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 ... 275  Next >
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Profile post ordering
« on: June 30, 2020, 03:35:10 PM »
Getting rid of the numbers might be the best solution. Alternatively, we can generate a random integer for each post. Or select a random emoji.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Profile post ordering
« on: June 30, 2020, 02:53:46 PM »
That is what it sounds like to me, too, but Parsifal seems to have interpreted it the other way, and I can completely see why he would.

In either case this is easy to implement and could be provided as a user-facing option. Though I'm not sure how beneficial this would be - those numbers don't mean anything anyway. The number of posts that can be shown depends on your level of access (we can see deleted posts, you can't, and guest can't see most of your posts because they're in CN/AR) and will pretty much never match the supposed post count listed in your profile (those are super inaccurate, and they're not actually tied to the number of posts you've made).

Basically, the post count is a variable that goes up when you post and down when you remove a post. Except not always, because SMF. The value is never cross-checked against how many posts you've actually made, unless this is triggered manually by the admin. Parsifal can also set my post count to -69, and it'll just carry on incrementing/decrementing from there.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Allow markdown for post formatting
« on: June 30, 2020, 02:25:30 PM »
To me, this sounds like an attempt to add complexity to an already overly complex system. I can't envision it going well. My vote would be firmly against.

If the concern is that you might have to wrap your posts in a tag, you could give youself an option to perform this wrapping automatically.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Profile post ordering
« on: June 30, 2020, 11:18:54 AM »
Your post can be interpreted in two ways, or at least it's not immediately clear to me.

Are you saying that, when viewing someone's posts, you'd like to see their oldest posts on page 1? Or are you saying that you'd still like to see most recent posts on the first page, but you'd like to see them numbered differently?

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Allow markdown for post formatting
« on: June 30, 2020, 11:17:17 AM »
I'm unconvinced that there would be much of an uptake of for this, but in principle it can't hurt if implemented correctly. If implemented incorrectly, it'd just make life harder while providing very little benefit.

The only way I can see this being feasible without an extreme overhaul is to introduce a [markdown] block BBCode. Maybe something like [md] if you'd like it shorter. You can then thwack anything within the block through a markdown parser. This also has the added benefit of not mangling previous posts, and of not impacting those who'd like to use an asterisk as a simple symbol instead of a Turing machine.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Library not on https
« on: June 26, 2020, 05:58:30 PM »
I don't mean to speak out of line, but I tend to agree with Parsifal (or whatever the hell he calls himself now), if it's just downloads, what are you going to gain by encrypting the link?
We're all in agreement that any benefits would be minimal. However, there are scenarios in which it could be beneficial.

The hypothetical risk here isn't that a third party will see what you're seeing (they can do that anyway in this case, as you pointed out), but that you can't technically be sure that the file you received was served by us. If I wanted to download something from the library over HTTP, I have to trust that my ISP or another malicious actor doesn't MitM me and force-feed me a file different from what I requested. The whole point is that if you request something via HTTPS, you have some reassurance that what you're receiving is what the sender intended.

The current state of the library illustrates that quite well, actually. You CAN fetch files from the library via HTTPS, but the certificate being served does not match the domain you've requested. This should trigger a security warning from your browser, and ideally block the file transfer until you've manually OK'd it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:43:31 PM »
It's a giant tax break for the wealthy, or maybe they do have a genuine heart - I don't want to be the judge of that. It's def a tax break though.
That's the thing, though. He's not donating his salary to charity. He's simply not taking it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:22:30 PM »
If this is true, and I doubt it is, regardless whether or not he gave up any money, he's still filthy rich.
Interestingly enough, a common argument among his detractors is that he's not rich at all. They'd tell you that he has relatively little wealth, and that most businesses he's ever held went bankrupt.

The fact that he gives up his salary as president is evidence of that. If he can give away $500,000/year, chances are he makes substantially more than that.
Then again, there aren't many rich people who would donate $500k to the US government. Indeed, most of them would happily take the extra dosh. What gives?

I've reviewed the warning. Thork, your post blatantly falls outside of the standards of the upper fora. It wasn't "related to the thread's opening topic or a natural progression thereof". The "person you engaged in debate" responded by pointing out that you completely missed his point. In other words, the response you're so proud of was literally pointing out that you're veering off topic.

Posting basically nothing other than a meme (two old memes in rapid succession, if we count the text) is not how you PR&S. If you want to say "haha cool story bro", do what literally everyone else does - start a thread in CN/AR with your super edgy response.

No one cares if you're the OP, the rules still apply to you.

Furthermore, your posts here are completely out of whack, too. You're doing the standard "boo hoo, Thork didn't get his way" routine. I'm asking you to stop. Alternatively, if you're so unhappy with how cowardly SMF's codebase is and how terrible it is that you can't just spam the forum with shitposts whenever you feel like it, you can find a place that suits your needs better.

