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 - AATW

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 211  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 20, 2024, 06:06:36 PM »
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.
Hmm. I dunno about this. To me, one of them (Trump, to avoid ambiguity) has bad intentions, while the other one is "just" in bad health*. We definitely agree that neither is ideal. But, to me, it seems like our options are a comparably healthy person who's actively malicious, and one person who might end up handing power over to another milquetoast Democrat if things get bad enough.

* - if we even accept that narrative to begin with. I honestly don't know if he's any worse than Trump on that front. Recall the hysteria around Trump's health when he was president - and the counter-argument in which his health was declared to be Truly Presidential™ by his doctor.
I'm not sure Trump is actually malicious. He's not trying to take America down from the inside. He's certainly a narcissist and I suspect he mostly wants to be president to go down in history and as a route to making ever more money. His physical health probably isn't that great, I think mentally he's mostly all there, but in other ways he does have a somewhat tenuous grip on reality. I was reminded earlier about Trump's rambling about Covid - his thoughts that they could just shine UV light into people to eradicate the virus. Chuckle. But, overall, I don't think the world will fall apart if (I'm coming to the depressing opinion that it's "when") he's president again.

But I do take gary's point that the world isn't falling apart now either, so maybe I'll change my vote. Not that I get one. It's two pretty depressing options, makes our lot almost look competent. Almost...

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 20, 2024, 08:51:27 AM »
You characterized the pitch of the sneakers as "grifting."
Yes. And, unusually, you are right in that I somewhat mischaracterized it as such.

Are you against licensing agreements?
I'm against idiots further enriching Trump. But I guess it's their money to waste as they see fit.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 19, 2024, 05:22:26 PM »
I didn't mean he was actually defrauding people.
I mean, if you're going to go around spending $300 on sneakers then you're clearly an idiot, but I guess that's your business.
I just find it hilarious how easy Trump finds it to extract money from his cult.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 18, 2024, 09:11:06 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 18, 2024, 01:32:05 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 18, 2024, 11:27:42 AM »
compos mentis1
Ah. Thanks. I rarely see it written down so I took a punt!

Many of the things he's said, especially during his presidency when his publicity was at its highest, strongly suggested that his grasp on reality was tenuous at best. Are you sure that you're comparing the two fairly, rather than falling for the trap of hearing Biden say silly things more recently?

I largely agree that Trump has little grasp of reality but I think it’s in a different way to Biden. Trump doesn’t seem to know or care what is true, and I agree that’s not an ideal trait in a president. And I basically hate everything he says and stands for. But I think he’s basically mentally all there. He talks bollocks but does so because he’s an idiot and a narcissist. He’s not actually demented. I think he’d get through to the end of the presidency without needing to go into a care home. We had 4 years of Trump before and although I tired of his nonsense the world didn’t fall apart.
Biden just isn’t well enough to be president. He’s not well enough physically or mentally.

They’re both terrible options and it’s quite the dilemma for the US population. Obviously the Trump cult will vote for him whatever happens. That’s not enough to win an election though and I thought after Trump’s behaviour there’s no way they’d elect him again. But with the state of Biden’s health I don’t see how they can give him a second term.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 17, 2024, 08:18:17 PM »
I can't think of anyone off hand.
Trump it is then, unless he’s in prison.
I was talking to a mate about this yesterday and we both agreed we’d both probably vote for Trump if we were in the US. I can’t stand him, but he is at least compus mentus. Biden just isn’t fit to run the country. Even if he was now, he’s 81. There’s no guarantee he’d get through the 4 years. Why the hell would you elect someone of that age to be president? No one is as sharp at that age as they are in their prime.

Our lot aren’t competent and the options in the UK are fairly depressing but they are at least physically and mentally fit enough to govern.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 17, 2024, 01:20:30 PM »
Well, you said it made sense for Biden not to drop out. It doesn't.
Who would even replace him?
There surely has to be someone else who is vaguely popular and who has the mental ability to be the president. No?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 14, 2024, 02:28:43 PM »
Trump has touched on the animosity a bit, and I agree with him.
Cult member agrees with what cult leader says and tells him to think shock exclusive.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 13, 2024, 02:31:01 PM »
Well, you should because wars are, in general a bad thing.
Seems you want everyone to be involved in one, though.
And you got that from me thinking it's bad that Trump said that he'd "encourage" nations to invade countries who don't pay their NATO subs, did you? Interesting take.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 13, 2024, 07:27:53 AM »
You seem to believe that I secretly care deeply about NATO allies. I do not.
No. I believe you are part of the Trump cult and he has programmed you to believe that everything he says is good, no matter what it is. The flip side of that being you believing anything politicians he doesn’t like says is bad, no matter what it is.
It doesn’t matter to you what is said, but who says it.

