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 - AATW

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 212  Next >
41
The only reason most people are enamored with NASA is because of a childhood space fantasy.
There is something in that.

Quote
Based on all we know, government claims should be inherently distrusted.
There's something in that too.
But.

NASA et al aren't just going "trust me, bro". They release endless pictures and video of their missions. There are an increasing number of people doing broadcasts from space who presumably all have to be "in on it". You can watch their launches - I've seen one my self during a fortuitously timed trip to Florida when a Shuttle was going up.

There are multiple technologies which rely on satellites. I've posted before how my satellite TV stopped working when my neighbour had some construction done, the scaffolding of which blocked my dish's line of sight to the satellite. And on a work trip to Sri Lanka I observed how the dishes were angled upwards noticeably more steeply, which fits with the claim that TV satellites are above the equator.
Are Sky TV in on this deception or are they being fooled too? And to what end? No-one cares how this stuff works, so long as it does. Atmospheric conditions can affect satellite TV so it's clearly receiving a signal from up there somewhere.

Then there's GPS, which can be observed to work in the middle of large oceans.

And, of course, there's the ISS which can be seen from the ground. With decent optics you can see the shape of it. I've even see YouTube FE people concede that. What is it, if not a satellite orbiting the earth? 7 "space tourists" have made trips to the ISS. Are they all "in on it" too? Why? What's their angle?

And, of course, it's not just NASA. Lots of countries have now got space programs. And if you distrust governments then there's private enterprise now launching things. Even amateurs have sent up balloons which go high enough to see the earth's curve.

All the arguments I've seen for fakery are based on ignorance or incredulity. Where's the solid evidence that none of this is real?

42
Where does this leave Flat Earth Theory? Just fine, as it turns out, as long as one accepts Electromagnetic Acceleration as a necessary component of FET. The same effect that might cause the illusion of a horizon might also cause large flat objects to appear round from a great distance.
In which case what's the differentiator between FE and RE? What observation can you make to distinguish between the two models if FE + EA = RE, in terms of what we observe? Presumably there's some difference which makes you lean towards one model over the other.

43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Get a haircut, you hippie!
« on: January 25, 2024, 06:06:59 PM »
Not my country, not my legal system, not my school board and not my choice of tonsorial elegance but, ffs, what is this; the 1960s?  Isn't a State court a rather heavy steamhammer against bad hair?  Jeepers, if your hair/attire/adornments aren't endangering or offending the public, what's the problem?

Dress code requirements are also not endangering the public, so what's the issue?
I thought you were the "land of the free"?

44
Does this really matter?
You understand that most jokes contain something which isn’t true, which is the bit that makes them funny.
I get it’s irritating I guess, but I’m not sure it should be a hill to die on.

45
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 20, 2023, 07:11:31 PM »
I don't see how this will make a difference unless it happens in some purple or red states. And it will fuel the illusions of unfair persecution his zombie followers already buy into.

This is correct. We need Trump on every ballot in every state so we can beat him down in the most embarrassing landslide defeat in the history of this nation.
Trump's not going to lose in a landslide if he's on the ballot paper.
Definitely not if the other name is Biden who doesn't seem fit for office. Trump isn't either of course, for different reasons, but like in the UK people are going to have to choose the least bad option. I've been thinking that Trump couldn't win again because while the MAGA crowd will vote for him come what may, he wouldn't benefit from the "anyone but Hillary" boost he got in 2016. But if the other option is Biden he could get an "anyone but Biden" boost. From thinking "there's no way Trump will get a second term" I'm now more of the view that it's a grim inevitability if Biden is the alternative and Trump isn't in prison or disqualified for some other reason.

46
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: December 02, 2023, 08:08:30 AM »
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 14, 2023, 05:59:54 PM »
There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated.
But the evidence against Clinton and her numerous crimes was really solid, which is why she's currently rotting in pris...oh.

