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 ... 165  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 20, 2017, 09:27:39 PM »
Please learn to use quotes appropriately or refrain from using them. There's no need to copy my entire post every time you say something.

I was really hoping for someone to say it bounced off of the ice wall or something. Sigh....
3DG already did, and Tom took him up on it...  Wait, are you actually this dissociated from the things people here are saying?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Question
« on: September 20, 2017, 08:59:41 PM »
The FAQ is this way: https://faq.tfes.org/

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 20, 2017, 08:57:33 PM »
Sorry, but we both were.
As I said - if it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead and believe that. It won't change much. 

As I stated, it was an easy mistake to misread the image due to the small size. It doesn't invalidate the observed data, no matter how much you want it to.
Do I? Your imagination must be quite something. 

Tom gave no theory as to why it is needed to show that it circled the globe more than once.
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Of course, Tom's posts are here for everyone to read, and if you're not going to stick to the facts of what's already been said, I'm not sure if there's much benefit to us continuing. After all, you might just decide that I "said" things I didn't say and therefore I am wrong. If that's what you're after (and it's abundantly clear by now that it is), is there much point in me saying anything? Just make it up and tell your best friends about how you totally owned that guy on the Internet.

You can try to act superior and dismissive, but you still haven't shown how another pulse passed the same point 35 hours later. Maybe you could do like all the other FEers do and make something up?
I have already explained to you that I won't be doing that, and you continue to be about as persuasive as your average daffodil.

4
Care to comment on this? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/ It seemed to be conveniently ignored unless I missed something.
Of course you missed something. The very post the link was provided in response to.

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 20, 2017, 05:07:02 PM »
You misread the image (as did I)
If it makes you feel better to pretend that I was complicit in this, feel free to. But as usual, your beliefs contradict readily-available data.

HOW ON A FLAT EARTH CAN THERE BE A RETURN PULSE??? It is a very simple question.
Tom has already presented you with a theory (which is why we need 3 pulses - you're the only one to still deny this). I'm not going to commit to one due to insufficient data. I also don't care whether you think a question is simple or not.

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: September 20, 2017, 11:59:50 AM »
I love the fact that Trump now officially calls Kim Jong Un "Rocket Man". What a world to live in.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 20, 2017, 05:58:45 AM »
What is so hard for you to understand? The data is the right part of image. The left, the one you complained about, is hypothetical, and unobserved.
I understand the situation. Rather than complain, I'm expressing gratitude that you're finally starting to catch up on why your hypothesis fell apart.

Explain how there is more than one pulse, which the data clearly show. There is NO requirement for more than two pulses as there should only be ONE if the Earth is flat. We both misread the graph and argued about something that was never observed.
We already talked about why three pulses would be required to make a meaningful distinction. If you disagree with Tom and 3DG, please explain why. Just saying "NUH UH AIN'T NO REASON" will not cut it.

We also already talked about why I won't hypothesise about this. I don't have enough data, and, unlike you, I'm not interested in wasting time on potential blunders.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:11:10 PM »
Bad news for you. We were both reading the image wrong. I blame it on the small size of image. The image on the left is for Nambia, where the signal was not detected. If you notice, both time windows on the left are using dotted lines indicating a non-observed signal. The observed time is on the right and matches your speed estimates. This makes sense given the main topic of that paper was performance differences of the detection network during daylight and nighttime hours.
Fucking finally. It only took you three pages of pointing out that your hypothesis was inconsistent with the data, and that you were indeed presenting a hypothesis that was different from that of the researchers. But hey, you're one step ahead of most RE'ers in that you've at least admitted it... in a roundabout way, but hey-ho.

So....now, if you'll agree that we misread the image, can we talk about that pesky double pulse?
Well, no. I said I wouldn't attempt it without sufficient data, and your insistence on doing anything else is unlikely to affect me. You may have noticed that I don't find you very persuasive. Besides, I don't even know what you want to talk about. As everyone here already agreed, we'd need to see the timing of at least three pulses to differentiate between RET and FET, and even then the results would be far from conclusive.

