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 - totallackey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette
« on: June 14, 2019, 11:19:03 AM »
I agree with that. Amusingly, this what REs think of FEs.
I fail to see:
A) How this can be amusing...

II) Any FE adherents glad handedly slapping each other on the back, saying, "...attaboy!"

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 14, 2019, 10:56:18 AM »
Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"
Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

I like how you say things that would have gotten Clinton in Jail if we had a Republican president.

Oh wait....

So do tell, why is it you know this is fact but Trump does not?  Or can't prove it and have her arrested?
The following are indisputable:
Obama is on video, telling Medvedev to relay his ability to be more flexible "after the election," one which he has not won yet.

Clinton paid for the fake Russian dossier, using foreign agents.

Adam Schiff is on tape having a conversation with a Russian purporting to have dirt on Trump. Asks to meet at a later date. Does not report the call to the FBI.

All facts.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 14, 2019, 10:38:35 AM »
Trump: If Offered Dirt By Foreign Government On 2020 Rival, 'I Think I'd Take It' https://n.pr/31vcHI0


Trump: I totally would do that thing you all said I did with Russia and had a big investigation about.



My God, this is like OJ walking out of the court room and telling reporters "I'm glad she's dead.  I wanted to kill her a few times, ya know?"
Good thing the Clinton campaign actively went out to both the Ukrainians and the Russians, and in acting in concert with other foreign intermediaries, paid for the dirt, and brought it all back to the US, prior to Trump then.

Question: Can't Trump simply hire Clinton to do this work since she is so fucking good at it?

4
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: June 14, 2019, 10:31:02 AM »
I do not believe issues to be perfectly certain and as I wrote, it is not required.
Great! Consensus. It is not an issue for anyone here if we cannot achieve perfect certainty.
Do we also agree that we DO wish to eliminate the impossible and the highly improbable?
While you and I can achieve a consensus of two in this particular instance, it is a matter of certainty (LOL!) our attainment of consensus regarding issues of impossibility and highly improbable would be more difficult to achieve.

I would submit it is the occurrence of these highly improbable and (some would say) impossible events affecting  my life that would make it so.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God sent Gandhi to Hell
« on: June 13, 2019, 01:10:45 PM »
Something I realized: due to Christian/Jewish/Islamic doctrine and the 10 commandments, Gandhi, who was Hindu, was not saved by Jesus/God.  Thus, he went to Hell.

Ask yourself: what kind of being is God if he sends Gandhi to Hell?
I would believe he is the kind of God that would take no shit from the likes of you...

Ask yourself: What kind of mind is it that would seek to engage in the exercise of ouroboros malarkey?

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: June 13, 2019, 12:04:50 PM »
Let's dive into that. What makes you so adamant that perfect certainty is required or even desired?

I'll try to describe why for me, it is not. I'm really more an engineer than a scientist. I design things, and I want them to work - ideally on the first try. For this, I need a working model that can predict what my thing will do. Will that bit hold up to its stress load? How much energy will it take to get this thing started? etc. What I need is a model that I can use to design my thing on paper. I need enough confidence that when I build my thing, it'll actually work. If my model is good enough, my thing should work. If my model was too inaccurate, my thing will surely fail. So all I need is a model accurate enough. It doesn't need to be perfect. In fact, I know it won't be. I'm going to build in a good margin of error into the strength of my parts to account for that type of thing.
Perfect certainty is not required.

I believe most RE adherents exhibit the urgent "need," for certainty.

It is expressed by statements such as, "This [insert example here] demonstrates spherical earth perfectly..."

FE adherents seldom engage in this type of behavior.
Welcome back totallackey.
Let me remind everyone once again that this thread is not here for debate. We're trying to avoid arguments here.
I was asking Tom how he felt about the certainty issue. He had said he thought that science must prove itself absolutely. I have pointed out that is really not my point of view of it.
Please tell us how you feel about the need for certainty.
Speaking for myself, I was probably clear already. I personally feel no need for perfect certainty. Instead, I'm looking to separate the possible and the likely from the impossible and the unlikey.
I do not believe issues to be perfectly certain and as I wrote, it is not required.