Quote
Either Trump is one of the most prolific criminals ever and always evades justice for his many crimes, or this is an ongoing witch hunt with no real substance.
Those aren't the only two possibilities.  Most likely he has committed crimes but just about been smart enough to not actually get put in prison for them.

Quote
Spoiler: No one has flipped on Trump. No one will say anything directly accusatory or anything wildly surprising against Trump.
After you spent months in the wake of the election confidently predicting that everything was going Trump's way, forgive us if we don't take your predictions too seriously. Although my gut feeling is while he probably does belong in jail, he probably won't end up there.

48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 03, 2023, 07:20:58 AM »
ITT: Tom doesn’t understand the difference between what one can say on social media and what one can say in court when under oath.

49
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 28, 2023, 04:41:53 PM »
No, no, Tom is right. Prosecutors don't actually prosecute. They are Zen truth-seekers with no interest in convincing the jury of any particular narrative. They have no idea what any witness will say until they're up on the stand, and they only properly understand what's actually happened after everyone has already testified and presented their evidence. It's a lot like Ace Attorney in that way.
Tom is right. In fact, as disparaging as he is about movie depictions of court cases, you’ll see in the film A Few Good Men Tom Cruise yells “I WANT THE TRUTH”. He is admittedly a defence lawyer but it’s proof that lawyers on both sides are just objective truth seekers who are in no way in an adversarial relationship.

This whole exchange is why there’s no point engaging with Tom. He’s either insane or arguing on bad faith. Possibly both. It doesn’t make for a particularly constructive dialogue.

50
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 27, 2023, 12:05:18 PM »
Did you read any of the cherry picked quotes which I am deliberately misrepresenting or wilfully misunderstanding?
Fixed your post.

51
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 27, 2023, 10:57:33 AM »
Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.
And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude! The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

52
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 03:50:25 PM »
You wrote "Either criticizing them is bad or it isn't...", then closed the same fucking paragraph with the words, "Try some nuance."
Ok. Well allow me to clarify.
IF you take the position that criticising the military is bad then do so consistently. It can't be bad for Biden to do it and OK for Trump, just because he happens to like Trump and not like Biden. This is the logical inconsistency I'm highlighting. Tom routinely shows double standards and logical inconsistency, he'll defend person A to the hilt because he likes person A, person A is on his side. But if person B does the exact same thing, or often something much less serious, then Tom will hold it up as evidence that person B is terrible. Because person B isn't on his side. It's pretty silly.

53
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 12:34:43 PM »
...Either criticising them is bad or it isn't,...
^This doesn't sound polarizing at all...

On the contrary, it sounds extremely well thought out and reasoned... ::)
Are you struggling with logical consistency?

54
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 20, 2023, 09:59:40 AM »
AATW says it's a cult. Lord Dave points out that Trump's followers rejected his promotion of the vaccine. This appears to debunk AATW's claim.
As Lord Dave says, this isn't really a contradiction. On that particular issue Trump wanted to take credit for the vaccine but he'd conditioned his disciples to distrust the mainstream. So he had to give somewhat mixed messages - saying how safe it was and that people should take it but also saying it was up to people to decide. So I understand why they were conflicted when their glorious leader was telling them contradictory things. I guess that explains why 55% of Republicans took the vaccine.

For Democrats it was 88 percent, so to say they just slavishly followed the advice without question isn't true either. But the messaging was clearer that they should take the vaccine.

(source
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-poll-shows-demographic-breakdown-vaccinated-u-s-n1277514 )

Obviously it's not a literal cult but it does have some of the hallmarks. We've all seen the mental gymnastics you've done to be an apologist for everything Trump says or does, no matter how egregious, while falling over yourself to criticise everything the people you don't like do. You've even admitted it here where you've talked about who is and isn't allowed to criticise the military. Either criticising them is bad or it isn't, it shouldn't matter who does it. But, to you, it's not about what people do it's about who does it. Biden bad, Trump good. Everything they do is filtered through that ridiculous black and white world view. Try some nuance.