10
Once again: please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it.

Tried it Boston harbor weeks ago - obviously debunked the "law of perspectives." It's absolute nonsense.
Curious. It would be interesting to see how you managed to botch it. Perhaps you should start a new thread to describe your misadventure? Meanwhile, it's easily accessible to everyone, and will continue to help drive our momentum :)

11
Please refrain from quoting an entire post if you're only going to respond to one sentence of it. It only serves to reduce the readability of your own post.

the """law of perspectives""" is easily debunked using telescopes or binoculars
Indeed, it is trivially easy to confirm or debunk with a powerful telescope. That's why it's such a strong and easy-to-reproduce proof. I would recommend that you try it one day.

That's funny.   3d's threads (with the exception of the Ping) are full of bulletproof logic.    You seem to be a relatively smart guy.  You should do a point by point rebuttal to this one.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6902.0

Hopefully, you can do better than Tom's "Your disproofs are rubbish." response.
Wow, you guys have been busy. I respond to threads when I see them and when I find them interesting. Most of my work takes place outside of the forum. Plus, as you may have noticed, my recent efforts at talking to 3DG have resulted in nothing but him crying about how much of a professional he is.

That, combined with his complete omission of my responses to the ping thread, his complete misrepresentation of my responses to the tides thread, and whole spate of "nobody responded, THEREFORE I WIN :D" threads really doesn't make me think that this is a productive use of anyone's time.

Clearly, his purpose here is to claim victory regardless of what's actually happening. Wouldn't you agree it's better for me to talk to people who actually want to re-evaluate their views, or who might inspire me to re-evaluate mine?

EDIT: Having looked through the thread, I agree with Tom's response. A fair few of these have already been discussed to death, and in other threads he simply chose to ignore any and all counter-arguments or strawman them into making himself look like the victor. I am now even more confident than before that 3DG deserves nothing but a healthy dose of ridicule.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 19, 2017, 05:35:35 PM »
Glad you returned because half the time you FEers vanish.
Funny, that. That's usually what RE'ers do.

Did you stop to think that the first pulse time might have actually been "early" because it was measuring the time from the explosion to arrival of the shockwave and not its first trip around the globe?
No, I did not stop to consider that the graphs you presented might mean something else than what they're clearly stated to present. By that account, I have also not considered that your hypothesis might be internally inconsistent because of kittens.

If you want to patch the holes in your hypothesis, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, I think I'm ready to say that it's inadmissible, and that you haven't proven anything. Unless we accept that the shockwave travelled at two different velocities when observed from two different measurement stations (which I consider unlikely, but you're welcome to propose a model under which this makes sense), and that the Round Earth is only 73% of its advertised size, your hypothesis soundly disproves itself. This is not proof that the Earth is flat, but it does conclusively show that you failed to demonstrate it to be round.

To aid in your calculations, they provided the actual data in a linked doc. (ts1.docx) Below is an excerpt.
Station    Range(km)    Arrival time   Duration(s) Observed celerity(m/s)   
IS18 - Ig5   85091         D+3 13:40   >2000    289   
Thank you for yet another snippet of information which shows that the shockwave was not consistently travelling at 460-ish m/s.

You still haven't explained the multiple pulses on a flat Earth.
Yes - I haven't done the thing I explicitly said I wouldn't attempt due to insufficient data. I congratulate you on your observational prowess.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Cassini–Huygens mission
« on: September 19, 2017, 03:41:28 PM »
AND that NASA footage is NOT faked? ???
Any name off the top of your head?
Strawman aside (the question was not whether or not NASA footage is faked, the question was whether or not everything NASA does is faked), I'd name Pete Svarrior off the top of my head.

14
1) seeing the sun & moon shrink in size as they move away, as your wonderful youtube videos promise
Just a heads-up: this is inconsistent with FET - it should do the opposite of convincing you if it were shown. YouTube videos are generally a bad source for this stuff, unless you really want to get trolled.

For example, if you flew over Antarctica, would that help?
Potentially.

Or if you went to space?
No.

