Recent Posts

1
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Last post by Rushy on Today at 05:04:19 PM »
It would actually explain a lot if the bulk of the movie's fanbase were teenagers.

Well it certainly makes perfect sense that the primary component of a movie's fanbase is the demographic that the entire genre is built around. It's sort of like being surprised that Transformer films are mostly viewed by teenagers as well.
2
The star is close enough to those two locations to be in range so that the star could be visible at the same time from both locations.

As seen above, it is possible in some situations for two locations to see the same star at the same time. If the star is encircling the Earth like the Sun, then different observers will observe that star when it is night for that observer.

When each observer South America and Africa in the above diagram looks in a general sense to the south, they see the that star swirling around a southern celestial pole. The true star is displaced from due South for each observer, but it could be shifted to be more due South for the observer through the below light mechanism.

General sense to the south? In South America they'd be looking East to see that star, in Africa they'd be looking West.



And as the stars rotate the star would move west to east, it wouldn't be a static star above the pole as it would be on a globe. The bi-polar model may solve some of this but then I've no idea how the sun is supposed to move in that model.

Quote
Logically it makes more sense that there is only one mechanism for multiple phenomena, rather than multiple mechanisms for multiple phenomena.
Well, I agree. This is where the simplicity of the globe model is quite elegant. It explains day and night, the seasons, the consistent angular size of the sun, etc, etc. In FE you need multiple mechanisms to explain all this - you need some magnification effect to explain the consistent angular size, you need EA to explain sunset. The way the radius of the sun's orbit keeps changing, and the corresponding speed changing to maintain a consistent 24 hour day/night cycle, why the radius is increasing for 6 months and then starts decreasing. All those things  need other mechanisms which have no real explanation.

When Andrew Wiles solved Fermat's Last Theorum his initial version had a problem in which I doubt many people in the world understand. I saw a documentary in which he described his efforts to fix it, he said it was like trying to fit a carpet in a room it's too big for - every time you flatten down one corner, it pops up in the other corner. He eventually sorted it out, but FE feels a bit like that. Overall the monopole model seems the one which works best, certainly in the northern hemisphere. But it causes problems in the south - the lines of longitude should keep increasing, but they don't. Antarctica has been explored and circumnavigated. Flights in the southern hemisphere which you can track in real time make no sense on the FE map. The Bi-Polar model may solve some of these issues, but then you get into a whole world of other problems about how the sun and stars move.
3
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Superhero Movies & Comics General
« Last post by honk on Today at 03:40:09 AM »
I don't mean to keep picking on Momoa like I have it out for the guy or anything, but he gave an interview before the release of Lost Kingdom where he talked about a couple of interesting subjects. I know that directors sometimes offer actors roles that they didn't audition for, but Momoa's account of how he auditioned for Batman and didn't think much of it until he was inexplicably offered the role of Aquaman makes me even more sure that Snyder cast Momoa more for PR reasons than artistic ones. Bear in mind that this was all long before Momoa became a star in his own right and developed his onscreen chill-dudebro persona. Back then, he was best known for playing fierce, intimidating characters, and most famously Khal Drogo on GoT. It's true that Aquaman has been portrayed in the comics as a brawny badass type as well, like Roundy pointed out, but that's hardly conditional on the actor cast in the role, is it? Very few lead actors in capeshit movies are already known for being especially big or tough beforehand. No, I'm pretty sure that Snyder was worried that people would mock Aquaman for being lame long before they ever saw him on screen, and so he prioritized casting someone he thought would nip those jokes in the bud. To me, that's a very silly and overly defensive attitude to take, but hey, I'm not the in-demand blockbuster auteur who continues to receive huge budgets and full creative freedom to deliver dud after dud, Snyder is. What do I know?

Momoa also talks about Lobo, and I think at this point we can pretty much say it's confirmed he'll be playing him at some point in the new universe. This is not how actors respond when asked about mere rumors. Anyway, as was mentioned in this thread earlier, Momoa would actually be perfect as Lobo. He looks the part without needing to be turned into a CGI monster, and he wouldn't need to leave his laid-back comfort zone of acting. My main concern is that with Momoa in the role, they'll very likely try to turn Lobo into the hero of the movie who has to save the day, blah blah blah, and that's just not his character. I could see Lobo as the protagonist of an irreverent, low-stakes MAX series where he travels around the galaxy and gets into hijinks, but for a big mainstream AAA movie, Lobo should absolutely be a supporting character, not a hero. Put him in a Superman or Green Lantern movie where he's a wild card who complicates the plot - maybe the villain hires him to take out the hero, and they get into a few fights, but at the end of the movie Lobo respects the hero enough to show up and help him defeat the villain. Something like that, as opposed to a movie like Lobo: Dawn of Capeshit.

