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.


Topics - JSS

Pages: [1]
1
Since the rules state we are not to discuss moderation in the topic that is being moderated, as well as a moderator telling me to stop, I am bringing the issue here, as it's been mentioned before that this is the place to voice moderation issues. Hopefully this post isn't breaking any rules, but this is the correct form to post this as I understand it.

I am unable to understand what Pete's concern here is. Please excuse the length and all the quotes, but I want to be clear about who said what, and my previous attempts in that thread was not met with any success, and I can see that the warnings are continuing in that thread.

The latest warning to the two of us was this.

I addressed a very specific scenario - the GIF featuring the Sun. I was informed that I was wrong in my claims. When I inquired why, I was presented with a bunch of arguments about cars and street lights. If you don't see how that's changing the topic, I can't help you.

I can, however, point out that this kind of petty trolling is extremely common for you two, and I can assure you that it will not continue. If you can't post on topic, don't post.

Here is the first warning I got.

When did I say you can see cars on the Sun?
Well, let's see. As always, context is key. I don't trust you to get it right, so I'll spell it out and provide links. My post quotes a post of yours, which in turn quotes a post by Tom.

An abbreviated timeline of posts is here.

Tom posted several images of streetlights and car headlights.


I posted a comment about lens flare, glare and camera settings.

Tom replied to my post and posted about polarized lenses and glare.


I then took and posted this image of a flood light.


Tom then posted this gif of the sun and contrast settings.


I  then replied discussing camera settings and the photo I took of the floodlamp.

This is where Pete entered the discussion with this.

This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.
Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.

I want to point out that he quoted me talking about my picture of the floodlamp. He did not mention the Sun anywhere in his message. He did not mention the Sun gif and if you look at the time line, the Sun gif was introduced well after the car headlights and streetlamps were being discussed at length.

To continue, I replied to Pete, and once again mentioned my picture and suggesting contrast experiments with it.

This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.
Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.

Lightroom won't work either, you are welcome to try it for yourself.  It's not a matter of what program you use or how good it is at modeling a camera, a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.

I really suggest trying with my sample image.  You won't be able to extract the shape of the light from the over exposed image, and you can't make a matching white circle from the correctly exposed image.

I then took some time to take an post this image because I was unahappy with the quality of my first and wanted to match Tom's first photo better.


This is Pete's next post.  You can see above the section he quoted from me was immediately followed by "I really suggest trying with my sample image." making it clear what picture I'm talking about.

a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.
The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

I replied to him with this. I included a cropped section of photo I was discussing as a reference.

a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.
The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

I never said it did.  The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

Which is the point, you can't measure overexposed lights and assume that's how big the actual lights are.  His photos are not showing lights that don't obey the laws of perspective, they simply have overexposed light sources in them.



Pete mentions "The image Tom presented" which doesn't specify which one.  In the next reply is where Pete first mentions the Sun.  In every post I made, I clearly indicated what photo I was discussing. This is the first time Pete mentioned the Sun.

The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.
You know, claiming to be able to see cars and streetlights on the Sun's surface might just be a new low for you.

Now, I understand that with long multi-page topics it can be confusing what particular point is being discussed, which is why I try to avoid snipping out single sentences and often include more of the previous post than is strictly needed.

I do not see the reason for the warnings given here.  I was very clear in what I was discussing. The car and streetlight subject was brought up by Tom first and is clearly on the topic of light sources and how they are seen. 

But I wanted to get some feedback here, where did I ever claim you could see cars on the Sun? Pete later mentions that if you follow the comment chain back you get to one with that Sun gif in it, but look at more of the posts and you see the streetlight images and discussions both before and after that Sun picture. And I mentioned my pictures and Toms street light pictures in all of those other messages.

I just don't see the justification for the warnings to stop posting and the accusations of trolling here.

2
How high is the Sun and how wide?
I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the basics of FET before posting here again. This expectation has been set out for you in the "read before posting" thread, which you have obviously read before posting. If you can't follow the forum's etiquette, don't post here. If you can't comply, I will assist you.