Of course, there is an alternative. You’re trolling. Or, you treat this place like a debating society where you take a position you don’t really believe for the sake of debate. But you do so in a Monty Python Argument Sketch way, refusing to cede ground on any point, which renders it pointless as a discussion.

I don't care if Estonia gets invaded. Why should I?
Well, you should because wars are, in general a bad thing. I get that you’re American and therefore barely acknowledge that the rest of the world exists. I’m mildly surprised, even impressed, you’ve heard of Estonia (maybe you haven’t, and Googled NATO members and picked an obscure one you haven’t heard of).
Anyway. Estonia being invaded wouldn’t keep me up at night either. But caring isn’t binary, there are degrees of it. I would, in general, regard it as a “bad thing”. And I certainly wouldn’t “encourage” it, which is the thing Trump said which you are desperately trying to justify.

You seem completely unable to hold the two thoughts in your head at the same time that Trump is the right man to lead the country and that he sometimes says things which aren’t that great, or aren’t true. Or maybe you just pretend you can’t do that in the interests of “debate”.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 12, 2024, 07:09:13 PM »
None of what Trump said is detestable.
Because of the word I bolded. You don't care what he said, he said it so it's OK.
If someone you don't like says something then it's "bad". Again, not because of what's said, because of who said it.
You're either programmed beyond hope or trolling. It doesn't really matter which, neither leads to productive debate.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 12, 2024, 08:38:50 AM »
Trump is on the right track here.
lol. There’s a good cult member.
Trump loves people like you, you’re so easy to program. Literally doesn’t matter what he says.

You guys should pay the amount you agreed to for protection. America shouldn't protect dead beats.
Well, that seems fairly reasonable.
But encourage?
The mental backflips you do to justify anything your cult leader says or does are ridiculous. You’d come across as more credible if you were more honest. You don’t believe America should actively encourage nations to attack NATO nations just because they haven’t paid.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 12, 2024, 07:15:37 AM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 08, 2024, 11:29:41 PM »
Holy shit will you stop electing people who should be in assisted living?

AATW has done nothing of the sort.  Tom clearly stated the effect was inconsistent. Which it is, despite AATW's protestations otherwise. He goes on to write that because all ships (we might as well add any object traveling on any surface) traveling away from the observer disappear from view eventually, it must be due to the horizon based on Earth's sphericity.
The effect is NOT inconsistent in the way he claims it is. His Wiki page claims that "at times it occurs and at other times it does not occur.". That just isn't true. Ships always disappear below the horizon, distant landmarks are always partially obscured. And here's the point, they always disappear bottom first. Why? Why would they if the earth is flat? I've posted the Turning Torso video multiple times on here. It's clear that the further away the picture is taken from the more of the building is hidden. Why would that be? Yes, the amount of occlusion varies depending on atmospheric conditions but it's never the case that it just doesn't happen at all.

And, as I noted, Tom is completely contradicting his claimed observations in the Bishop experiment. In that he claims he can, from a 20 inch viewer height, see 23 miles across a bay and see the distant beach all the way to the shoreline. He claims to be able to reproduce that consistently at different times of year (and thus in different temperatures, so different atmospheric conditions) so long as it's calm and clear. So which is it? Is it something he can consistently reproduce or is it inconsistent? As so often when he ties himself in knots like this, he never responded.

It is an obvious truth only to you and re-adherents. Given the great amount of evidence right up against us, and the well-documented instances of space agencies of various countries fabricating data, the alternative evidence can be summarily dismissed.
As discussed, evidence from space agencies is just part of the alternative evidence. The earth's shape was known for thousands of years before we had the ability to launch things in to orbit. Your "great amount of evidence" seems to amount to you looking around and thinking "looks flat to me". Can you really not understand why that is not sufficient to determine the shape of the earth? Let's try this. If the earth is flat, what shape is it? I mean is it round? Square? Another shape? Does it go on forever? Your honest answer surely has to be you don't know. Your observations don't give you enough information to determine that. It's the same with the overall shape of the earth. Your observations don't just leave one possibility, so aren't sufficient to determine the reality.

When somebody makes some image that is coming from their mind, they are "fabricating' it.
The implication in the way you use that word is that they are trying to deceive. This is untrue.
If it were they wouldn't mark visualisations as such, they wouldn't state when images are composites.

Some are, some aren't. The blue marble is just a photo, taken with a camera on film. The same for earthrise.
They are not point-and-shoot.
Yes they are.

The iconic photo, known as “Blue Marble,” was taken by NASA astronauts Eugene “Gene” Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt on December 7 using a Hasselblad camera and a Zeiss lens, about 45,000 kilometers (28,000 miles) away from home, as the Apollo 17 crew made its way to the moon.