Maybe seeing a ship disappear behind the horizon, bottom portion first?
That's one of the strongest proofs of FET there are - seeing it (as I have many times before) would only strengthen my conviction.

Overall, I would really recommend that you familiarise yourself with FET before trying to argue about it. And not from the likes of 3DGeek, if I may make a gentle suggestion.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 19, 2017, 02:09:45 PM »
So glad you returned to this conversation.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you somehow confused by the fact that a human being went offline for the duration of one night? I'm sure you can work out what happened there, Stinky. I believe in you.

Are you standing by your statement that the speed of sound is 340m/s or would you like to amend that? You may want to review the speed of infrasound at different altitudes. Also, how do you know the speed of sound? Did you measure it yourself or did you trust the science man? Honestly, some science is ok because it appears to give you an edge, but other science can't be correct because it doesn't match your expectations?
Once again, you attempt to misdirect the conversation. I am verifying your claims for internal consistency. You already provided a source for the speed of (infra)sound - you're the only one who has anything to "stand by" here. If you prefer to use the approximate figure of 0.3km/s from your slides instead of 340m/s, that's fine by me, but it only makes your problem bigger.

Are you saying the IMS is fabricating their data on the event or that the scientists who actually do this work day in and day out completely missed this glaring (by your assertion) problem with their data?
Neither. There is no problem with their data. You're simply trying to shoehorn an invalid conclusion on top of it, and it is your hypothesis that is under dispute here. The "pros"' data directly contradicts you.

The main takeaway is that the speed of infrasound is variable, is affected by many factors, and can travel slower or faster than 340m/s. At times approaching 400m/s.
Temporarily, that is possible. But your hypothesis requires much more than that. It requires for your wave to simultaneously move at two average speeds which are not compatible with one another (by virtue of being very different speeds). Since your hypothesis produces a contradiction with the data provided, we have to either question the data or the hypothesis consistently for 24 hours. You know this, which is why you've been screaming about how absurd it would be to dispute the data. But you also know it's not the data that's being disputed.

The fact remains that there were two measured pulses and you've yet to explain how that happens on a flat Earth. This isn't an isolated case. Please answer how that happens on a flat Earth.
I told you that I do not have enough data to ascertain what actually happened in my very first post here. I'm not going to construct a hypothesis with insufficient data just because a whiny RE'er really wants to see one. Asking the same question again and again will neither fill the gaps in the data, nor will it address the simple fact that your hypothesis is self-disproving.

Are you saying the IMS is fabricating their data on the event or that the scientists who actually do this work day in and day out completely missed this glaring (by your assertion) problem with their data?  Your undergrad level knowledge of basic physics doesn't win out over the pros. Sorry.
Once again - if your personal epistemology emphasises only who said things rather than what is being said, you are doomed to be extremely ineffective in a debate.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:41:07 AM »
Again, try to twist what I'm saying and not facing the big picture. I understand, and so do you, what a pressure wave is. Saying we don't know all of the variables that affect how it moves in the atmosphere does not in any way invalidate what was said, nor, what was measured.
I have a sufficient understanding of physics to know that it cannot travel 1.36 times faster than the speed of sound. If we were talking about a smaller discrepancy, you could try to get away with it. But we're not.

Now, if you want to deny that or pretend that "we just don't know man!!!", that's on you - it just reinforces my recent statement that talking to devout RE'ers is a waste of valuable time. But your proof is still inconsistent even if we let go of that - because we also know the speed of the same wave between two locations on Earth. Either the speed changes magically, or the distance is about (at least!) 1.3 times as much as round Earth predicts.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dropping the other shoe: A new distance metric.
« on: September 19, 2017, 08:52:48 AM »
Your efforts to tarnish it by REPEATEDLY saying that I'm claiming accurate distances - when I'm ABSOLUTELY not - seems to indicate that you're either being deliberately and knowingly incorrect or you're not as knowledgeable about the simple laws of physics and the way ping packets travel as you seem to think you are.
Nah, I already explained my objections to the precise narrow conditions you're trying to use. Packets on the Internet travel so slowly that, for any two locations you've actually physically ascertained, you're going to get a "maximum distance" that's practically meaningless. Virtually everyone else here gets this.

