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 - WTF_Seriously

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 17, 2022, 03:48:17 PM »
Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

You think folks like Rushy care about society?  Their morality is right.  If they say it's murder, it's murder.  No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.

I’m not the biggest Rushy fan, but I don’t doubt he cares about society. That’s a silly thing to say.

I'd agree.  Perhaps I should have said the opinion of society.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 17, 2022, 02:54:08 PM »
Also, people need to understand that this will be a compromise because society.

You think folks like Rushy care about society?  Their morality is right.  If they say it's murder, it's murder.  No further discussion is needed and the laws of this country should be made to match it.

What they fail to grasp is that his morality is also simply opinion.  All morality is.  Sometimes it's an overwhelmingly agreed upon opinion, sometimes it isn't.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 16, 2022, 08:47:05 PM »
If Adam and Jamie say it's busted, you really need nothing more.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 16, 2022, 03:31:09 PM »
It's not a problem at all, it's just reality.
I'm talking about the legal definition of murder. You said that "she should be in jail", so you are too.
That's a definition, defined by the State. Because that's how society works.
You don't get to decide what is legal, you vote for people who do that and if they're not making laws you like you can vote for different people.
So you might think that abortion should be considered murder if you like, but saying it "is" is simply incorrect by the current definition.

Your idea of who gets to define murder is simply wrong.

Let's say, for example, that suddenly I am the most powerful person on the planet (woe to many, I know). In this magical universe where I am in charge, I am now effectively the government, able to impose my will on anyone anywhere at any time. Therefore, I define the legal system. In this universe, is my opinion of what constitutes murder now the "objectively correct" definition of murder to you? If the answer is yes, then why bother pretending to have any opinions at all? You don't happen to the universe, the universe happens to you. Your life and its opinions are based entirely of whatever the most powerful force in your vicinity happens to be. Your concept of what is and isn't murder entirely depends on mine in that universe.

Instead, if you answer "no", (which would be mine, should the positions reverse), then obviously the government's opinion of what is or isn't murder is irrelevant. I do not think just because some large group can inflict violence on me that suddenly their definition of murder outweighs my own.

Perhaps this has been stated or addressed.  Not going to read 14 pages of dialogue to catch up.

This issue with your assertion is that, in the US, a majority of the population feels abortion should be legal.  Hence, a majority feel it is not murder.  That is not an overwhelming majority, but significantly more than 51/49.  So, is it murder or isn't it?  Just because Rushy thinks so doesn't make it so.  It's a subjective opinion.  This leads to the fact that it will be the government that ultimately decides whether it is or not.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 15, 2022, 10:16:21 PM »
I know nothing about this woman but if she did this in the distant past (10 years+) and changed her stance, thats fine.  I don't agree but we shouldn't shame people for changing their minds.

The other stuff?  Yeah, totally a target for criticism.

The issue isn't whether or not she changed her mind.  It's the typical, "I got mine. Fuck you!" conservative Republican hypocrisy that's the issue.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 15, 2022, 02:39:09 PM »

Come on. Even if he was correct that no technologies existed at the time which could make the film run in slow motion (which I have some doubts), even in the Moon Hoax scenario NASA clearly employed engineers and rocket scientists who are making things. Apparently according to this narrative Moon Hoax NASA would have sooner ended the project and admit that they couldn't get to the moon than to use their engineers to make a video run in slow motion.

This is fantastic.  You've just done precisely this:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 14, 2022, 04:28:27 PM »
Because belief in the space agency claims doesn't come with belief in unattainable technologies you can never know, right.  ::)

So,  you don't understand the context of the quote in relation to the video subject.  Got it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 14, 2022, 04:15:20 PM »
Finally took the time to watch the video.  Have watched the other mentioned as well.  Aside from the analysis of why faking the landing is impossible I enjoyed these:

First, one of the more brilliant descriptions of the space race.

"It was a global dick wagging contest on a scale never seen before in human history."


Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: June 13, 2022, 07:29:47 PM »
Unintended drug side affects can be quite lucrative.  Just ask the folks at Phizer.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Friggin' Boomers!
« on: June 01, 2022, 05:53:42 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 12, 2022, 05:08:32 PM »
Maybe just let women decide on it.

There's no way in hell we can let that happen.

The other issue with all the dome pictures and videos you find out there is that the views being presented are always from outside the dome.  I may be wrong, but my understanding is that everything, sun, moon, stars, satellites all exist within the dome.  That makes any view from outside a dome pointless.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: May 05, 2022, 08:01:05 PM »
What's great is when you ask those who are so worried about life if they're signed up to be foster parents or are adoptive parents.

An overwhelming majority of the time it's crickets.

Wasn't going to do this, but, slow day.

Here's the illustration of how the lunar eclipse would behave to an observer positioned on the sun/moon axis at the middle of totality.  4 hour total duration.  I showed all the moons as 1/2 moons to make how the terminator would behave more obvious.

The red sun rays show how the terminator would be oriented as the moon and sun rotate the pole.  The green lines illustrate how the observer would view the moon.  Not super easy to see but the observer would see the shadow rise from the bottom with a slight tilt lit side facing left.  As totality is approached, the terminator would become more horizontal.  As we leave totality, the terminator would subside going down with lit side now rotating to observer's right.

