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 ... 341  Next >
1
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 30, 2023, 10:01:42 PM »
I remembered reading about the pre-positioning of the sample tubes before Christmas, but it took me till last night for me to be bothered to track down the BBC's report.
I see the Socratic method has failed me. Let's try a more direct approach: Please read the thread up until its current state before posting in it. Do not respond to month-old messages unless you're certain the points you want to make haven't already been raised.

Right before you jumped in, we were discussing the fact that information of this "lightsaber", photos and all, was available years before the photos were published. You would have known this if you had simply bothered to follow the discussion.

in case anyone accidentally leaves any light-sabers around the film set?
"Film set"? Okay, you have no idea what's being discussed here at all, do you?

2
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 30, 2023, 09:09:08 AM »
Duncan, out of curiosity, have you bothered reading the rest of the thread, or did you rush to your reply as soon as you read my post from a month ago, with no knowledge of the current state of the discussion?

3
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 29, 2023, 09:41:52 PM »
The issue is the mistake you're claiming they made is implausible.
I can't help you with that. If you'd like to become familiar with the subject, I've outlined the first steps for you. Until then, your problem is that I'm stating things which are obvious, and which require an elementary understanding of the domain you chose to debate. Understanding which you don't have, and which you chose not to pursue even once the need became apparent.

The responses were stuff like "BuT lOoK hOw UnCoMfOrTaBlE tHe AsTrOnAuTs LoOk In ThE nEwS cOnFeReNcE".
I tried asking nicely. Now I'm asking forcefully: stop trying to derail this thread with random strawman attacks.

And you're just echoing the fact that you personally think that's what happened.
Nope. I presented a theory and explained why it's the most plausible one available to us. I went into detail and responded to every question with... well, not patience, but I prioritised facts over expressions of frustration. You need to understand and address my points if you wish to proceed - not just "nuh uh!!!" back at me and quickly change the subject. And in order to address them, you'll have to do you a learnin'.

4
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 28, 2023, 10:51:15 PM »
You literally just said that it's likely that
"someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them"
Correct. That would happen long after they've created the issue, and long before someone like you would get to see it. Your point?

So when that happened you're suggesting that they decided to create a whole back story for them rather than changing the images, either by manual work or by tweaking the AI algorithm.
Well, that is evidently what happened. You can agree or disagree with their decisions, but I doubt they'll pay much attention to your opinion as expressed on the Flat Earth Society web forum. But yes, after they found out that their model produces images with lightsabers, their options were to either invest years into redevelopment over something hardly anyone will care about, or to just run with it. They chose option 2, because they're not complete mouthbreathers.

The latter doesn't sound beyond the wit of man.
Right. Except no one cares what it "sounds" like to you. I already suggested that you should familiarise yourself with how these models work, but I guess that's too much to ask, so I'll throw you a bone: the tasks you're asking for here is for someone to manually sift through the very large training dataset and selectively remove or edit pictures, and then to retrain the model from scratch, test that that didn't break anything, and then proceed as normal. Under optimistic assumptions, you're asking for months, if not years, of delay. Of course, for all you know, the new model will then start spitting out pictures with Buzz Aldrin's left arm all over the place, but I guess if that happens we'll just redo everything from scratch again.

Meanwhile, in the opposite corner of the ring we've got putting out a couple of low-effort articles and videos that you'll happily eat right up and callling it a day.

You seem to be suggesting they used Star Wars images with lightsabers in to train the AI. I mean, they could just...not do that?
Yes, they could have simply not made an error. Astutely observed.

Why use images from Star Wars anyway? As I've seen other conspiracy theorists point out, Martian terrain doesn't look that different to certain terrains on earth so just use them.
Again, a basic familiarity with the subject would have helped you here. You need a very large dataset covering all aspects of the images you want to generate, and it needs to be appropriately annotated. Star Wars is convenient for both of these.

I'll leave out your box set of false equivalence logical fallacies - in each of them you talk about a complicated issue to solve. I'd suggest this is not that difficult to solve. Just don't use images with sodding light-sabers in when you're training AI to generate images of terrain which is supposed to be real and not part of the Star Wars cinematic universe.
Christ, give me patience.