Also, the teaser for Joker: Folie à Deux dropped a few days ago. I'm already exhausted by the discourse around it, just like I was for the first Joker. It's not even the movie itself that I dislike so much as it is its most enthusiastic fans; the people who praise it endlessly for simply going through the motions of being a serious movie and focusing on psychology and character rather than action and explosions. I'm not saying that anyone who liked the movie is dumb or easily impressed, but I think I can say with some confidence that anyone who truly thinks that Joker was brilliant and revolutionary probably never watches movies that aren't blockbusters. Like one infamous Letterboxd review said:



Anyway, here's the new teaser:



I actually think this looks way more intriguing than the first one. I think they did a much better job at translating the costume and makeup for Harley into a gritty, grounded setting than they did for Joker himself. The idea that this is going to be a musical is easily the most interesting thing going on here, but I have to say that I won't be fully convinced that this will really be a proper the-characters-sing musical until I see footage of the characters actually singing. Maybe I'm being a bit too cynical, but producers and directors lie about upcoming movies a lot as a general rule, and they never face any consequences for it. I think it's very possible that this movie might just have a lot of songs that play in the background, or music itself will simply be a big theme in the movie, and then the people who claimed that this would be a musical will shrug and say "Yeah, that's what we meant by a musical." I'm not saying that's what I think will happen, just that it's a possibility that I think a lot of people aren't even taking into account. Also, because this franchise is this franchise and has the fans it has, I just can't get over the people creaming themselves at the closing shot of Arthur smiling through the lipstick on the glass. It's neat, sure, but it's nowhere near as ingenious as people are making it out to be. (Check the comments and I guarantee you'll see at least a few people raving about it.) It's not even original. This is obviously where they got the idea:



I have no problem believing that virtually all of Joker's most devoted fans have never seen Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy (and if they had, I strongly suspect that they'd be far less enthusiastic about Joker), but is The Dark Knight, of all movies, really outside of their reference pools? This poster was everywhere when the movie came out. Maybe Joker's biggest fans aren't old enough to remember TDK's release. It would actually explain a lot if the bulk of the movie's fanbase were teenagers.
4
Unlike user Mahogany, I'm willing to accept the glass-dome as a hypothetical desktop-sized analogy to reality.

However, the first video shows the dome centered over the north pole, and the second video shows the dome centered over the equator.
5
It does not matter that the model is made out of glass or if it is made out of mathematical equations for how the light behaves. It's a model - a representation of a scheme. If it were a mathematical equation, would you be asking where the equations are in the universe? That would obviously be very silly to do that. Hence, it does not matter if it is made of glass or not.
6
Quote
Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

In this question of "more accurately represented" you are making assumptions about how the light from the celestial bodies behave. This is the very thing in question. Hence, no scheme can be discarded because of what you are assuming in your head.


"More accurately represented" simply means not using solid magnifying glass to simulate our atmosphere and updating the scale of the small spotlight Sun to be consistent with FET and not be a large spotlight Sun that is 1:1 scale to the flat Earth plane.

If there is an opportunity to have a better model... than such opportunities to pursue and use a better model should be done. I think you and I would both agree on this.

In terms of how light from celestial bodies behaves, I haven't made any assumptions... my question to you was: if the model was updated to be consistent with a small spotlight Sun (as per FET) and an atmosphere that is not made of solid magnifying glass material (as you and I both agree on) than what would be your prediction in terms of light patterns?
       
7
Quote
Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

In this question of "more accurately represented" you are making assumptions about how the light from the celestial bodies behave. This is the very thing in question. Hence, no scheme can be discarded because of what you are assuming in your head.
8
It's a model which seems to fit the patterns of light. A model is a proposed possible construct which explains occurrences, which may exist as a purely mathematical scheme, or a physical example as above. No one is proposing that the atmosphere is made of glass. There could be a number of mechanisms for this that are not glass. If you can find where I stated that the atmosphere was made of glass, please point it out.

Desktop and physical models are used all the time, to demonstrate that a pattern of phenomena exists with a consistent mechanism. The task here is to show that this model does not explain it. Pointing out that the atmosphere is not made of glass is not sufficient for this, as the behavior of light through the heavens and atmolayer are unknown variables for our purposes. No one has studied large area light paths in a controlled setting (except for arguably Samuel Rowbotham). The interest here is that there is a configuration of light bending that can explain this. You should attack this by showing that this configuration of light bending does not explain it.


Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

Do you think the updated model would show the same patterns of light?
   
9
It's a model which seems to fit the patterns of light. A model is a proposed possible construct which explains occurrences, which may exist as a purely mathematical scheme, or a physical example as above. No one is proposing that the atmosphere is made of glass. There could be a number of mechanisms for this that are not glass. If you can find where I stated that the atmosphere was made of glass, please point it out.

Desktop and physical models are used all the time, to demonstrate that a pattern of phenomena exists with a consistent mechanism. The task here is to show that this model does not explain it. Pointing out that the atmosphere is not made of glass is not sufficient for this, as the behavior of light through the heavens and atmolayer are unknown variables for our purposes. You should attack this by showing that this configuration of light bending does not explain it, as this model could be expressed by a series of equations as equally as a physical glass magnifying dome.
10
The above YouTube video re-posted by Tom (and within the Wiki) is a highly inaccurate model to reference as any kind of mechanism or basis for atmospheric phenomena:

- The model uses a solid glass dome magnifying lens; Earth's atmosphere does not consist of solid magnifying glass material.

- The local spotlight Sun is being represented by a flashlight whose diameter is about 1:1 scale the size of the Earth. If the flat Earth plane is let's say 8,000 miles in diameter and the size of the local Sun is 30 miles in diameter, than the scale of the small spotlight Sun to the flat Earth plane should be 1:266.