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 ... 309  Next >
1
What matters to determine the shape of the Earth is that the footage of these 2 events clearly show a  curved horizon. These facts are undisputable.
I trust that you will also consider the parts that appear to show the Earth to be concave to be indisputable facts? What about the ones in which no curvature is apparent? Why is one of those 3 states, each present in the footage, "indisputable" to you?

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 24, 2021, 07:10:17 PM »
This point keeps being raised, and the best thing that can be said about it is that it is technically true. Depending on the specific vaccine, choosing not to be vaccinated increases your chances of developing symptoms by a factor of between 3 and 10. Even if you do get infected after being vaccinated, you are likely to experience a shorter time to recovery, which reduces the number of opportunities you have to spread the virus.
It's also worth highlighting that someone asymptomatic is, in some ways*, less likely to spread the virus whilst infected. An obvious example: coughing is more likely to project aerosols/droplets over some distance than regular breathing. This is especially significant now that restrictions and other countermeasures are easing in many parts of the world.

* - Obligatory disclaimer that an asymptomatic individual can also be more likely to spread the virus due to insufficient caution - they might not be cautious if they don't even know they're infectious.

3
Yeah, people really struggle with sample sizes. 1001 is well above average, as long as the methodology isn't skewed.

From what I can see in the report, they did explicitly query political beliefs, so the correlation is actually in the data.

4
I work with Polish teams quite a lot. I'll send these to them to see if they can glean anything useful.
Thank you!

In the meantime, I managed to sign up for a trial of their OGB Pro service, which granted me access to the original report. I'll make copies available here soon.

5
It would seem that the Polish Nationwide Research Group conducted research into Polish citizens' belief in "conspiracy theories" in late January 2021. The original source appears to be behind a paywall (and it wouldn't take my credit card - I swear I'm not that broke; I'll keep trying), but a couple of news articles in relatively reputable media have covered it as a story:

https://www.polsatnews.pl/wiadomosc/2021-02-26/11-proc-polakow-uwaza-ze-amerykanie-nie-wyladowali-na-ksiezycu-4-proc-ze-ziemia-jest-plaska/
https://wiadomosci.radiozet.pl/Polska/Teorie-spiskowe-w-Polsce.-4-proc.-wierzy-ze-Ziemia-jest-plaska.-11-proc.-nie-wierzy-w-ladowanie-na-Ksiezycu

Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything in English, but Google Translate seems to spit out a pretty reasonable translation for these.

Based on these articles, it would seem that:
  • 4% of Poles believe that the Earth is flat, significantly lagging behind the 11% of moon landing sceptics
  • The belief is particularly popular in smaller cities and towns, at 5.6%
  • The age group most likely to believe in a Flat Earth is around the age of 30, with just over 6% of believers
  • 5% of Law and Justice (PiS) voters believe the Earth is flat, in stark contrast to 0% among Polish People's Party (PSL) voters. Similarly, PiS voters are much more likely to believe that the moon landing was a hoax, with those voting for the Left Together (Lewica Razem) being least likely to follow this belief.

According to both articles, this poll was performed on a sample size of 1001 Polish adults, which is pretty impressive for such a niche subject. I hope we can get to the original source to see if there's more detail to get out of it. If anyone has more luck with it than I did, help would be very much appreciated.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?
« on: July 19, 2021, 01:41:33 PM »
I guess I'm wondering why people doubt its existence when it's relatively easy to prove that it really does exist.
Personally, I haven't been able to establish much of a rapport with the people who claim the ISS doesn't exist. They tend to dismiss me as some sort of Illuminati government "shill", or whatever.

Doesn't that strike you as odd?
After spending as many years here as I have, it no longer strikes me as odd that very unreasonable people exist. We get FE'ers with borderline indefensible beliefs, and RE'ers who struggle to tell the difference between velocity and acceleration, and who yet still feel confident in debating physics. But I do understand where you're coming from.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?
« on: July 19, 2021, 01:31:15 PM »
So who should I believe?

1. A flat earther who tells me it doesn't exist
or
2. NASA
Neither. You've already done the exact right thing - you asked a question and set out to perform your own observation and draw your own conclusion. If you're happy with your results, what else are you hoping to achieve by posting about it?

8
Flat Earth Community / MOVED: Flooding
« on: July 16, 2021, 10:04:08 PM »

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: Religion for flat earthers
« on: July 14, 2021, 05:19:32 PM »
Says the round-Earther, citing the state of affairs from 100-200 years ago, talking over actual FE'ers who are trying to answer OP's question. Yeah, I'm gonna have to ask you not to make authoritative statements on subjects you have no understanding of.

10
That's actually a nice piece of work.  How do you account for the fact [that I disagree with you!!!]
WTF_S, this is not how forum threads work. Stay on topic.

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 14, 2021, 03:24:08 PM »
RonJ, stop trying to derail this thread and crawl back to AR where you belong.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 13, 2021, 10:43:02 PM »
Flat Earthers don't usually believe there is such thing as space
What a strange idea. How, exactly, did you arrive at this misconception?