The rules state that asking questions about moderation in the thread being moderated are disallowed, so I hope this is the appropriate place to ask.

Can I get a clarification of what a moderator is telling me to stop doing?

There is more context in the thread itself so I won't clutter the forums here by copy/pasting it all but I wasn't simply asking that out of the blue. For reference, my view of the discussion at that point was it had turned to the terms used in the listed EA formula, and I was asking how you can use it if you don't have numbers for the Sun/Moon position and size to plug into it.

To be safe, I'll refrain from posting FET questions in the quoted discussion for now as it's not clear to me how I can ask any questions without referring to something 'already in the wiki'.

Thank you.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Electromagnetic Acceleration Formula
« on: May 17, 2020, 03:41:04 PM »
I have many questions about the EA formula from the Wiki listed below.  If you're going to respond, this is what I would like to have explained.



y = 3/4 * root((b*x^4)/c^2,3)

It does not make any sense as it includes the speed of light, which is a velocity, so the answer will also be a velocity, not a position. It's actually worse as it uses c^2 so what does that even mean in the context of calculating a position? What's a square second? This makes the formula unusable for it's intended purpose, and I'd like an explanation.

I can see it is meant as an approximation of some more complicated math, but there is no information on what those are, how they were derived or what data was used to do so.

It also includes an undefined term "Bishop Constant" with little indication what it is, or how big.  A fraction? A large number? Small?

The rest of my post is examining the Wiki page for any clues as to how this formula can be used to back up any of the claims, listed for reference.

I'm sourcing my information from here - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

1. Theory

This seems to say that light must bend and curve because cars don't go in straight lines. It then uses the Moon Tilt Illusion as evidence, but this is an illusion so isn't a real effect, so I'm not sure why it's being used as evidence. Nothing about how to calculate or describe the bending.

1.1 Approximation

This is where an approximate formula is described, but without any references on what data was used to construct it, or what more complicated equations it is derived from.

It is the only place any numbers are presented.

2.1 Clouds Lit From Underside

This says that light curves to hit clouds from the underside. It's just a simple statement that once again boils down to "bendy light".

2.2 Horizon Dip

Again, claiming light bends up and so this can kind of explain the horizon but not really. Once more, just a statement that "light bends".

3.1 Nearside Always Seen

This says that light not only curves, but curves in different directions based on where the observer is? Again, it simply states that "light bends" but doesn't explain how all this bending still keeps the sun and moon looking like perfect spheres.

3.2 Lunar Phases

This is also extremely vague. It just states that curving light causes the phases, somehow. I see a picture of bendy lines and one of moon phases in a circle but this lacks any detail other than that the Sun sometimes can shine in ways to make shadows and then the light bends so everyone sees the same shadow. Nothing on how this can be plotted.

3.2.1   Moon Position Table

This just renames the lunar phases, it's not data.

3.3   Lunar Eclipse

This states that eclipses are caused by the moon moving above the Sun, so light must only go down from the Sun. No reason given.

4 Evidence

4.1 Celestial Sphere

This says that EA makes the sky look like it does, and so evidence is, the sky looks like it does. This again boils down to just a claim that EA is correct.

4.2 Moon Tilt Illusion

This is an illusion.  It's not a real effect.  Zero relevance.

In summary, all the 'theories' presented just say how "bendy light" could cause all kinds of effects, but nothing at all on how all these very different effects could work together or how. As I stated in another thread, I could claim bendy light makes all squares look like circles, and have about as much evidence to back that up as I found in the Wiki. Since I did not get any answers in this thread I've started one focused on my question to hopefully get some answers.

4
Suggestions & Concerns / Built-in profile pictures are not secure.
« on: April 17, 2020, 12:15:00 PM »
I just noticed that all the built-in profile pictures are http and not https links.

Not exactly a world-shattering security hole, but something to fix if it's just editing a script or config line somewhere.

That would keep web browsers from complaining your site is insecure, which likely drives off a small number of people.

Pages: [1]