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 - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 347  Next >
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« on: November 14, 2023, 11:23:25 PM »

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 21, 2023, 08:35:41 PM »
Does anybody know what he's talking about?
He didn't bother reading the discussion before responding, and he's too proud to do so now, so he's just... saying things. None of it is on topic - which is why he's ranting about multiple observation points in an experiment that only involves one. He also doesn't understand that making RE assumptions in an FE experiment works against his goal, because he does not understand propositional logic.

I already warned him and asked him to stop, so he won't be doing it much longer, one way or another.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 20, 2023, 08:48:52 AM »
The hypothesis is that if the earth was flat a leveled telescope sighted on a distant object would maintain that sight line as it moves further away.
No, it emphatically is not. Read the thread before posting again. I will not have you derail it any further.

But it does not, it points every further up making the object appear to sink.
Just asserting it again as fact is unlikely to advance your position. "I said so, duh!" just isn't a sufficient standard of evidence.

Thus the earth is not flat.
Even if we assume your assertion as true (and, naturally, we don't), this does not follow. In fact, your claim above would disprove RE and FE alike.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 19, 2023, 11:26:49 PM »
I was not referring specifically to that photo
I'm very happy for you. If at any point you're ready to discuss the actual topic at hand, rather than something you chose seemingly at random, please let us know.

Its the telescope that must be level at each observation point not the ground in between and of course close to the same elevation.
If you want to test a hypothesis, you need to remain true to the hypothesis. Arbitrarily throwing parts of it away will invalidate your results. I get that you'd really like to talk about something else, something that makes you more comfortable, but perhaps you could take that elsewhere, too?

Views of mountains work well for such an exercise but distant skylines or other tall structures work as well if you don't like mountains.
Ah, yes, skylines, those near-perfectly representations of the horizon.

You really don't know what's being discussed here, do you?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 19, 2023, 08:56:55 PM »
Curios that this claimed wave never seems to pass
Fascinating - how have you established this given only the specific picture we're discussing? Were you expecting for the contents of a still photograph to change over time? Yes, friend, the wave in the still photograph does never seem to pass. That's one of the main selling points of photography.

but setting that aside what about observations over land?
Perfectly level land (or reasonably close to), sure - otherwise you're just reintroducing the same issue. Luckily, that would never happen with someone like y-

Sigh. Try again.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 19, 2023, 08:23:48 AM »
As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
Therein lies the problem. You lack the ability to distinguish your hypothesis from the proof. You think the horizon is caused by obstruction, so you take ANY obstruction (in this case, one caused by a tall wave), present it, and go "ta-da!" It does nothing to distinguish between the two hypotheses, but here you are, strutting around like a pigeon and showing the same non-sequitur over and over again.

I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors.

Again, same problem. You lack an understanding of what's being said, so you produce evidence that matches some keywords ("wow, zoom = restoration!") without getting even remotely close to addressing the claims actually being made. It's OK that you don't understand things yet - that's what self-study and conversation are for. But, for fuck's sake, could you spend a little more time learning the arguments you're trying to dispute, and a little less time just shouting "FAAAAAAKE" and replying with lengthy non-seqs?

That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can always restore them. You can't.
You have not accomplished that. This discussion concerns the horizon. You have yet to post one picture of the horizon. You posted plenty of pictures of things that are not the horizon and asserted that they prove your point.

When you combine that with grandiose statements about how you're "challenging bullshit", it really looks pretty weak. You don't even understand the basic vocabulary of science, but here you are, acting like you're superior to those scientifically literate.

Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you said
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?
What I said now and what I said then is exactly the same thing. You are showing us something that you describe as a "sharp horizon", despite it not being the horizon at all. You're showing us a body obstructing your view long before the horizon would be seen. Functionally, it is identical to claiming that this picture shows the "horizon":

Wow, look at how sharp and defined this "horizon" is! And no matter how much I zoom in with my camera, nothing behind the stop s"horizon" is revealed!!!!! Wowie! This must mean you're right!

Realistically, you have never seen the true horizon, but you may have seen something that's close enough for demonstration purposes. Your examples, however, are not close enough.

I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.
Nah, sorry. You saying "ok maybe you're right about X" and then coming back to make THE EXACT SAME BUNK ARGUMENT after a few months is not proof of you adapting to new information. If anything, it shows that you lack object permanence.

It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstruction
Well, yes, if you restrict your options to 2 incorrect ones, it really doesn't matter which one you choose. It starts to matter once you consider the FE option.