As far as I can tell, Junker's only fault here was to continue engaging with you after it became obvious that you're just trolling. This thread has run its course, so I'll be locking it. If you want to escalate this, bother Parsifal directly.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: June 21, 2020, 10:49:26 AM »
I'm gonna take the lazy route. I don't really want to go watching through a bunch of The Young Turks to pick out specific examples.

I think you're right when you say it's employed more often by the right. Looking at Ad Fontes Media's media bias chart, there are obviously more unreliable media on the right, and it includes big names like Fox News. Meanwhile, the left-hand-side is full of "literally who?"

That said, I think it's also overly reductive to describe it as a problem that's exclusive to the right. I'd be quicker to describe it as a uniquely American problem, but then other Anglo countries are now starting to follow suit.

I suspect part of our disagreement might be in that we're exposed to different media. I see a lot of Occupy Democrats and the Daily Kos in my social circles, despite the fact that they're relatively small. I'm actually not sure why that is, but it certainly skews my view. My more passionate friends end up reposting shit that combines a photo of Trump with a Hitler quote while decrying right-wingers for being idiots who fall for fake news.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: June 21, 2020, 09:39:36 AM »
Why do so many people on the Right take the absolute worst examples of something and prop them up as evidence that their side is correct? I mean, the intent is so transparent only the nitwits already on their side ever fall for it.
I mean, that's hardly exclusive to one side. If a movement has a loud side that's easy to demonise, its opponents will try to make everyone in the movement guilty by association.

BLM? Whoa, rioters, looters, shit's on fire! Oh, and they think only black people deserve to live. How callous!
Gamergate? Bunch of misogynists carefully plotting how to eliminate women from the media.
Flat Earthers? All Trump supporters/ultra-socialists, every one of them, and some of them even hate Jews/are sponsored by the Jews!

Given how often this happens, and given the fact that people keep falling for it, I don't think you're right in dismissing it as something that only tricks nitwits.

Bonus points when you're given so much ammunition.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 21, 2020, 12:03:40 AM »
Where did i say gravity plus acceleration?
Every time you describe "a rocket accelerating away from any gravity". In other words: all the time, everywhere, without respite.

Pete, two observers that are stationary to each other in an accelerating frame, away from any gravity, really do see the Doppler effect.
Right, but that's not the signifciant factor in the shift you're observing from the stars. I pointed this out very early on, so there's no way you could possibly still be rambling about that. You're talking about the shift that supposedly contradicts observation. Hint: it doesn't, and as soon as you've tidied up your mess, that much will be obvious.

Lets forget about the stars for now and just concentrate on the Earth.
No, let's not. I'm not interested in your excuses and diversions. Fix your messy claims. If you do not want to take responsibility for your failures, then stop wasting our time.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 20, 2020, 11:47:08 AM »
I will try to explain (again) how we can see Doppler shifts when two observers are stationary relative to one another in a uniform accelerating frame.
You don't need to keep re-explaining it. You need to fix the errors in your claims. I even provided you with a handy list. Are you going to get started, or are we done here?

Once again, in case you forgot: Your failure is not in thinking that UA should produce an identical shift to RET's gravity. Your failure is in thinking that it doesn't, or, to be more precise, that it's not being outweighed by factors external to UA. Your abysmal misuse of formulae doesn't help, but it's your lack of basic understanding that's leading you there in the first place. Start unraveling the failures I've listed and it'll click. If you don't want to, well, I can't force you.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Infrared thermometer to read the Sun
« on: June 19, 2020, 02:46:49 PM »
You asked a nearly identical question half a year ago. You're misusing your thermometer and your measurements are largely meaningless. We do not need multiple threads on this.

Also, are you sure you want to throw this one away as well? C'mon now.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 18, 2020, 03:49:37 PM »
Pete, all those diagrams you have used above are Doppler shifts for 'sound waves', so are not relevant for this discussion as we are talking about light waves.
The Doppler effect applies to all waves. It applies to sound waves, light waves, ripples in a disturbed body of water, vibrations of a piece of string - waves. If you believe that sound waves would behave differently in your scenario, you'll have to state why. If you believe that the diagrams do not apply to the perception of light, please feel free to provide ones of your own which illustrate the same scenario, and highlight any corrections that you believe are necessary.

I suppose the last diagram is a little bit more on the lines but its still sound waves and the source and observer are travelling at constant speed they are nor accelerating.
I already explained why this is irrelevant. One: the bodies are stationary relative to one another - this will not change if you accelerate the entire system. Two: we are discussing the presence of a Doppler shift, not its magnitude over time. As such, we only need to concern ourselves with the relative motion of the two bodies (or lack thereof, as the case may be). The magnitudes of said (non-)motion are irrelevant. If you disagree, you will have to state why. Specifically, you will have to address my position.

It seems you are going against the Equivalence principle here Pete.
Not at all. You made two errors:
  • You chose one two scenarios which are not equivalent: gravity, and gravity plus acceleration. This is incorrect. For EP to apply, the gravitational element would have to be absent in the second scenario.
  • You assumed that the Doppler effect will occur between two bodies who are stationary to each other, as long as they're in motion relative to some other observer. This is a complete misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.
Your first failure is a problem because of EP. The second one is irrespective of EP. Regardless of which catastophe you choose to fix first, repeatedly crying about EP will not change this.

