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 - garygreen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54  Next >
1
Unreal Tournament

holy shit for real?  the nostalgia i'm having for the original right now is overwhelming.  fuck i loved that game.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Was the sandy hook shooting a hoax
« on: January 15, 2018, 05:07:51 PM »
I always wonder why anybody would bother with false-flag mass-shootings when they're such a tediously regular occurrence in America.
What if they're all (or a vast majority, at least) staged, as part of a plot to disarm Americans and then do Terrible Things™ to them?

obama's third term is coming any minute now.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: 2+2
« on: January 14, 2018, 03:21:48 PM »
i've posted this before, but i'm gonna toss it in here since it's now actually appropriate for the thread i'm posting in instead of my usual thread derailment.  and i like math arguments.  obviously.

here's an easy way to demonstrate why this proof is unsound.  let's try see if we can approximate the length of a line segment with sine waves of increasingly smaller amplitudes.

consider the following sine function, y=4sinx, and let's restrict the domain from x=0 to x=6.28. 

it's obvious just from looking at the graph that the length of the sine wave is greater than the length of the domain (6.28 units).  and, math-doing-robots confirm that the length of that line is ~17.628.  it's also obvious that if we want to approximate the length of the domain, then we must decrease the amplitude.

next we're going to add more sine functions to the graph.  the pi=4 proof demands that the perimeter of the square remain constant by changing its shape in a specific way.  likewise, we're going to keep the length of the sine wave constant while we decrease its amplitude.  the only way to do that is to increase its period proportionally.  in other words, if we decrease the amplitude by half, then we must increase the period by half.  if i'm not making sense, just check out the following graph.  this is y=4sinx, y=2sin(2x), y=sin(4x), y=.5sin(8x), all from x=0 to x=6.28

if you plug all those formulae into the math-wizard-robot, it will confirm that they all have the same length, ~17.628.  but now we have a problem.  as you can see, we can keep iterating and the sine wave will get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller until it appears to be approximating the length the line, but since ~17.628 != 6.28, we know that it never does.

in fact, this notion of keeping the length of the sine wave constant by only letting amplitude vary inversely proportional to period is exactly what your proof does.  just look at the corners.  each time they "fold" the perimeter in the corners, they're doing it in a specific way that keeps the length the same, halves the amplitude, and doubles the period.  graphing the absolute values of the same sine functions from before illustrates this.  each iteration, starting with purple, has half the amplitude and double the period of the previous iteration, but their lengths are all the same.  it might appear that they would approximate the length of a line as the amplitude approaches zero, but it never does, and they never do.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Was the sandy hook shooting a hoax
« on: January 13, 2018, 08:58:47 PM »
of course it was a hoax.  obama and the dnc orchestrated sandy hook as a pretext for repealing the second amendment and securing a third term for obama.

5
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: January 10, 2018, 08:11:09 PM »
I loved this last episode. Better than any mirror universe episode before it, imo. Also, I love the BSG, mole Klingon story. That Klingon lady is so much more insidious now.

totally agree with the first bit.  i think the mole-tyler story is being executed so well that it's genuinely creeping me out.  like i hate it because it's so good lol.  also because i'm usually really stoned when i watch the episode, and the bloody torture cutscenes are a little much for me in that frame.

and i can't put my finger on exactly what it is that bothers me, but i just don't like this iteration of klingons.  at all.

6
Suggestions & Concerns / lists with spoilers
« on: January 10, 2018, 04:51:38 PM »
so i was trying to make a post earlier with a [list] embedded in a [spoiler], and i was having trouble getting it to work.  i could be doing something stupid, so here's what was happening for me:

  • lol butts
  • 69
  • 420
[/spoiler]

as you can see, it doesn't spoiler-ify my list, and it thinks i have one too many tags or something.

7
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: January 10, 2018, 04:47:19 PM »
the most recent episode of st: discovery

for years i've been begging for a darker iteration of star trek.  boy did i get my wish.  loved this episode.

some random opnions in no particular order.  no opinion.

i dig the mirror universe in general, and i fucking love that they're doing something with it in discovery.

i still hate the spore drive.

"the enemy is here."  *shudder*  that whole sequence of scenes kicked fucking ass.  even ds9 wasn't that cold.

i hate tyler.  i hate everything about him.  he gives me the creeps like woah.




8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 09, 2018, 11:10:45 PM »
The department said that it was a good idea, but they lack the power to do it.

The FERC commissioner "added that he was sympathetic to the plight of coal miners and nuclear workers, but that helping them was outside the agency’s legal power. 'We have a history in this country of helping those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely affected by technological and market change. But that is the responsibility of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not a role that the Federal Power Act provides to the commission,' he said."

The only "failure" here is that the Secretary of Energy sent this to the wrong people.

you've misread the article entirely.

Quote
As proposed, the rule aimed to improve the resilience and stability of the electrical grid. Citing some electricity problems that struck during the “polar vortex”-induced cold snap of 2014, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry proposed that utility companies should pay coal and nuclear plants to keep weeks of extra fuel on hand.

The Department of Energy, which Perry leads, doesn’t have the power to force utilities to follow such a rule itself. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is charged by Congress with regulating interstate electricity sales and some power utilities. Perry asked FERC’s five commissioners to adopt his proposed rule within 60 days.

the DOE cannot do the plan.  only the FERC can.

you've also misquoted richard glick.  he does not support the plan.

Quote
In a statement on Monday, FERC thanked Perry for his attention to grid resiliency and said it would continue to research and pay attention to the issue. But individual commissioners were more cutting in their replies.

