the Cold War goal was to get Hitler's rockets into orbit for unlimited range, and to put in a nuclear payload. The rockets thenceforth were all based on the Nazi V2 design.Again, ICBMs don't go to orbit.