Instead the majority believe in an impenetrable firmament
The majority? Really? By all means, please show me your data.

Many believe the appropriately named Operation Fishbowl
I think you can see where this is going by now. You clearly know squat about the modern FE movement, instead blindly quoting memes you saw on Twitter, completely unable to tell satire and trolling from reality. Don't speak on our behalf.

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Religion for flat earthers
« on: July 13, 2021, 10:08:25 PM »
Indeed. As per the FAQ, and contrary to Thork's unqualified answer, the FES and FET is not affiliated with any religion.

Whenever a poll is run on this subject, the results are generally pointing towards non-religious worldviews, e.g.:

14
At no point did I say the atmosphere isnt a factor.
Indeed, that was stack. Recall what we're responding to:

What's this about how it's the atmosphere that makes it so we can't see stars during the day? Seriously? How about providing a source for that.

But the sun is the root cause.
Evidently, this is not the case, since the sources we both agree are reasonable state that a scenario in which harsh sunlight + visible stars is perfectly plausible. It is the presence of an atmosphere that uniquely distinguishes between sunlight + visible stars and sunlight + inability to see stars.

In the Cornell link it says as much as well. It also says you could see stars during the daytime on the moon. Obviously that counters what I've been saying and I dont have the willingness to say that's wrong, but I do wonder if we're getting enough context from that short portion of the quote, i.e. are they visible everywhere you look or only if you look away from or block the moon's reflective surface and the sun itself.
That appears entirely irrelevant to stack's flippant dismissal of basic knowledge he should have gathered around the age of 4-7. To say that the Earth scenario and the Moon scenario are analogous is demonstrably incorrect, and to demand sources to show that the atmosphere disperses sunlight, causing starlight to be obscured is a ridiculous attempt at disruption. It deserves to be called out as such.

15
Obviously you're right, the sky is blue because our atmosphere, but if there was no sunlight, there would be no blue. Just as its laid out in the link you provided. Hence, the reason we dont see stars in the day, other than our own sun, is because of the sun, not the atmosphere.
I was very careful in choosing sources to address this suggestion pre-emptively. It would seem that astronomers want children to think otherwise.

If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night.
If the Earth had no atmosphere, then our daytime sky would be black like at night, except the sun would be a huge spotlight shining down at us. In such an unpleasant world we might see stars during the day. But since we have an atmosphere, the sun's light scatters and gives us a beautiful blue glow from all over, not just from where the sun is. In other words, even if you look away from the sun you are still seeing the sun's light that has bounced off of some particle in the atmosphere, and that light is much brighter than the light from the stars.

If the atmosphere is a not a factor, let alone the leading factor, then why do astronomers and scientists at Cornell and UCSB tell our children that it is one? It looks like they've been doing it for decades, too! What dastardly plan are they up to this time?

Don't forget that the "sun is bright" excuse is being applied to the Moon here, not just Earth. The presence of an atmosphere, and whether or not it has any bearing on the stars' visibility, is absolutely essential.

16
What's this about how it's the atmosphere that makes it so we can't see stars during the day? Seriously? How about providing a source for that.
Damn, I'm quite used to the RE zealots complaining about high school science being hard, but this is primary school/daycare level of knowledge.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-universe/81-the-universe/stars-and-star-clusters/stargazing/735-why-can-t-you-see-stars-during-the-day-beginner
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question52.html
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2974 (answer 6 will be particularly helpful to address your specific error, together with the two links above)

How on Earth can we have any meaningful conversation when one side of the debate doesn't know what "day" is, or why the sky is blue? Sort yourselves out.

Everyone knows the atmosphere goes away at night, which is why we see stars at night. Nothing to do with any other bright things out there...
Yeah, my bad. I forgot the whole "Night time disappearing atmosphere" thing...Good thing Lackey didn't though.
A super-duper-friendly smiley face reminder that your lacks in preschool education do not make you exempt from the rules. You're posting in the upper - act like it.

17
The FE claim - maybe not yours, but some FE claims - are that satellites aren't real so these images are faked.
Fair enough. I'll have to leave that line of argument to anyone who believes satellites are fake.

18
How is it easier? Generating random cloud patterns is not particularly difficult.
I agree. However, if you just take this information from an external source, then you have even less work to do - you just skip the generation step.

the logistics of having observations to feed in to the systems are surely a bigger complicating factor.
How so? This is clearly what RET proposes - real data is being fed into the systems that illustrate it. Why on Earth would you argue against this?

19
I'd suggest that's a harder problem to solve.
Well, I just stated that it's an easier problem - we're no longer thinking about how difficult it would be to generate data, just plot it on a surface of any given choice. Since this is clearly a much simpler problem, it leaves us at a bit of an impasse.

20
If you are seriously suggesting that procedural simulation programs are predicting and modelling all weather events
I'm not. You're the one who claimed it would be difficult for multiple sources to remain consistent. It wouldn't be.

Now you're changing your argument to claim that mapping external data onto a map would be difficult. I'm not sure how you think that helps - you just made your original problem less difficult.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 309  Next >