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.
I am unsure if you know what the word, "nobody," means.so that people don't have to wonder whether you've made shit up every time you claim to have seen something.
Nobody "wonders" that. Not even you.
If anyone apart from you does, just leave them to tell me.
Let me see if I get this right> Markjo is claiming the closer lights appear larger when that is not the case at all.https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_SunsetLet me see if I have this right. It is being claimed that the sun at sunset (when it's furthest away from the observer) appears larger than the sun at noon (when the sun would be closest to the observer), correct? If so, then why are you presenting a photograph where the nearer street lights appear larger than the street lamps in distance as evidence? Isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of the claim?
How does glare make these lights in the distance in this embedded video relatively the same size exactly? What property of glare makes distant lights the same size?
Except it is not total fiction.The fact is this: They do appear larger.That we will categorize as a flat earth type fact = total fiction.
How is it that you can possibly claim to lecture anyone about how things would seem in a world you so vehemently deny?Or, in the case of the your magician, something disappearing.You cannot have an illusion unless there is something appearing.Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.Actually, illusions are fundamentally based on things not being as they appear.So, the "appear" needs to come first.Arguing semantics is exceedingly tedious and distracts from the important point.
Bullwinkle knows this, yet still tries to argue against fundamental English.It does not matter why the sun and moon appear larger.Right. What matters is that fact that the sun and moon appearing larger is not the reality of the situation. If you wanted to take the trouble of properly measuring the size of the sun at noon and at sunset, you would find that they are exactly the same size. That is not what one would expect if the earth was flat and the sun was physically moving across the sky.
The fact is this: They do appear larger.
You cannot have an illusion unless there is something appearing.Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.Actually, illusions are fundamentally based on things not being as they appear.
Evidently, you do not know how English works.No I didn't, however I know how English works. The sentence clearly says that it is an illusion that "the Sun appears bigger". This means it does not appear bigger, it's just an illusion. Did you also miss the sentence structure? It did not just say "The sun appears larger" it said "That the sun appears larger" as in they are referring to the statement "The sun appears larger" and go on to explain that it is incorrect.Did you miss the word illusion in there?Nope. Did you miss the word appear?
Did you miss the word illusion in there?Nope. Did you miss the word appear?
Actually, you are the one who never tires of being wrong.It is quite frequently observed that both objects appear much larger when they are on the horizon.You don't ever tire of being wrong, do you?Quote from: Kristine Seppkins, Ph.D, CornellThat the Sun appears larger when it is on the horizon is just an optical illusion. The brain thinks that objects on the horizon should be farther away than objects overhead; since the Sun is the same apparent size in both places, the brain concludes that the Sun is physically bigger when it's on the horizon, and thus tricks you into thinking that the angular size is bigger than when it's overhead. This phenomenon is known as the Ponzo Illusion, and occurs for the Moon as well.
To convince yourself that this is, in fact, an optical illusion, put your head between your legs and look at the Sun upside down when it's on the horizon: it should look the same as it does when overhead.
For more information about the "larger Sun" and other astronomical myths, check out Phil Plait's article (now on the Moon and not the Sun but it's the same idea!).
Quoted from here.
Actually, no.The same logic applies to two distinct objects, each appearing in the sky via differing methods responsible for their visibilityI come up with it from the laws of perspective.
Wow...unbelievable...where do you come up with this ridiculous stuff?
If something increases in distance from you then it’s apparent size, or angular size, gets smaller. Does that really need explaining?
You accept that is how reality works, yes?
As any object gets closer it appears bigger, as it gets further away it appears smaller.
In your model the sun and moon are much further away when on the horizon than when high in the sky, yes?
So why do they look the same size throughout the day and night respectively? They don’t vary in angular size in the way you would expect given the constantly varying distances they are from you in the course of a day or night. Why not? Why does that law of perspective which we all know applies to every object randomly not apply to the sun? Or moon.
The explanation given on the Wiki is what we are discussing. The explanation being some ad hoc mechanism which just happens to perfectly account for the constantly varying distances. The evidence for that mechanism is some incredibly blurry and overexposed photos - while elsewhere in the Wiki it’s said you don’t pay much attention to photographic evidence. And the mechanism is said to occur because of “intense rays of light” which might just apply to a full moon, it certainly does not apply to a new moon which can also be observed to maintain a consistent angular size through the night. This is just yet another ad hoc mechanism which is used to patch a glaring hole in FET. If the sun and moon really move as you claim then they would appear vastly different sizes when on the horizon and when overhead. But they don’t.
The same logic applies to two distinct objects, each appearing in the sky via differing methods responsible for their visibilityThis is a thread about sunsets, not the moon.Firstly, learn to quote.
Secondly, the reason to mention the moon is that the same logic applies. The moon also circles above us in your model.
So that should also appear much smaller at "moon rise" and "moon set" than it does when high in the sky. Because it's much further away.
The excuse for the sun could be said to apply also to a full moon which is also quite bright. But even when the moon is a slim crescent it still maintains the same angular size and speed throughout the night. The Wiki says:QuoteThe sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
How does that explanation work for a dim new moon? Or do you have another mechanism for that?