Your brilliant observation boils down to "If they hadn't made a mistake, they wouldn't have a problem to solve". The issue here isn't that you're incorrect - it's that you're stating something that is completely useless. It's the logical equivalent of saying that the solution to climate change is simple - lmao, like, my dude, why emit greenhouse gases when you could just... not do that? Uhhhhhm why have a gun problem if you could just... not give people guns????? Errrrrmmmm, why have hungry people when you could have just set up society differently in the first place?

Exercise a little bit of humility. Just because you didn't understand a word of what I said does not mean the logic was fallacious.

But the issue with all these things is the claim is that NASA are simultaneously competent enough to generate data from space exploration missions which fools "the world", and they're incompetent enough to make mistakes which random people on the internet can spot.
Ah, yes, "the claim". That claim that people have made. People who aren't you. Yes. The Claim™. Mmm, quite.

How about we discuss something you didn't make up on the spot? Here, let me get you started: They're competent enough to fool people who aren't particularly bright, or who don't pay particularly much attention. That's generally how conspiracies go, which is also why most of them ultimately fail. People aren't competent, they aren't perfect, and they get found out. You're really not covering any new ground here, you're just echoing the fact that you don't personally find a NASA conspiracy to be likely.

I mean, the moon landings are a good example of that
I don't give a crap about the Moon landings. We're talking about the potential source of the images presented in the OP.

But they were stupid enough to label one of the rocks "C" (as is one of the "Apollo was fake" claims). I mean, really?
As before, I am especially disinterested in claims that nobody here has made, and which you didn't even bother to coherently described. "Wow, someone somewhere said something about a letter. I mean, rEaLlY?" Stop tilting at windmills.

5
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 28, 2023, 11:47:26 AM »
Which leads one to wonder why they would invent a retrospective explanation for them rather than simply editing them out of the picture.
Does it lead one to wonder, or is it trivial? I propose the latter, and encourage you to play around with something like DALL-E 2 or Midjourney to better understand the subject yourself. Both offer a reasonable free trial, enough to become familiar with what it can and can't do.

But, to answer your question: "just edit it out" is poor advice here, considering secretagent69's counterpoint - these images are generated en masse, rapidly, and "just editing it out" would either involve manual effort or another layer of software.

Manual effort won't work. Even if you outsource to India, you'd be looking at quite a lot of resource. A more sensible option would be painstakingly going through the dataset they used to train the model, identify the subset of Star Wars screenshots that contained a prequel lightsaber, and remove or alter those. Alternatively, you could try your best to engineer your prompts to reduce the frequency in which they occur. However, those options are still very large endeavours.

A second layer of software is still a bit crap. CV is hard. We are once again looking at tremendous effort, but this time we've added the requirement for highly specialist knowledge and experienced. Outsourcing to India won't work here, unless you want to end up with truly unpredictable results.

So, this leaves us with the obvious solution to the issue presented - retcon the lightsaber into your world. Come up with a reason for why they're just scattered on the ground and state it with authority. Job's a good'un.

I mean, it's all fake, right? Why leave stuff like that in there?
I mean, gun crime is bad, right? Why let Americans keep their guns?
I mean, climate change is bad, right? Why didn't we just fix it back in the 1980s?
I mean, world hunger is bad, right? Why leave bad things in the world when we can just lmao-fix-it?

The world as you imagine it would be oh-so-simple. Part of me is a little envious.

It’s likely?
Absolutely, as explained above. It's the most obvious solution to the problem you've presented. Even your alternative - that NASA just happened to craft ornate Sith lightsabers instead of something simple and practical - has its issues.

We seem to have (from what I can glean) two classes we’re talking about here: the gullible college kids joining NASA to work on a fake space program, and the ACTUAL CGI artists in charge of producing fake imagery. The line between these two groups lies at an unclear point.
I have no clue where you got any of this nonsense from, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The question posited by this thread is: how are these images created? Of course, neither of us can know for sure, but, as it stands, a perfectly plausible hypothesis has been presented.