I understand what you are trying to test and I think it could be potentially useful as a supporting argument for RE, but you still need to know the true physical location of your source and destination first.  The traceroute provided goes through the above.net colo facility in Ashburn VA and ends in Dallas, not Japan.  You just need to find some nodes that are known to be in a certain physical location.

To play devils advocate, I do not know with absolute certainty that a node with a hostname of  ae-2.r22.asbnva02.us.bb.gin.ntt.net is in Ashburn or that  ae-0.a00.dllstx04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net truly is in Dallas, but it doesn't make much sense to have nodes in Japan named like that.
Thank you for your excellent point (and apologies for missing it the first time around) - I should have looked at the hostnames instead of trying to reason about the practicality of his measured times. Nonetheless, it looks like my assertion that the machines were most likely on the same continent was correct!

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 18, 2017, 08:43:37 PM »
Wait - did you use ROUND EARTH distances between Alaska and Namibia?
Of course - why would I use anything else when verifying if your conclusion is internally consistent?

Tom would tell you that FEers don't have a map or know the distance between locations. He seems to be a trusted member here. Is he wrong?
Tom is quite open about his disagreements with the standard model, as am I about mine. That by itself makes us neither right or wrong. But, as you may have noticed, I haven't made a single claim here that pertains to FET - I am merely dismantling your conclusions by highlighting multiple internal inconsistencies.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 18, 2017, 08:40:29 PM »
Check you units. Tsar bomba was 50 MEGAtons. Chelyabinsk was only 500 KILOton.
My bad.

What account did you make for air temperature? What about wind speed? Did you factor in air density?
Are you suggesting that any of this could potentially affect the speed of sound by a factor of 1.36? Of course, I already admitted this and explained why I don't believe it to be significant - if you believe otherwise, please explain yourself.

Now, I admit that my calculations are based on very rough estimates, but I strongly doubt that making them more precise would help you any - your graph should be showing a returning wave after something like 1.36 days (or 32.64 hours), which it very clearly does not.

I think you need to understand that you, nor I, understand NEARLY enough about how the sound propagates in the atmosphere to completely throw out their data out the window. This event was heavily studied, if the numbers didn't work it would have been an area of study. Remember, these people think the Earth is round.
I am not throwing the data out the window - I'm merely using it to dismiss your hypothesis, which you personally crafted here.

Also, why are you presenting us with data you do not understand? I thought you were trying to prove something here. Why are you suddenly moving to "I don't know what this means but we should trust the science man"?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round
« on: September 18, 2017, 08:08:07 PM »
Sigh, children. What I am claiming is that the IMS detected the shockwave from the blast twice. Prove that it didn't
I just did that - the blasts detected happened too soon after one another for it to be physically possible to be the same blast. You personally provided all the data necessary to deduce this (except for the Earth's circumference, but I don't suspect you're going to object to that). If you believe my calculations (dividing one the distance by the time you gave me) are incorrect, or that my understanding of physics (velocity = distance/time) is incorrect, please feel free to state your objection in a coherent manner.

This is combined with the fact that you presented us with data for two locations - and between those two locations, the wave did obey the speed of sound. It only magically didn't do that when it was doing its round trip.

While we're poking at the inconsistencies in your hypotheses - how come that the Tsar Bomba was detected circling the Earth three times, but a more recent impact which was 10 times as powerful was only detectable twice? Did our measurement instruments become less reliable or sensitive over time?

I brought up that a shockwave moves at supersonic speeds since you made a quip about supersonic sound. If the air molecules are being accelerated faster than the speed of sound and that pulse wave hits your ear, that "sound" (which is simply pressure waves traveling through air) is traveling at supersonic speeds. A meteor traveling at 40,000 mph is going to create supersonic pressure waves in the atmosphere.
You presented me with a source which shows something else entirely - a somewhat similar event, over a somewhat shorter distance, ended up producing a slower-than-sound wave. Of course, we all know that the wave was caused by the impact, so the velocity of the meteor is not particularly relevant here.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 165  Next >