“The proposed rule had little, if anything, to do with resilience, and was instead aimed at subsidizing certain uncompetitive electric generation technologies,” said Richard Glick, a Trump-appointed FERC commissioner, dubbing the plan “a multi-billion dollar bailout targeted at coal and nuclear generating facilities.”

He added that he was sympathetic to the plight of coal miners and nuclear workers, but that helping them was outside the agency’s legal power. “We have a history in this country of helping those who, through no fault of their own, have been adversely affected by technological and market change. But that is the responsibility of Congress and the state legislatures. It is not a role that the Federal Power Act provides to the commission,” he said.

he's not saying that the FERC lacks the authority to do perry's proposal; he's saying that they lack the authority to solve the root of the problem: "technological and market change."

9
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: January 07, 2018, 12:55:17 AM »
you can all go fuck yourself right in your fat fucking asses.

10
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: January 06, 2018, 09:36:39 PM »
whatever football is dumb

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 06, 2018, 08:31:52 PM »
known for being, like, really smart


12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chapter XI of Rowbotham
« on: January 06, 2018, 08:28:11 PM »
moonlight cooling things down makes about as much sense as a a bowling ball just stopping after colliding with a pin instead of knocking it over.  it defies the conservation of energy.  photons colliding with atoms don't cool them down (no, laser cooling isn't at all relevant here).  they either get absorbed (positive change in energy), or they don't interact.

I looked at the video and its just bad. First he points a telescope at the moon and then he moves the telescope to compare the temperature to empty space. He may as well compare the temperature of the moon to the temperature of an ice cube...  That experiment does NOT tell us whether the light of the moon can make things cooler.

you claim that moonlight cools things.  the best way to test that hypothesis is with a temperature sensor.  the telescope focuses moonlight on the temperature sensor.  when he points it at the moon, then moonlight is incident upon the sensor.  when he points it away, then it isn't.  how is that methodology not valid? 

Next he makes some ridiculous claim that when you sit in the shade it is actually warmer. The example he gives involves putting a piece of foil in the sun and then putting it under a bush. Under the bush it is warmer. This is ridiculous. In the day time it is not warmer in the shade than it is directly in the sun.

He says the foil is like a mirror reflecting ambient IR of the objects around it. The foil is of course physically cooler in the shade, but the reflected IR is not. However, this does not explain experiments with non-laser thermometer devices taking a direct measurement of bodies which shows the same cooling moonlight effect.

i searched but had a hard time finding the direct measurement videos you're describing.  link?

None of the above really even tests the issue, and is an attempt to discount the tests based on flawed rationalism. Cooling moon light is not directly tested by that experimenter. Sweeping declarations and assumptions are made.

this is pretty basic physics.  and it's all materials science stuff.  there's no re/fe split to be had.  the notion that materials science isn't based on empiricism is patently absurd.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Occam's razor
« on: January 01, 2018, 08:59:33 PM »
And, potentially, every person who needs to be deterred.

this is the part of your argument i find silly/magical.  you're just sort of asserting that anyone who is in a position to blow the whistle must know of thomas baron and be deterred by his death.

i doubt that thomas baron is mentioned anywhere in the nasa employee training manual.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Occam's razor
« on: January 01, 2018, 05:44:15 PM »
Then , in your opinion, who would have to be the bare minimum amount of people to keep such a conspiracy under wraps.

69?  420?  i dunno, haven't given it a ton of thought.  i'm not especially perturbed by anyone believing in the conspiracy, i just think the thomas baron argument is weird.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Occam's razor
« on: January 01, 2018, 05:14:11 PM »
I guess they don't fancy mysteriously dying in extremely unlikely accidents. Imagine that.

lol thomas baron.  basically no one has ever even heard of thomas baron except for the relative handful of people who believe he was murdered.  deterrence doesn't really work is no one has ever heard of the deterrent.

don't get me wrong, this "every scientist in the whole world would have to be 'in' on it" stuff is nonsense; but, the "thomas baron deters whistleblowers" argument is equally silly.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« on: December 29, 2017, 01:19:56 AM »
Math which is based on continuous number lines is NOT applicable to the real world...If we try to calculate movement of things in the universe on the basis of a continuous number line it does not work. Zeno's Paradox disproves the assumption that space and time are continuous, and shows that there must be a discrete unit for anything to work.

this is empirically untrue.  calculus works fine (gives you the measurably-correct answers) even for quantities we know for sure are discrete.  for example, we know for sure that electric charge comes in discrete units.  you can still treat the charge distribution of, say, a charged conducting sphere, as a continuous quantity, and calculate the correct values for quantities like the electric field/potential/whatever else.  good luck getting there with pi=4.

calculating quantities "based on continuous number lines" actually works very well.

17
Technology & Information / Re: The Flat Earth Society official IRC chat
« on: December 23, 2017, 03:34:51 PM »
Is irc a game, Im not sure???? Thanks

in a weird way: kinda, yeah.

18
If you could see vertical curvature, you should be able to see horizontal curvature on the horizon.

why do you think this is true?  can you justify this claim beyond your assertion?

19
here are photos of the lines being built in 1957: http://louisianadigitallibrary.org/islandora/search/mods_subject_topic_ms:%22Overhead%5C%20electric%5C%20lines%22

here they are in some weather enthusiast's video:


here they are on a photography enthusiast's dumb website: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-397106-1.html


literally a stock photo: http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/power-grid-in-the-water-royalty-free-image/498502317


20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 20, 2017, 02:26:17 AM »
my flying credentials

they can't be very impressive if you think any aircraft will fly straight and level without assistance from a pilot.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 54  Next >