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 ... 55  Next >
Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET and Global Positioning System
« on: March 16, 2018, 03:04:57 AM »
I didn't point you to a single instance where GPS was inaccurate. I pointed you to multiple instances.

Whether you want to argue that GPS is inaccurate because of bad technology, that is fine. GPS is still inaccurate in determining distances.

you only pointed to instances in which (some) gps units were inaccurate in determining path lengths

and why wouldn't it be?  gps isn't a thing that tells you distances or path lengths.  it's a thing that tells you where you are.  working out the distance between two points is trivial, but that doesn't tell you anything about how long was the path i took to get from point A to point B.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FET and Global Positioning System
« on: March 16, 2018, 02:43:33 AM »
(which is curious under the Round Earth model since GPS is just finding your coordinate and computing the distance to another coordinate).
If the Round Earth model is true, this is confusing, since GPS devices are just based on finding your coordinate and mapping how far away coordinate B should be. It should not matter how far away you map coordinate B. It should not increase in error the further away you map. The coordinates and the distance between them on a Round Earth should be known.

that's not at all how gps works.  knowing the distance between two arbitrary points on the surface of a sphere doesn't tell you anything about real path lengths.  how could it?  that doesn't make any sense.

knowing that the distance from my home to the grocer is 5 miles tells me nothing about the length of the path i travel to get there.

Nice rationalization there, but those explanations have not been demonstrated to be true. All we know is that GPS is wrong when attempting to determine distance.

you saw a black swan did a google image search for black swans and found one, so all you know is that all swans are black.  okay.

* Connection failed (certificate has expired.? (10))

make the meatball, bobby

The effect only applies to the far field street lamps, not the near field street lamps. A street lamp once centimeter away from your eye ball will, of course, be much larger. The street lamps in the near field may be too close to catch on to the atmosphere or are larger than the projection.

The far field street lamps are all the same size, showing that there is an enlarging effect. The street lights in the distance are not appropriately shrinking.

by my very rough approximation, the lamps do get progressively smaller.  although measuring them is somewhat subjective basically impossible.  how did you measure them?  scattering + saturation are causing lots of flux to bleed into adjacent pixels, which is why it looks like one contiguous white blob.  this image is worthless for proving what you're trying to prove.

there's also no way for you to know how large the lamps "should" be.  you don't know how far they are from the camera or from each other; you don't know the pixel scale, so you don't know if you can resolve the change in angular size from lamp-to-lamp, so looking at adjacent lamps is worthless; you don't know the exposure settings, atmospheric conditions, or anything else about this image beyond "there are some white blobs here."

and that's to say nothing of the fact that the human eye is not a ccd sensor.  while i'm stating the obvious, it's worth pointing out that cameras are capable of producing many different sorts of images that do not represent physical reality.  cameras are actually kinda bad at representing reality as we see it.

Per your argument of "pixel saturation" as an explanation for these scenes, if the pixels were bleeding into the pixels near them, the lights should still shrink as they recede into the distance, not stay the same exact size. A smaller light would cause a smaller diameter of pixel bleed around it.

how did you determine that?  are you just assuming it?  flux drops off with the square of the distance.  surface brightness doesn't depend on distance at all.  it's not always a linear relationship.

btw have you not noticed that the only images you can find to support your hypothesis are dark/dimly lit?  that's not a coincidence.

The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?

those lights look as they do because of pixel saturation, not lens flare.  that's why they all have the same sort of shape.  light from saturated pixels in the ccd is spilling over to adjacent pixels.  and probably mie scattering, too.

also, those lights do get smaller with distance.  open up photoshop and measure them.  the background lamps are at least half the size of the foregound lamps.  since you don't know the real distances, i'm not sure how you can say they're not shrinking as they "should be."  how small "should" the background lamps be?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth not round
« on: February 24, 2018, 09:37:20 PM »
The moon's crescent is  supposed to point towards the sun.

it always does.

you can prove this to yourself with a piece of string.  you claim to embrace empiricism and reject rationalism; if that's true, then why are you so reluctant to perform a simple experiment?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« on: February 24, 2018, 05:25:41 PM »
played ~6 hours of the new stellaris update.  i like it a lot so far.

my least favorite change is that hyperlanes are now the only ftl drive.  i totally get why they did it; and, i have to admit that it's a net improvement to the gameplay.  i think i just hate that my ships have to traverse the whole system to get to a new hyperlane gate.  what i mean is: you ftl to a system, and then you have to fly across that whole system to get to another gate to jump to a new system.  it's slow.

my favorite change is the starbases.  tall empires are now viable.  and defense platforms are now actually useful.  it kicks ass.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another big Mass Shooting
« on: February 24, 2018, 05:13:39 PM »
tbh i wouldn't actually want any amendment to be negotiated by these political parties.  i don't think either side would do it in good faith.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth not round
« on: February 24, 2018, 04:12:14 PM »
Next time you're outside, and see this illusion, pull out a string and try it for yourself.  It always lines up.

oh yeah, i totally forgot about this.

tom, forget about all the other stuff in this thread.  just be a good empiricist and demonstrate the fact of the matter for yourself with a piece of string.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is the Earth not round
« on: February 24, 2018, 05:52:00 AM »
tom: imagine yourself standing in a large, dark room.  you see this sphere directly in front of you:

where is the light source?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Another big Mass Shooting
« on: February 23, 2018, 09:47:30 PM »
the second amendment should be repealed and replaced