I am not arguing the issue, merely pointing out things seem to be stated as being final, mostly from the RE adherents.

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: June 12, 2019, 03:47:58 PM »
I believe most RE adherents exhibit the urgent "need," for certainty.

It is expressed by statements such as, "This [insert example here] demonstrates spherical earth perfectly..."

FE adherents seldom engage in this type of behavior.
If anyone says "perfectly" then I agree that is over-stating it. But what we can say is that these observations:



Are consistent with the globe earth model. Part of the building is hidden by the curve and the further you are from the building the more of the building is hidden.
That is as we would expect.

The FE behaviour I see is people then get very excited if they use curve calculators and can show that the observations don't exactly match what the calculator says.
But that's a bit unreasonable. Those calculators are fairly obviously using a simplified model. Some do take refraction into account but they have to use a standard model of that, the calculators can't possibly know what the atmosphere was like at the location on the day the observations were made.
The more important point is not whether the observations exactly match the calculators but whether they are within a reasonable degree of accuracy.
And on a FE we wouldn't get this observation at all. There should be nothing stopping you seeing the whole building no matter the distance - so long as the atmosphere is clear enough.

The FE explanations for that are things like EA or "waves" or some weird version of perspective. All these explanations are basically claiming that the earth is flat but there are various effects which make it appear as if it was curved which feels like a bit of a cheat.
Your post, despite the opening, essentially boils down to "perfectly," (on the side of RE).

Just highlighting the most troublesome (and what I believe to be somewhat disingenuous)statements giving me this impression(compare and contrast these statements):
Are consistent with the globe earth model. Part of the building is hidden by the curve and the further you are from the building the more of the building is hidden.
That is as we would expect.


vs

The FE behaviour I see is people then get very excited if they use curve calculators and can show that the observations don't exactly match what the calculator says.
But that's a bit unreasonable.




8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: June 12, 2019, 11:40:04 AM »
Let's dive into that. What makes you so adamant that perfect certainty is required or even desired?

I'll try to describe why for me, it is not. I'm really more an engineer than a scientist. I design things, and I want them to work - ideally on the first try. For this, I need a working model that can predict what my thing will do. Will that bit hold up to its stress load? How much energy will it take to get this thing started? etc. What I need is a model that I can use to design my thing on paper. I need enough confidence that when I build my thing, it'll actually work. If my model is good enough, my thing should work. If my model was too inaccurate, my thing will surely fail. So all I need is a model accurate enough. It doesn't need to be perfect. In fact, I know it won't be. I'm going to build in a good margin of error into the strength of my parts to account for that type of thing.
Perfect certainty is not required.

I believe most RE adherents exhibit the urgent "need," for certainty.

It is expressed by statements such as, "This [insert example here] demonstrates spherical earth perfectly..."

FE adherents seldom engage in this type of behavior. 

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 04, 2019, 10:19:32 AM »

The economy, last I checked, is still on a roll.
Hiring is up but wages are stagnant. The growth in hiring is a recovery from the economic collapse the last time the Republicans were in the White House. The factory (and the industry) I work for has been clobbered by the tariffs, aluminum is suffering other global issues that are making it even worse.
Still working?

Yep...
Of course, the economy is good for the rich. Trump gave them huge tax breaks and he's rolling back the financial protections put in place after the recession of 2008. While he drives the national debt and deficit to record levels, the rest of us will go hungry waiting for the 'trickle down.'
The economy is doing well for anyone desiring to work.

Phrasing bad results in terms of victimhood is a decidedly low bar and typical of people lacking fundamental skills, such as clarity of thought.
He disrupted our strategic alliances weakening us strategically.
Oh please...Come on Kramer...


Not even one defined instance from you to back that up.


The Russians taking Crimea? The Chinese building new islands? The Iranians restarting nuclear enrichment?

What is Trump doing any different than Obama?
No definition of why any of that is bad, except some supposed experts (you know, the ones who get us into the messes you end up complaining about anyway?) say so...

These are things the Russians want. They want us spending billions on a useless wall while they deploy new underwater drone technology capable of sneaking a 2 megaton (maybe even one of the big 100 megaton) warhead right up to our beach to wipe out a city with a radioactive tsunami.
Last I checked every single weapon possessed by every "big ticket" military power resembles every other weapon across the board...nobody owns anything unique...