You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"
You claim to value logic and evidence. However, you routinely demonstrate utter contempt for these things. That's why I dislike you.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 11, 2023, 09:17:10 AM »
I'm not sure where you got that from, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't say resembling that.
Of course you did, and I helpfully quoted you saying it. Of course, it's possible that you have a perfectly good explanation for a metaphysical horizon, but so far you chose not to provide it.

should I report you for low content posting?
I would sincerely advise against you trying to troll via the mod report function. You already have a track record of doing that.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 10, 2023, 11:38:44 AM »
By the way, the horizon really isn't a physical thing.
Damn, RE light now exists outside of the realm of physics. And you say we're the ones with strange ideas about light.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 10:38:13 PM »
I don't "appeal to logic", I appeal to facts.
You and I approach things very differently. I don't mind that. Putting the "fun" in "fundamental disagreements" and all that.

AATW claims to approach things in the way I do, but he fucks it up beyond all recognition. I do mind that.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 08, 2023, 10:15:24 PM »
No I don't. I provided examples.
This is incorrect. You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors - and assert without evidence that these cases are the same as what's being discussed. In doing so, you engage in circular logic.

I can help you stop making that error, but you gotta stop "nuh uh"-ing and start engaging with the science. You know how well it goes for you when you double-down on these fuck-ups. Wanna try something else for a change?

He just stated that as a fact, he provided no evidence. Why aren't you picking him up on that?
Well, he's not exactly trying to engage in rational or empirical thought. You claim you do. It's triage. If I wasted my time on every guy that Just Do Be Saying Shit on an online forum, I'd run out of time and resources pretty quickly. :)

I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time. Meanwhile, fixing the flaws in your logic is something you're remarkably good at avoiding - to the point where you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end. What gives?

I need to provide evidence that zooming out of a scene would make things smaller?  ???
I'm trying to be polite, or at least not immediately viscerally aggressive. Would you care to reciprocate by responding only to things I said, and not things you made up to make yourself feel better?

It isn't that remarkable. I don't live near the coast.
That's a decent excuse for not doing it immediately, in which case you have a perfectly good reason not to respond to these threads for a while. But you do respond, incessantly. In doing so, you forfeit your excuse.

That said, even with the cost of living crisis, I do find it remarkable that you haven't been able to justify the £50 expense in the literal years you've been whinging about not understanding this simple experiment, and that you haven't otherwise found yourself near a lake or sea in all that time. You must be a very busy guy, as evidenced by your posting habits here.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 05:19:30 PM »
All that would do is show examples of ships being "restored" when they are closer than the horizon.
When ships are truly beyond the horizon they cannot be restored
You assert this with no evidence, and then insist that I accept that as a premise for further arguments. I do not.

When you're asked to prove your point, just stating it again with conviction doesn't quite cut it. Not to non-Anglos, at least.

A zoomed out view of those pictures wouldn't demonstrate anything, they'd just be smaller versions of the images I used.
Once again, you assert this without evidence. You can't just say "I'm correct, and since I'm correct, verifying my claims would just result in what I expect, so I would be correct". That's not how you do science, let alone Zeteticism.

(which I didn't take so can't show anyway)
Yes. Isn't it remarkable that every time people suggest that you perform a very simple experiment which would help clear your confusion, you refuse to do so and just post pictures you found on the Internet, usually ones that don't even pertain to the subject at hand?

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 04:22:38 PM »
I addressed it by showing examples where you CAN'T restore them with optical zoom.
No, you didn't, and I already told you why. Since you chose not to read my message, I'm not reading yours beyond this point either.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 02:06:54 PM »
I responded to a post which, it seemed to me, was the old "boats don't really go over the horizon, you can restore them with optical zoom"
You did. You also completely failed to address it, since that would require you to compare 2 levels of optical zoom for the same scene. This is not a novel conversation - these exact failures were pointed out to you before when you used the exact same image. The exact same URL, even! You either have it saved somewhere, or you literally grabbed it from the previous discussions, which you could have just read instead.

At some point, you really ought to start adapting to new information, instead of just repeating the same failed arguments.

I don't think you can really tell how big the waves are in that picture by the way
Sure you can. The base of the wave is roughly around here:

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 09:42:15 AM »
OK. Where's the rest?
How do you see a message from someone telling you to compare 2 different optical zoom levels of the same scene and think "Oooh, I know, I'll post *one* image of a scene and claim to have performed the test!!!" And why do you so consistently choose a photograph with a very visible tall wave in it? This is "hurdur erth can't be flat/round because mountains exist checkmate 😎" level of posting.

We've ruled out you being a complete idiot, and you want to not be treated like an obvious troll. So, what is it? Alcohol? Drugs? Illness? What causes you to have these extreme lapses?

You're right, though. The Sinking Ship Effect is a big hint. It's one of the most elegant proofs of FE out there. A cynic would suggest that's why you so repeatedly and consistently refuse to engage with it properly. :)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: August 26, 2023, 04:00:24 PM »
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you like in any situation.
Would be cool if it did, though.

Technology & Information / Re: Why does that child have my computer?
« on: August 14, 2023, 05:47:14 AM »
If your kid has Discord they need police intervention?
I mean, considering most Discord servers... probably, yea?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 347  Next >