6
Technology & Information / Re: Ask Rushy about Bitcoins.
« on: January 27, 2023, 04:37:47 PM »
Their usual pattern of behaviour is to create an innocuous post and edit it some time after the fact to evade detection; this is particularly effective in active threads.

I deleted the "Drantanborg" account above before it had a chance to edit, but clearly failed to delete the post itself. Feel free to be trigger-happy with reporting if a brand new account is acting suspicious.

7
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 27, 2023, 04:32:06 PM »
Claiming that “they retconned the story after weird lightsabers showed up!” isn’t a coherent argument.

…because it wasn’t retconned. I knew of the sample tubes and that they would be deposited long before I saw photos of it - because it was public knowledge. Now, whether you think it’s fake isn’t the premise of this sub-argument, but claiming that it was a retcon isn’t in line with the facts.

Even assuming FE is correct and they faked the mission data, the rover is fake and space is fake, at least be honest that the sample tubes were already part of their story. Photos showing what the sample tubes look like predate the Perseverance mission photos.
This is a spectacular leap of logic. I'm actually impressed. You've compared two dates: the date on which (allegedly - but let's accept it for the sake of the argument) the lightsaber's existence was explained, and the date on which photographs of the lightsaber on Mars became publicly available. You then concluded that, since the explanation was available before the photos became public, it is impossible for it to have been a retcon. This logic is painfully flawed, and I encourage you, the reader, to pause for a few seconds and think about the flaws you can find in it. I'll focus on my favourite one in the next paragraph.

Now, I don't mean to poke further at your lack of technical prowess - you already explained that you're not familiar with these things, but we can still engage the subject logically. Whenever a process is designed (it doesn't have to be software), it's usually tested. This happens, ideally, long before the process is rolled out into widespread use. The sole purpose of that approach is to address issues before they become significant. In short: it's not only possible, but in fact very likely, that someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them. This doesn't even require a widespread conspiracy - it merely requires the assumption that the people we're dealing it don't frequently forget how to breathe.

8
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« on: January 25, 2023, 08:50:12 AM »
Yep. Sure is a good thing!
Thank you for posting more *checks notes* blurry pictures with virtually no text on them. Sigh.

Reminder that these are constantly posted minutes apart 24/7.
Yep - a perfect pace for stable diffusion.

If we’re suggesting it’s secret gubment AI
We're not. If you're incapable of discussing the subject like an adult, do not post in the upper fora. Final warning, for realises this time.

well we run into both the problem of the data set that would need to exist for this
Yes, that major problem, which is so difficult to solve that even you could start generating these at low cost in a matter of hours.

Not to mention - Rushy, if they had incredibly perfect AI that had been developed in secret for years, I assure you they wouldn’t use it for something as harmless as some rover pictures.
You're really not familiar with the modern uses of these, and you really want the world to know that you didn't bother to find out. Poor effort.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus & Lunar Eclipses on Other Planets
« on: January 22, 2023, 10:15:34 AM »
I'm sorry that you, too, are only fidning out how this place works after being here for more than a year. The Internet is a large place - I'm sure you can find a place more suitable for those who aren't looking for debate, but tuition. Maybe try Quora or Reddit?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus & Lunar Eclipses on Other Planets
« on: January 20, 2023, 09:17:29 AM »
Where should people be reading up on this sort of subject, Pete?
We don't prescribe sources; that's what the other team does. I reckon the Wiki is a good start, but you might have to build up from there. FE resources are plentiful, and it'll probably take you a few months (assuming you're not abandoning your life and pursuing FE research full-time; I'd advise against that) before you're ready for a mature debate forum.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus & Lunar Eclipses on Other Planets
« on: January 20, 2023, 08:56:00 AM »
Pete, with all due respect, I understand. The problem is that I can't find my answer to both of those questions anywhere.
You don't understand at all. The problem is that I don't care if you didn't manage to read up. You'll need to sort it out before you can post here. I've been nice enough not to start booting your posts to the trash forum yet, because I want to give you a fair chance, but there are limits to our hospitality.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus & Lunar Eclipses on Other Planets
« on: January 19, 2023, 07:59:41 AM »
Is there not just a simple yes or no answer to whether or not this applies to other planets and whether or not this can be applied to everything else we know about light?
Irrelevant. I already explained to you what the prerequisites to posting here are.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus & Lunar Eclipses on Other Planets
« on: January 18, 2023, 09:04:05 AM »
Okay, so are you suggesting that experiments have been performed that suggest that electromagnetic acceleration could be the cause of lunar eclipses?
I'm not suggesting that. Consider dropping the endless guesswork and simply spending more time studying the subject you're interested in. It will be much more productive than this game of 20 questions.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus & Lunar Eclipses on Other Planets
« on: January 17, 2023, 11:52:29 PM »
You come up with this theory because you need an explanation for an observable phenomenon, correct?
No. That's not how Zeteticism works.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 14, 2023, 12:47:11 PM »
If the earth’s velocity relative to b (stationary observer) is .77c and the meteor’s velocity relative to the stationary observer is 0
I'm just gonna stop you right there and remind you that you have yet to justify your 0 figure. Get to it.