Now you're just trolling...

You don't think there is any difference in jet fighters between countries? You think Libyan radar jamming technology is the same as the U.S. You don't think there is a difference in performance between battleships?

You don't believe that in the next 6 months, the Russians will deploy a UUV system capable of sneaking a high yield nuke up into one of our bays? The U.S. Navy does have a similar project but it is far behind Russia and does not yet have the capacity to carry a payload the size of a nuke.

Everyone in America is glad you aren't in charge.
No.

I know there is no difference in the types of jets employed by the military.

One merely needs to look at design.

Same goes with all the weapons...they are all built by the same manufacturers, all peddled by these manufacturers.
By the way, one of the things that has kept our planet safe for decades is the fact that the Russians and Chinese hate each other. Now, under Trump's watch their holding joint military maneuvers. With Russian conventional/nuclear forces, China's cyber forces and Trumps bumbling, the U.S. is a sitting duck.
Not even close.

Not close, a tie. Mutually assured destruction is protecting us all.
Again, a big fan of McNamara...

Sorry, your status quo is wearing thin...
Hear me now and believe me later, Russia will make another power move in Europe before Trump leaves.
So? Let the Europeans take of the Europeans...

You know, I think I'll give you this one. Yes, the U.S. has it's finger up too many butts on this planet.

However, if Russia makes a move on a NATO country (or someone we actually like) then it's on. Currently, the Russians have no fear of Trump. The idiot wanted to join Russia in a Cyber Security Task Force. The real threat from America to Russia is that one of these days, Putin will hurt himself when he falls our of his chair laughing at Trump. Trump asked Putin if they tried to interfere in our elections and Putin said, 'no' so Trump believed him over all of his intelligence community. If Putin asked Trump about one of our secret programs, what's Trump going to say?
Why do you insist on purveying a non existent RED SCARE!?

Dennis Rodman made more progress with North Korea than Trump did.
LOL!

At least Dennis Rodman didn't negotiate away our rights to military maneuvers in parts of the South China Sea.
I see part of the problem...

You get your geopolitical sense of how things oughta be from "Entertainment Tonight."

Oh, I forgot...

Mary Hart caused you seizures...

File a disability claim...

10
This same depiction of reflected sunlight has been discussed before. No one (not even Totallackey) provided real evidence of the sun casting a shadow from a reflection off of a surface on to the bottom surface of a cloud.  All he has done is provide a false equivalency. To cast a reflected shadow you would need a specular reflection - such as a mirror or water. Most surfaces provide only diffuse reflection - grass, trees, most things in nature. He once even suggested that there is possibly a body of water that cast that shadow without providing one shred of evidence.
Rainier is surrounded by numerous bodies of water and is located in the middle of the snowiest place in the contiguous 48.

False equivalency your tuckus...

Plenty of highly reflective surfaces that could easily generate specular reflection.

Yet, you provide no evidence of this phenomenon directly happening. Only pure conjecture and hypothesizing that it can happen.
This same depiction of reflected sunlight has been discussed before. No one (not even Totallackey) provided real evidence of the sun casting a shadow from a reflection off of a surface on to the bottom surface of a cloud.  All he has done is provide a false equivalency. To cast a reflected shadow you would need a specular reflection - such as a mirror or water. Most surfaces provide only diffuse reflection - grass, trees, most things in nature. He once even suggested that there is possibly a body of water that cast that shadow without providing one shred of evidence.
Rainier is surrounded by numerous bodies of water and is located in the middle of the snowiest place in the contiguous 48.

False equivalency your tuckus...

Plenty of highly reflective surfaces that could easily generate specular reflection.
I've gone over this with you before and you still say this. Can you give an example where snow or an ocean has reflected so perfectly to cause a sharp shadow at such a huge distance? I'm very curious to see.
I would state a shadow on the underside of a cloud is evidence it is directly happening.

Sharp shadow?

Nice try.

You just disagree with my interpretation of the cause.
Because your interpretation seems to be baseless assumption while I've studied the effects of lighting and surface materials for over a decade.
Everyone, regardless of profession, observes directly the effects of sunlight reflecting off of snow, ice, and water, over the course of their lives.