55
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: October 20, 2023, 08:31:15 AM »
Health Canada's response so far is essentially "this is fine"
Probably because they're basing their conclusions on evidence and expertise rather than screaming headlines from sites which pander to their particular biases?

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 19, 2023, 10:07:07 AM »
They boo for the covid vaccine.

So....
Obama <military<Trump<Covid vaccine hate.
Ha. Yes, that was an interesting one. Quite a difficult one for Trump to know how to pitch.
He had to take credit for the vaccine while talking to a load of conspiracy theorists who he is encouraged to distrust the mainstream. Tricky.

57
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 19, 2023, 06:07:34 AM »
So basically cult of personality overrides respect for others.

Ie. They love Trump more than they respect the military.

Kinda scary.
It is scary but is it really news?
Trump supporters are basically a cult, they’ll whoop and cheer at pretty much anything he says. It’s not “Trump says stuff that’s true”, it’s “it’s true because Trump said it”. It is pretty scary.

Back in reality of course much of what Trump says demonstrably isn’t true, but his supporters are far too detached from that for it to matter.

58
I know more about it than you.
Is your dad also able to beat up my dad? Seriously, dude. You sound like a 5 year old.

Quote
And provide all the other missing info that I pointed out while you're at it.
I have asked you multiple questions several times which you have failed to answer, you are in no position to demand answers to anything.

Quote
And provide the math model for the 830 mile test too.
The ways signals can propagate that distance have been explained. If you don't understand them or refuse to believe them because they don't fit your worldview then I don't know how else to help you.

The fact that the LoRa documentation gives calculations about how the curve of the earth needs to be accounted for in order to keep the Fresnel zone clear of obstructions is not a contradiction to the fact that on occasion further distances can be achieved. Again, the reasons for that have been explained. You keep ignoring the question about why this record is noteworthy. The inverse square law is a red herring, if the earth were flat and the signal powerful enough to travel the distance then this result would be expected. Why does it only happen in certain atmospheric conditions?

I look forward to your explanation for a few of the "bunch of reasons" why increasing altitude improves range - although the LoRa documentation has already explained it.

59
it's obvious to me that it has to be line-of-sight assuming it's a directional antenna and assuming no curvature or else it doesn't work, does it?
It's ironic that you above said that I "don't really know anything about the subjects that you involve yourself in", and then you say stuff like this which shows a complete ignorance of how these signals actual propogate.
It's also ironic that you keep bemoaning "math models", when in this statement you're presuming a simple model of a FE where all signals travel is a perfectly straight line. That IS a simplified model, it's not how things work in the real world.

The answer to your question above is they didn't account for the curve of the earth in this experiment. I've provided a few sources, I'm sure you can find plenty more if you're interested, which explains how signals can propagate further than the line of sight between two points. You bemoan these as "math models", but you're happy to accept the "math model" of a Flat Earth where signals must have line of sight to propagate.

Which leads me back to the questions you're carefully ignoring. If the earth is flat why is this news? This would be expected behaviour and would be reproducable consistently. And why does increasing the height increase the range. You said there were a "bunch or reasons", go on then, name a few and explain. You mentioned the inverse square law above. Increasing the altitude of the transmitter increases the distance to the receiver, so that should make the signal weaker and harder to receive, no?

60
Your problem is that you're always talking out of your ass and you don't really know anything about the subjects that you involve yourself in.
Your problem is you'll leap on anything which you think backs up your worldview but you don't look in to the wider context.
For example, you know that first link is from a site explaining how data is transmitted from satellites to earth?  ;D
Your other problem is you don't answer questions when they get too hard and you just ignore bits which aren't convenient.
You're happy to accept the LoRa result as a slam-dunk for FE, but just ignore the parts of their documentation where they talk about accounting for the curve of the earth.
You say there are a "bunch of reasons" why higher altitude increases range but don't provide a single one or any explanation of it.

And your continued ignoring of my questions about why this result is noteworthy or why the atmospheric conditions are a factor is noted.

Some more stuff to read here about how signals can travel further than line of sight.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.02802.pdf

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 212  Next >