It could be anything from zero to the limit of -c.
Justify your exclusion of every velocity that it actually could be.

EDIT: Actually, change of plan. I gave you enough chances to show that you've fixed your shit. You haven't. It's back to the shit tank with you.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 13, 2023, 08:29:05 AM »
The consensus is no.
Impressive. You didn't even manage to get the question right. You also failed the assignment - you were supposed to ask a manufacturer or physicist, not Google some threads. Would you like to try again?

I justified the numbers in the explanation that you left unread.
Nah. We're waiting on your justification for assumption that the meteor is stationary relative to an inertial observer. Would you like to try again?

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 11, 2023, 09:35:45 PM »
How relative velocity is determined is the issue and you keep avoiding it.
The issue is the figures you pulled out of thin air - the ones you plugged into your equation. One last chance to justify them! ;)

The rest of your rambling about how you don't understand the equations you googled is going unread, since you still haven't started fixing your claims.

It doesn’t “cause” it to move to the highest point.
Well, gee, mister, it sure is a good thing that nobody made a claim to that effect. This is a recurring issue - you don't understand the things you read.

If there were never any differences in gravitational potential, [spirit levels] wouldn't work. They only work because those differences exist.
Incorrect.

Here's a fun challenge for you: contact your favourite spirit level manufacturer or award-winning physicist and ask the following question: would a spirit level work in a rocket accelerating through space, in a zero-gravity environment?

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 10, 2023, 10:45:53 AM »
My complaint about FET isn't that it is incomplete, it's that it doesn't really exist at all. I mean, there's no working map for one thing, that's pretty fundamental.
Look at you. You can't hold your breath for 2 sentences. "Uhhh the problem isn't that it's incomplete, just look at this thing that's necessary for its completion!!!!!".

Also, your claim that the FE map isn't "working" is entirely misguided; and your claim that it's "fundamental" is pulled out of thin air. You don't get to dictate what's fundamental for progress, and the way the world works won't change based on what you consider "fundamental". Fundamentalism is passé.

Now I know you've explained that the Wiki is meant to document competing FE ideas, so I guess that's fair enough.
You bring this up all the time, and then you follow up by explaining that you're happy with the reasoning. If you're OK with it, why constantly mention how OK you are with it? Excuse the speculation, but it doesn't sound like you've come to terms with it at all.

But while FET has some hypotheses which can explain observations, those are often to explain why observations don't match what you'd see were the earth flat.
No. That's just your imagination of the motives behind our observations. I can't help you with that until you start helping yourself. You need to stop imagining things and start listening to people when they tell you why they do something. If you think they're not telling you the truth, you need to back that up with reasoning - not just say "uhmmm nuh you do this because XYZ".

Now, a lot of it is explained in terms of answers to RE complaints, because you lot are this meme:



Zeteticism is pretty democratic like that. It speaks the language that people want to hear, while teaching them how to soundly evaluate their surroundings. If you want better answers, ask better questions.

And none of your ideas have any predictive power. RET can explain annual meteor showers and predict when they will next occur. FET can't.
Incorrect, especially given that the models don't even differ in this case. You're literally saying that orbital mechanics simultaneously can and can't predict the same phenomenon.