I have seen these effects directly.

Reflected sunlight off these surfaces is certainly capable of casting shadows.
      
I would state a shadow on the underside of a cloud is evidence of sunlight directly hitting the underside of a cloud, not ambient lighting. I'd agree with you if only there weren't a sharp shadow being cast on the underside as well. I could be wrong but can you provide more examples of this effect or some kind of study into the effect on a similar scale? Like I said, in the interest of knowledge I'd really like to see this kind of stuff. :)
Like I wrote, we disagree on the cause.

I don't necessarily agree with your perception of the shadow, categorizing as it "sharp," but that is neither here nor there.

11
This same depiction of reflected sunlight has been discussed before. No one (not even Totallackey) provided real evidence of the sun casting a shadow from a reflection off of a surface on to the bottom surface of a cloud.  All he has done is provide a false equivalency. To cast a reflected shadow you would need a specular reflection - such as a mirror or water. Most surfaces provide only diffuse reflection - grass, trees, most things in nature. He once even suggested that there is possibly a body of water that cast that shadow without providing one shred of evidence.
Rainier is surrounded by numerous bodies of water and is located in the middle of the snowiest place in the contiguous 48.

False equivalency your tuckus...

Plenty of highly reflective surfaces that could easily generate specular reflection.

Yet, you provide no evidence of this phenomenon directly happening. Only pure conjecture and hypothesizing that it can happen.
This same depiction of reflected sunlight has been discussed before. No one (not even Totallackey) provided real evidence of the sun casting a shadow from a reflection off of a surface on to the bottom surface of a cloud.  All he has done is provide a false equivalency. To cast a reflected shadow you would need a specular reflection - such as a mirror or water. Most surfaces provide only diffuse reflection - grass, trees, most things in nature. He once even suggested that there is possibly a body of water that cast that shadow without providing one shred of evidence.
Rainier is surrounded by numerous bodies of water and is located in the middle of the snowiest place in the contiguous 48.

False equivalency your tuckus...

Plenty of highly reflective surfaces that could easily generate specular reflection.
I've gone over this with you before and you still say this. Can you give an example where snow or an ocean has reflected so perfectly to cause a sharp shadow at such a huge distance? I'm very curious to see.
I would state a shadow on the underside of a cloud is evidence it is directly happening.

Sharp shadow?

Nice try.

You just disagree with my interpretation of the cause.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 03, 2019, 10:14:48 AM »
China has been, is currently, and likely will be, an enemy state. It's a matter of when, not if, China invades Taiwan. That they currently have not already done so is simply because they understand they are not powerful enough yet; a relieving, but also threatening, notion. Nations such as Russia and China are dictatorships which continue to present themselves as passive enemies to the US and have economically attacked us for decades. To continue to allow the Chinese economy to grow at its current pace is not only morally bankrupt, but foolishly throwing our own future away.

If those with the foresight to deal with China right now, today, do not do so, then those without such foresight will loathe the geopolitical climate they're handed in 2040.
We have been preached to about the threat of China v Taiwan since the 1930's...

NGAS about supposed foresight that is clouded by boneheaded hindsight...

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 03, 2019, 10:12:39 AM »
I read the article quite comprehensively, and you're really not contradicting me at all, only substituting your own unflattering terms in place of mine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446136-professor-who-has-correctly-predicted-nine-presidential-elections-says

oh no
"...a lack of foreign policy success..."

Tells me the author is deranged...

Trump scores well in terms of foreign policy, unless you are a huge fan of meaningless, unjustified wars.
Does that include meaningless, unjustified trade wars?
Who says they are unjustified?

More TDS sufferers?

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 03, 2019, 10:11:41 AM »
Trump scores well in terms of foreign policy, unless you are a huge fan of meaningless, unjustified wars.

Not starting wars is a foreign policy score?
Give it time, Bush Jr was in office a couple of years before he started the big meaningless Iraq war.

Trump has disrupted our trade relationships weakening us economically.
The economy, last I checked, is still on a roll.
He disrupted our strategic alliances weakening us strategically.
Oh please...Come on Kramer...