That image is a complete blurry glare filled mess. I don't know how you can expect anyone to do any sensible analysis of it.Wow, I easily made out 16 lights just looking at the picture for 15 seconds.
There are about 8 lights which can be distinguished, which do get noticeable smaller.
Are you expecting this to be taken seriously?I do not think you need to worry about anyone taking your post seriously. Claiming the lights in the photo get noticeably smaller is ridiculous.
You do give credence to photographic evidence and are woefully inept at its proper analysis.The effect is reproducible and is seen in other images.But you don't pay much credence to photographic evidence, we have already established that.
As I said, that picture is a blurry, glare filled mess. There is no sensible way to analyse what's going on. I'd suggest if you are going to present more images you do so with ones with an appropriate camera setting or filter to remove glare and in which the photo is taken at such an angle that the distant light sources are distinguishable.
EDIT: I notice you ignored the point about the moon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469755/Ah, come on...It does not state which body part is handling the animal.
Been a around a while and the last outbreak was contained in 2017. 5 years later, American dumbasses break that.QuoteThe virus is primarily transmitted by direct contact with infectious secretions from animals via handling of infected animals or consumption of poorly cooked bush meat.
Note the lack of butt sex.
95% percent of the time, it is her fault...... justify the personal irresponsibility of women.
Of course you meant, once again, to say the irresponsibility of men. Either that or you're simply a sexist who thoroughly enjoys the patriarchy that the U.S. has always been and seems to be heading even further to being.
Men are already responsible. If a woman decides to have the baby, the man is responsible to support it by law and can't walk away. The man is sentenced to 18 years of labor to support the child. When a man complains the societal response is "Your fault, pay up!"
If the woman decides not to have the baby, she can do so without repercussion. She is not held to the same standards to be compelled to support her baby and can choose to kill it and escape responsibility.
Care to actually discuss what you said. You were 100% blaming the woman for being "irresponsible" and getting pregnant. It had nothing to do with legal responsibilities afterward. Your statement was wholly to say that it is the woman's fault she's pregnant. This isn't the first time you've said it. Nice try at deflecting and trying to say it was about something else.
Trump says FBI agents searched his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida https://www.npr.org/2022/08/08/1116427430/trump-says-fbi-agents-raided-his-mar-a-lago-home-in-florida?sc=18&f=1001Aside from this whole story likely to be nothing more than a "made for mass consumption," "distract from the real issues," POS "journalism" that NPR and other fake news outlets are engaged in (increasingly day-to-day, by the way), it appears you are stating the following:
Apparently Republicans are super pissed, calling this weaponization of the Justice Department and one asshole running for congress is threatening to arrest any FBI agent in Florida who does things outside the state's purview.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-sabatini-florida-lawmaker-calls-for-fbi-agents-to-be-arrested-upon-sight-after-trump-raid
Which is kinda weird to say, given the FBI exist outside the state's Purview.
The bolded bit of SB 1257 is interesting. Example, if a physician determines that a woman is suicidal because of her rape or incest derived pregnancy and believes she will attempt suicide because of the pregnancy and s/he performs an abortion based upon that, that physician will be charged with a Class C felony.It seems to delineate the authority and duties of a physician and a psychiatrist.
Abortion is not banned, however.Oh, so the Indiana thing is just fake news, right?Abortion isn't even banned yet, is it?
Will be in Tennessee in a couple of weeks:
Abortion in Tennessee will be illegal from fertilization beginning August 25, 2022, thirty days after the Tennessee Attorney General notified the Tennessee Code Commission that Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022,[1][2][3][4] a notification that occurred on July 26, 2022.
And even then, abortion will not be banned or even illegal in Tennessee.
When does fertilization occur?
The Tennessee trigger law bans all abortions (Including rape and incest) with the exception of Dr. proven threat to life of the mother.
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 15, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section:
(2) "Fertilization" means that point in time when a male human sperm penetrates the zona pellucida of a female human ovum;
If you want to play semantics...
ban /ban/
noun
1: an official or legal prohibition.
prohibition /ˌprō(h)əˈbiSH(ə)n/
noun
1: the act of prohibiting by authority. 2 : an order to restrain or stop. 3 often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes.
"Bans" can include "exceptions".
I am not being pedantic.The word ban does not = the term, "limited exceptions," does it?Are you being pedantic or just trolling? Either way, you aren't adding anything to the discussion (whatever it is by now).
BTW, I said abortion is banned with limited exceptions.
The word ban does not = the term, "limited exceptions," does it?Abortion is not banned in the US, at all, period, end of sentence.*sigh* Abortion is not banned at a federal level. However, a number of states within the US do ban (legally forbid) abortion, with certain limited exceptions. I'm not sure how you're unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to understand that.
Yes. First after roe.The first is the first.
To put in simply... You can take a shit on Saturday, then on Monday say "this is my first shit since the new week began" while shitting in the morning.
Nah, not in the US.QuoteAnd abortion is not banned.Is in some places, yes.
So, it isn't straight.
How is that hard to understand?
With the amount of mental gymnastics you do, I'm shocked you can't do a simple tumble.No mental gymnastics here, just pointing out hyperbolic reporting and commentary.