Flat Earth Debate / Re: House of Cards
« on: February 15, 2018, 01:30:15 AM »
I'm not the claimant. I'm the skeptic. It is enough for the skeptic to question. It is those with the claims who need to demonstrate them.

you are the claimant.  you claim that it matters whether or not a quantity is discrete or continuous.  that's your argument.  "Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question."

the notion that such a distinction "calls any such calculation into question" is a positive claim.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: House of Cards
« on: February 15, 2018, 01:00:47 AM »
Since the Ancient Greeks never really performed experiments to justify their ideas, that calls any such calculation into question.

what controlled experiments have you performed to demonstrate that the continuous/discrete quantity distinction matters?  genuine question, not trying to be flippant.

to elaborate: if you haven't performed an experiment to justify your idea that the distinction matters, then that calls any such calculation into question.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: House of Cards
« on: February 14, 2018, 11:15:26 PM »
The concept of a continuous universe needs clear and compelling evidence before we accept it as true.

actually it doesn't matter at all.  for example: electric charge is discrete.  electric charge is absolutely not distributed continuously in a conductor. 

but you can still use calculus to make correct predictions about electric fields/potentials/forces/whatever.  a huge portion of vector calculus was invented for the purpose of solving problems involving distributions of discrete charges.

all you're doing in this thread is demonstrating naivete of the subject you're trying to criticize.  as usual.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Sexual Scandals
« on: February 14, 2018, 12:18:44 AM »
no one has a constitutional right to be liked

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 04, 2018, 06:29:14 PM »
"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica."

He added that the dossier has "nothing to do with George Papadopoulos's meeting in Great Britain."

"It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there's going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier," he said.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "The stars are not light-years away"
« on: January 30, 2018, 05:47:10 AM »
dudes it actually doesn't matter if there are molecules in the photosphere or not (there are).  y'all are focusing on the wrong details.

The red shift and blue shift of a substance's spectral lines isn't something that only happens with high velocities. It also happens in chemistry. Look into Bathochromic Shift and Hyposchromatic Shift. The spectral lines of a substance can shift left or right along the color spectrum for a variety of chemical reasons.

that's kinda neat tbh.  it doesn't do anything to negate the usefulness of absorption lines, though.  if you shine light through a gas of atoms and molecules, the molecular absorption lines exist alongside the atomic lines.  even if there are molecules in stars with these chemically shifted absorption lines (there are), these effects won't affect the atomic lines, and your own lit says that these effects only happen for molecules.

also your literature indicates that these effects only occur under a very specific set of circumstances involving chemicals suspended in solvents.  but we already know that those solvents are not present in stars.  that's the cool thing about spectra; we can know what the sun is made of by looking at the absorption lines.  every element (and molecule) has a unique set.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "The stars are not light-years away"
« on: January 29, 2018, 09:48:44 PM »
Well, you didn't observe that stars that are moving towards you are blue and that stars that are moving away from you are red.

you're still hung up on two key misunderstandings.  1) we're not observing the color of stars and galaxies; we're observing missing wavelengths of light in a spectrum.  2) this isn't a theory of starlight, it's empirically how light and matter work in general, as measured in careful laboratory experiments.

these points are key for two reasons: 1) this measuring the missing wavelengths in laboratories is how we know the baseline, and 2) these observations are meaningful so long as stars and galaxies are made of elements, and denying that they are made of elements would be absurdly rationalist.

If you were to hear a single high pitch sound, it is not possible from that alone to know whether it is a doppler effect or simply a high pitch sound. You need knowledge of what that sound should sound like normally, if it even has a normal sound, for any gauge on the matter.

Hearing a whole variety of sounds, without knowledge of their ranges, and that is assuming that there are ranges, does not tell us whether it is normal for all of those sounds to be that way, or whether it is one sound that is put under different conditions.

the first bit is totally correct, but the second bit is not.  no one is assuming anything.  the baseline has been verified in laboratory experiments (see: the sodium video), and relativistic doppler effects have, too (see: ives-sitwell).

let's explore the siren analogy.  suppose garyetta is a scientist who wants to better understand emergency sirens; but, for whatever reason, she's never allowed to touch one.  she can never bring a siren in her lab and take it apart.  she can only record the siren sounds as she's out and about in the city or whatever.

so garyetta does some experiments on the materials she thinks sirens are probably made of, and she makes a discovery: every kind of material (wood, metals, ceramics, alloys, plastics, etc.), no matter how you make sound with it, is always missing certain frequencies of sound depending on the material.  for example, she strikes a brass bell, makes a spectrogram of the sound, and notices that some wavelengths are always missing.  crucially, each kind of material has its own unique missing wavelengths.

now she goes outside and makes spectrograms of the siren noises she hears.  she can look at her spectrogram and determine exactly what kind of material the siren uses to make its sound.

you can see how the rest goes from here.  she notices that sometimes all the missing wavelengths are systematically shifted up or down the spectrum.  so she goes and learns about doppler effects and studies them in her lab and works out the relationship between velocity and the systematic shifts in the lines.

finally, she can record the siren noises and know exactly how they're moving relative to her just by looking at the positions of the missing wavelengths on her spectrogram.  she doesn't have to know the intrinsic "loudness" of the sirens, just as astronomers don't need to know the intrinsic color of the stars.  she's using a different metric altogether.  you think this is nonsense just because she never brought a siren into her lab? 

Technology & Information / Re: Meltdown/Spectre
« on: January 28, 2018, 03:57:17 PM »
>uses windows because it "just works"
>arg why doesn't windows ever work!!!!11

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55  Next >