Not even one defined instance from you to back that up.
These are things the Russians want. They want us spending billions on a useless wall while they deploy new underwater drone technology capable of sneaking a 2 megaton (maybe even one of the big 100 megaton) warhead right up to our beach to wipe out a city with a radioactive tsunami.
Last I checked every single weapon possessed by every "big ticket" military power resembles every other weapon across the board...nobody owns anything unique...

By the way, one of the things that has kept our planet safe for decades is the fact that the Russians and Chinese hate each other. Now, under Trump's watch their holding joint military maneuvers. With Russian conventional/nuclear forces, China's cyber forces and Trumps bumbling, the U.S. is a sitting duck.
Not even close.
Hear me now and believe me later, Russia will make another power move in Europe before Trump leaves.
So? Let the Europeans take of the Europeans...
Dennis Rodman made more progress with North Korea than Trump did.
LOL!

15
This same depiction of reflected sunlight has been discussed before. No one (not even Totallackey) provided real evidence of the sun casting a shadow from a reflection off of a surface on to the bottom surface of a cloud.  All he has done is provide a false equivalency. To cast a reflected shadow you would need a specular reflection - such as a mirror or water. Most surfaces provide only diffuse reflection - grass, trees, most things in nature. He once even suggested that there is possibly a body of water that cast that shadow without providing one shred of evidence.
Rainier is surrounded by numerous bodies of water and is located in the middle of the snowiest place in the contiguous 48.

False equivalency your tuckus...

Plenty of highly reflective surfaces that could easily generate specular reflection.

16
It is obvious the sky behind the mountain is lit.

- - In which, the original, or one of the samples I quoted?


It is obvious the ground behind the mountain would be reflecting that sunlight at different angles.

But where would the shadow on the cloud come from?

https://www.google.com/search?q=shadow+on+clouds+cast+by+mountain+at+sunset+sunrise&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB691GB691&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitpZnqo8PiAhVD5uAKHTz9DZcQ_AUIDigB&biw=1152&bih=773
The shadow is that of a mountain.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 31, 2019, 10:33:15 AM »
I read the article quite comprehensively, and you're really not contradicting me at all, only substituting your own unflattering terms in place of mine.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/446136-professor-who-has-correctly-predicted-nine-presidential-elections-says

oh no
"...a lack of foreign policy success..."

Tells me the author is deranged...

Trump scores well in terms of foreign policy, unless you are a huge fan of meaningless, unjustified wars.

18
You believe the surface is dark under the lit portion of the sky depicted in the picture?

Looks that way to me.

Like the areas in shadow here (sorry, link to page since Alamy won't allow direct linking to picture)

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-aerial-view-of-sunset-illumination-on-the-talkeetna-mountains-alaska-51952526.html

or like this

https://www.alamy.com/sunset-in-the-mountains-the-slopes-of-the-mountains-with-snowy-peaks-illuminated-by-the-last-rays-of-the-sun-image235121338.html
It is obvious the sky behind the mountain is lit.

It is obvious the ground behind the mountain would be reflecting that sunlight at different angles.

19
The issue of a shadow of a mountain cast on the underside of clouds is simply a matter of reflected light from the surface of the earth.

Reflected from what? The surface looks to be in darkness, not in sunlight.
You believe the surface is dark under the lit portion of the sky depicted in the picture?

20
The problem with that demonstration is that it fails to account for the path that the light from the moon takes before hitting the eye of the observer. Refraction is real and it has a very real effect on what we see. Since we don't live in a vacuum and the atmosphere as well as it's composition can have a very dramatic impact on what we see.

Even in the round earth model when you see the sun "rise" it's well below the horizon. When it comes to optics and refraction what you see is not reality. It's your visual cortex's best attempt at making an image out of a cloud of electrical signals.

Refraction wouldn't bend light making it curve under the clouds:


The issue of a shadow of a mountain cast on the underside of clouds is simply a matter of reflected light from the surface of the earth.

Your evidence for this, please. With sources.
What evidence is necessary?

You see reflected sunlight all around you.

Reflected sunlight is certainly strong enough to cast shadows; in fact, it is strong enough to inflict blindness and sunburn.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 44  Next >