To reiterate, every FE/EA lunar eclipse would behave this way.  There would be slight differences in degree of tilt based upon latitude of the moon's path, but the movement and rotation of the shadow would be identical for every eclipse.

That animation on the Wikipedia page with the Moon sliding from right to left into the shadow is incorrect:

It tries to explain why the shadow is coming in from the top-down. But we can see that the face of the moon is actually tilted in the eclipse:

If we compare that to the Lunar coordinate system means that the shadow is actually coming in from a Western direction to the lunar face, and is not coming in from the North of the Moon:

You're trying to apply RE dynamics to a discussion of FE dynamics.  The two are completely different.  Yes, there is tilt in the RE model because of the rotation of the earth.  In the FE model, tilt comes as a result of rotation about the viewer.  The results of those dynamics are completely different.  I've illustrated this to you already as linked.

Ending your attempted deflection from the topic at hand, let's get back to FE and how EA would produce a shadow on the moon.  To simplify it, let's think of a location where the middle of totality places the moon with the viewer sitting on the straight line between the sun and moon.  This person should see the shadow rise nearly straight from the bottom of the moon and then return back to the bottom of the moon.   Those off that direct line are going to see some tilt.  With an eclipse lasting a few hours, that tilt will change some.  What won't change, is that if the observer is between the moon and the sun, the shadow must come from the bottom up. 

An additional item, which I've not brought up until now is that every FE/EA lunar eclipse should be identical since the mechanism for creating them has to be identical with the only exception being the duration of totality.  That could vary.  The position and movement of the shadow must be identical in every case.

Yes, the shadow does rotate with the moon's face. It also affects the phases.

In your previous embedded image consider how the shadow could be coming from the top if the observer is in Europe.

The animation here - illustrates in RE how the shadow would come in from the top.

The FE explanation of the eclipse as presented in the WIKI is impossible because Europe is between, though off to the side, the moon and the sun.  Because of it's position, as the moon moves out of the sun's upward bending rays, the shadow will appear predominantly from the bottom.  There will be some tilt (due to the fact that Europe is not on the straight line path between the moon and sun) and in FE that tilt would change some as the moon rotates but the shadow would still appear from the bottom up and then back down again.  It's basically simple geometry which, again, I presented to you previously in the link I attached above.

Although I think your assessment is incorrect in general on where the shadow would intersects the moon, it's not as simple as asserting whether the shadow should be from one side or the other;

It really is that simple whether you believe it or not. The position and orientation of the shadow is 100% dependent on the relative positions of the sun and moon, nothing else. 

the main reason the eclipse shadow sometimes seems to be coming from the top and the side and moves around a lot in different examples is because the face of the Moon rotates over the course of the night. See the Moon Tilt Illusion -

The rotation of the face of the moon would make no difference as to the position of the shadow.  Experiment for yourself.  Take a ball and shine a flashlight on it.  Now spin the ball.  Does the line of the shadow move in any way?  No.  Now move the flashlight to a different position.  Does the shadow line rotate to remain 90 deg. from the flashlight?  Yes.

I've read the WIKI Moon_Tilt_Illlusion.  In fact, I examined one of your personal photos in a discussion of the moon tilt illusion here:

The fact is that someone posted a bunch of stuff on the WIKI with tunnel vision only wanting to address a single aspect without fully understanding how things would actually work.

This image from the WIKI:

also disproves the EA theory.

At the time of this eclipse, the moon was orbiting near the equator.  This would place a photographer in Europe well north of the moon.  As such, as the moon moves away from and out of the reach of the upward bending rays of the sun, the eclipse shadow must be formed beginning at the bottom moving up.  Clearly not the case.

The moon shadow in this video from the wiki:

is impossible under the EA explanation.

Remember, according to EA we are viewing the bottom of the moon.  Also, according to the WIKI, at the time of a lunar eclipse, the sun and moon are opposite the pole and the moon travels away from the sun moving out of the sun's rays momentarily.

When taking both of these into account some observations must be true.  First, the terminator must be 90 degrees to the sun with the shadow side the moon furthest from the sun.  As the moon moves away from the sun, the terminator will be created at a 90 degree angle to the position of the sun.  When you look at the video at the onset of totality, the terminator is roughly 15 deg from veritcal (actual angle isn't important) with the position of the sun needing to be on the other side of the moon from Griffith for the lit side to be facing the way it is as observed from Griffith.  This is due to the fact that, according to EA, what appears as the bottom of the moon is the part of the moon which is furthest from the viewer.  Since the lit side is at an angle that places it at the bottom of the moon, it means that the sun must be on the opposite side of the moon from Griffith.  This is not the case in the FE model as the sun must be opposite the pole from the moon.  In other words, based on the north monopole model, any observer located north of the moon's path must see the shadow of the eclipse rise from the bottom of the moon.

Now let's discuss shadow rotation from the same video.  Totality lasted roughly 1:20 at Griffith.  So the moon and sun rotated roughly 20 deg. during that time.  However, if you look at the moon shadow at the end of totality, the sun must now be position over 90 deg. different and somehow to the left rather than the right. 

An explanation of this would be interesting.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 19  Next >