There is one more failure that I raised early on, which I don't want you to forget just yet:
  • You assume that UA is the only source of motion/acceleration of the stars relative to the Earth.
Once you've tidied up your messy claims, resolving this failure will finally eliminate all outstanding contradictions.

The Pound-Rebka Experiment
I already explained this to you several times. You're taking an experiment which concerns a gravity-free environment, thwacking it into an environment that is not gravity-free, and pondering super hard about why your results are not working out for you. You'd have to remove gravity/UA from your scenario to obtain reasonable results.

You cannot discuss RET vs FET with such an abysmal understanding of RET. Pick up a physics book and start learning. In the meantime, I'm not interested in more "nuh-uh!" responses. Either state your logic, or start improving your education.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: General questions regarding Flat Earth
« on: June 18, 2020, 11:02:08 AM »
Before posting, please make sure to familiarise yourself with the forum rules and the Frequently Asked Questions section of our Wiki.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 18, 2020, 08:55:18 AM »
Freefall at terminal is a very noisy place but there is no sensation of falling at all.  Only pre terminal.
Well, yes, once you stop accelerating, your inner ear stops perceiving the effects of the air's acceleration relative to you. What... what exactly is your objection here?

Like wise, we should be under the influence of UA, and we should experience a=0.
Incorrect. Please, at the very least read the article describing UA before posting here.

On the same rocket but now accelerating at 1g in space away from any gravity
Once again, for those in the back: the stars are not a rocket, and they are not accelerating away from the Earth. They are not moving away from the Earth, or at least are not doing so due to UA. As far as UA is concerned, the height of the stars relative to the Earth's surface remains static.

Your analogy would make some sense if you were to replace your source of gravity with an upward acceleration of a rocket. However, you're not doing that. You're adding more acceleration to the mix and acting surprised that your results have changed.  That's not equivalence, now is it?

Where a is the acceleration
a is 0. Therefore, %5CDelta%20%5Clambda%20%3D%5Clambda%5Ctimes%200. I'll let you crunch the numbers from there.

The Doppler effect occurs when two bodies are in motion relative to one another. Reference frames don't come into this. You can use one of the bodies as a frame of reference to help you simplify the task of drawing a diagram, but you can just as well do it from an external inertial FoR.

I would strongly suggest that you do this, even if just in your imagination. I'll borrow some diagrams from Wikipedia. Consider a source of waves like this:

Now imagine it's moving away from you. Imagine the observer is located in the middle of the left-hand-side y axis. Whether the source accelerates or not is not important, since we're only discussing whether the effect is present at all, not its magnitude. The presence of relative motion will therefore be good enough.

You can, of course, see that a point on the left y axis would now observe a Doppler shift.

Finally, imagine that the point is not stationary on the y axis, but is rather moving in sync with the source. We can draw it from two perspectives. One of them uses the source as a frame of reference. That's just a repeat of the first diagram I've linked. But we can also draw it from an inertial perspective for your benefit.

Even though the source is moving, so is the observer. Since their speeds are matched, the observer picks up the waves' peaks at the exact same rate as if both objects were stationary. Consequently, the wavelength is unchanged compared to the two objects being stationary within the inertial FoR.

The Doppler effect occurs when the source and observer are in motion relative to one another. The Equivalence Principle doesn't come into this. The two bodies are not in motion relative to one another (as far as UA is concerned), so there is no possible Doppler shift to be seen as a result of UA.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spotlight Sun
« on: June 17, 2020, 08:44:41 PM »
What is the purpose of forums Pete?
I will refer you to the "READ BEFORE POSTING" thread stickied at the top of this board.

If the information was there in the first place people wouldn't need to ask the questions.
You're proving this not to be the case.

It appears that this topic has run its course. You haven't bothered to read up on the basics, you have no intention of understanding the consequences of EA, and the intention behind your posts is blindingly obvious. Locked.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spotlight Sun
« on: June 17, 2020, 07:45:17 PM »
So what property of EA causes light to bend as FE claims then?  It certainly seems quite magical to me.   It is certainly not conventional as per the normal laws of refraction that I know. Hence my use of the word magical. My use of the term was more metaphorical rather than literal.
Please remember that you're expected to familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. If you can't do that, do not post here.

And as far as gaps in my knowledge of FE is concerned I hardly consider myself alone in that.
Certainly. Nonetheless, I'm not concerned with how common your ignorance is. I'm expecting you to follow the rules of engagement of the place you chose to, well, engage with.

that is the purpose of asking questions and indeed these forums isn't it.
I do not know what the purpose of asking entry-level questions in a board that specifically prohibits them is. I'm also not sure why I should care.

So is it case of you've just made that up because it sounds good or have you any actual evidence to back up the claimed connection between EA and the Sun and Moon?
You're asking whether I have any evidence that a property of light is linked to certain light sources. I'll let that sink in.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 275  Next >