By what metric? Are you looking for quality or simply quantity?
You were the one who raised quantity as a subject. Now you're complaining that I responded to you without changing the subject. Stop playing this shitty game. If you want to discuss quality, don't raise quantity and then go "ok but quality tho".

But you're not getting any traction in the serious scientific community
The "serious scientific community" is the cause of the "depressing" state of the world you're decrying so much. People just aren't interested in pandering to the old guard simply because they're the old guard. If they want to step up their game, bring it on. Until then, they're going to become increasingly irrelevant. In terms of quantity. Because of quality.

Because you're trying to replace a model which works (for most practical purposes) with one which doesn't.
Incorrect. FE works better than RE. RE contains unresolveable contradictions, while FE is simply less complete than RE. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by this.

The latter has been directly observed and multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on its shape.
Incorrect. They were determined with RE assumptions, and they happen to work. To the same (terrible) standard of correctness, they "demonstrably work and rely on FET".

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 10, 2023, 10:36:01 AM »
Relative velocity between two objects can only be calculated using a third frame as a benchmark.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

you can’t find the relative velocity between objects by using their relative velocity.
Well, you can, it's just pretty redundant. It's also exactly what you've done (and contradicted yourself in the process), hence the mockery.

See - that's the problem here. You don't know what you're doing, in a very literal sense. You're just throwing up equations and calculations, but you don't know what any of them mean. This is why you keep falling on your face.

LOL, you might want to let the internationally known Ph.D , whose written text books and published nearly 100 peer reviewed papers on math and physics that his math is wrong.
I didn't say he was wrong. I said I now know where the factor of 2 snuck in. Do you?

No you didn’t.
Sure I did.

You just said it was because the meteor’s velocity would only be marginally different without explaining why.
I, and at least one other person, explained why your premise is false (it assumes that UA is the only factor, and it assumes that one body's initial velocity is huge while the other's is 0, without providing any justification for this).

If I am wrong, how could explaining why “help my case”?
It would either help you learn or prove that you're not wrong. I mean, it'd be the former, but hey-ho.

What are you talking about?

Carpenter's level Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/carpenter's level
Webcarpenter's level noun 1 : plumb level 2 : a straight bar (as of aluminum or wood) with a small spirit level embedded in it
 
Geoid=an equipotential surface.  A spirit level (aka carpenter's level  aligns itself to it.

An equipotential surface is level, a spirit level establishes if a surface is level, therefore, a spirit level can establish if a surface is equipotential (has constant gravitational potential).

Which of those statements is wrong?
All of these statements are correct. However, your failure is conflating correlation with causation. In RET, a spirit level will, to some degree of accuracy, confirm that a line (or surface, but that's not the default case) has consistent gravitational potential along it. However, this does not mean that a spirit level works due to differences in gravitational potential. This has been explained to you time and time again. Perhaps you'll want to read the responses you previously received.

I guess its a good thing none of those people actually manufacture them, maybe someone should let them know they don’t understand how their own product works
You're missing an important point of failure - yourself. Your poor reading of how the tool works is hilariously wrong. So wrong, in fact, that not a single person agreed with you in conversation. RE'ers, FE'ers, physicists, nobody. You need to look inward.

Quote
This is determined by the radius of curvature within the vials, which the bubble moves across.
Well, at least this time you acknowledge the vials are curved. Last time you viewed this as a ridiculous possibility which couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

See, this is the problem with you blindly quoting things you don't understand. You contradict yourself. Like, all the time.

Also, you're getting pretty boring now. If your next post isn't going to start resolving the many errors in your claim, it's back to the shit tank with you.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: January 09, 2023, 02:52:43 PM »
Your mindset seems to be that because RET in the second sense isn't complete, it must be all wrong.
Well, if it helps at all, that's exactly what your mindset comes across as every time you complain about FET being incomplete, or about it not revolutionarily differing from RET in some aspects.

but FET won't be widely adopted until it can do a better job of explaining reality than RET.
It's doing astonishingly well so far. I know that you like to impulsively hand-wave the statistics away, cherry-picking random online polls over proper surveys with sound methodologies, but your arguments on how poorly FE is doing will fall on deaf ears, because they ignore facts.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 341  Next >