"Oh my God, look at that picture over there! There's the Earth coming up. Wow, is that pretty!" Bill Anders shouted at fellow astronaut Jim Lovell. "You got a colour film, Jim? Hand me a roll of colour, quick, would you?"
"That's a beautiful shot," said Lovell as Anders clicked the shutter and captured what has become one of the world's most famous photographs.

I fixed that last part, as there is nothing to support the claim it is required.
it doesn't need supporting, it's an obvious truth. Someone referenced the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant above and it's a good analogy. The men all felt different parts of the elephant and came to different conclusions about what an elephant must be like. None of them had enough data to be correct. In the same way, looking around your local area and thinking "looks flat to me!" is not sufficient to determine the reality of its shape, that observation can be explained in multiple ways. One of which is that the earth is flat, but alternative evidence shows that it is not.

These people are accepted by the gullible populace as experts, when all they are doing is producing more science fiction, just like Hollywood. Fabrication. You buy into it willingly, as do many others.
This is simply untrue. You're mixing up two things. Three really.
The first is images which are visualisations - depictions of exoplanets and so on. Those aren't "fabrications". When they mark them as visualisations they're not "admitting" anything. This language implies an attempt at deception. If there was attempt at deception then why would they mark them as visualisations? These things are created to stir the imagination. You're not far off with science fiction, but like much science fiction it's based in reality. They use the data they have about exoplanets and use that to visualise what they might look like. They're not making any claim that they're real photos. And it's certainly not all they are doing.
The second is composite images, or images which have been enhanced. These are real photos, they've just been processed digitally. Like I said, you do this too every time you take a panoramic picture or use your phone's colour balance or cropping tools. This processing is done to make the images clearer, and does not indicate any deception or fakery.
Then there are just photos. There are plenty of those. Sure, the versions you see online are probably compressed and that might mean they have artefacts in, that doesn't mean the originals have been manipulated in any way and NASA have the raw versions on their website.

The scans (not actual photos in the sense of point-and-shoot camera like here on earth) taken from high up are stiched together.
Some are, some aren't. The blue marble is just a photo, taken with a camera on film. The same for earthrise.

The flat map exists.
Does it? Cool. Can you link me to it. The Wiki has multiple maps on it, which one is definitive?

The supposed distances between various points on the earth are extrapolated only from the given travel times.
This is incorrect. Travel times are a reasonable proxy for distance, but you can use Google Maps to find the distance between places and compare it with measurements you take mistake. There's a reason that as you zoom out the curve of the earth is now shown. Before that the world was extensively surveyed. There's a whole field of geodetic surveying which takes the earth's curve in to account.

The actual straight-line distances are not known as they are not able to be taken due to the methods used for long-distance travel where waypoints are not visible at ground level.
Also not true. It hasn't been true for centuries since Harrison cracked the problem of accurate timepieces at sea - using those and combining it with celestial observations meant that ships knew where they were. And it's definitely not true in the era of GPS.

The routes taken are the routes based on the celestial sphere routes that have transcribed down to the flat earth plane, routed by the star patterns overhead.
This is just incorrect. They're based on the great circle route between those two points.

There is no distortion on any useful travel map.

Right. Because travel maps generally deal with a very small portion of the world. Which brings us back to where we started. You can't tell the shape of the earth just by looking around and thinking "looks flat". Any more than you can look at your hand and declare there are no germs on it because you can't see them. For objects which are too big or too small to observe directly in normal circumstances "alternative evidence" is required.

Why be careful when the word fabricate is exactly what they do. You wrote it yourself, naturally accompanied by the "they have my blessing," reasons.
The implication in the way you're using the word is that they are creating fake images intended to fool you.
Creating visualisations of what they imagine exoplanets might look like, or of future missions, isn't deceptive so long as they clearly indicate that's what the image is. Which, as you said at the start, they do. You used the word "admitting" - even that word implies they're up to something. When they clearly mark visualisations as such that isn't an admission, it's just clarity and transparancy.

The composites are stitched together to match whatever image the editors wish to produce.
True up to a point, but in order to make a composite you have to have a series of photos of the object you're making a composite of. I visited the Grand Canyon some years back and I have some panoramas of where I was. Those are composite images, but in order to create that composite I had to be at the Grand Canyon. The images aren't faked.

Four elements?

I think you mean 4 states of matter.
I'm not sure I do.

But in any case those aren't the 4 states of matter either, that model was replaced by a better one when a better one came along.

The flat earth works.
Does it, though?
It's not even possible to make a flat map with the known distances between cities being represented to a consistent scale.
There always has to be some distortion. Why? If the earth is flat then it should just be a matter of scaling down.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 211  Next >