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 - Parsifal

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 87  Next >
41
In this case, I'd say it's more like opening your front door when you already know perfectly well who's on the other side.

And this is why you shouldn't be touching that setting.

42
Well, that cleared everything up. Thanks for explaining. ::)

If you don't understand why Pete would think it's a terrible idea, you shouldn't be touching that setting.

43
Fixed.

44
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 12, 2018, 07:01:30 PM »
Maybe this will sink in the fifth time you read it.

Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.

45
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 12, 2018, 06:30:56 PM »
How the upper diagram (yours) can be correct but the lower diagram (mine) be a misinterpretation, I may just not have the mental capacity to understand.


Both diagrams are correct. Neither one shows a light ray corresponding to the horizon. Draw that, with the same curvature as the one from the Sun, and then see where the Sun is in relation to the horizon.

46
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 12, 2018, 04:44:51 PM »
How can that be?

I have already explained that, to which you responded by claiming that you weren't making the misinterpretation that you are now making again. I doubt I would be any more successful the second time.

47
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 12, 2018, 10:30:30 AM »
Not what I'm doing nor describing. If light from the sun has curved past parallel to the flat earth's surface, and I'm seeing it, where does the sun appear to be?

This is a vague question, but since we were talking about its position relative to the horizon, I'll assume that's what you mean. The Sun appears to be above the horizon.

48
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 12, 2018, 07:50:36 AM »
Now, if this curving light is responsible for the appearance of the sun "setting" phenomenon on a flat (but irregular) surface, then at an elevation above the obstructions of that surface, I should be able to intercept some rays that have gone past parallel to the earth and are now propagating along a path that would cause the sun to appear below the horizon.

Incorrect. Any light reflected off the Earth, which is what you would see as the horizon, curves in exactly the same manner. You cannot treat sunlight as curved and other light as straight and expect any conclusion other than nonsense.

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 11, 2018, 10:19:09 PM »
Shall I number the rays for you so you can understand my word soup?

If that would help you to convey your point, then go right ahead. I would also be satisfied with you writing coherent English.

Tangent means the ray isn't obstructed. Tangent means the ray continues on and continues to curve.

That isn't what "tangent" means, and that doesn't follow from what "tangent" means in the case where a flat approximation of the Earth doesn't account for hills, trees, buildings and other obstacles.

Sunrise and sunset points are where the earth obstructs the sun, are they not?

In theory, no. In practice, yes, because something parallel and very close to the Earth's surface is almost always going to hit some sort of structure or object. None of this makes very much difference, however.

Okay. So it's the flat earth that's tangent to those two rays, which are then not obstructed, by definition of what it means to be tangent.

That's not correct, but I'll address your later points anyway since this isn't relevant.

But the tangent rays do continue unobstructed, curving away from the earth. Which means that from a vantage point above the flat earth's surface, beyond the point of sunset/sunrise, one can see the rays.

Correct. The same prediction is made by RET. You can even observe this yourself, if you'd care to take an aeroplane ride around sunset.

Because it's a weird concept. Does my diagram illustrate the concept too? (It's one of the "all" but maybe you meant all, excluding mine?

I did mean to include yours. The specific curvature in yours is wrong (I have no idea why you have solar rays arbitrarily meeting again at some point over the night zone), but it is accurate as it pertains to EA's model of sunrise and sunset.

Are there more rays than that last ones that are tangent to the earth, marking as you say sunrise and sunset?

I don't understand the question. There are of course more such rays arranged in a roughly circular formation because the Earth is three-dimensional, but within the plane of this diagram, there are no more than the ones you have drawn.

Are the more that are not tangent, that don't reach the earth's surface but keep curving upward?

Well, any light rays emitted in an upwards direction from the Sun will obviously never reach the Earth. Some emitted downwards will also curve away before they ever reach the Earth.

Like in my diagram?

Yes.

50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 10, 2018, 10:28:55 PM »
SiDawg's added rays are the last ones? That's where the spotlight "edge" of the sun's illumination is? Or can we keep drawing more EA curved rays that hit tangent to the flat earth surface further and further away?

Can you please try to form meaningful sentences? It's hard to guess at what meaning your word soup might have been intended to convey.

There are only two rays in that diagram to which the Earth's surface is a tangent, and those are the sunrise and sunset points. It doesn't make any sense to describe these light rays as tangent to the Earth, because the rays are curved and the Earth is not. A tangent to a straight line is just that straight line itself.

Nearer to the Sun, the rays strike the Earth at an oblique angle, until you get directly under the Sun and the rays are perpendicular to the Earth.

Farther from the Sun than the sunrise/sunset point, there is no path a light ray can take to get from the Sun to the Earth's surface except by going through the Earth itself. Since the Earth is opaque, these paths cannot be taken.

All of the diagrams thus far posted illustrate this idea, even if the specific curvature depicted is inaccurate. I do not understand why it needs to be made so complicated.

51
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: June 10, 2018, 01:52:59 AM »


But if the sun's light curves upward, the earth doesn't eventually obstruct your view of the sun. You'll see it below the earth's obstruction, like a mirage as the rays which are bent tangent to the surface continue on and bend upwards.

What are you trying to say? There are very clearly no rays of light in that diagram which reach the observer. This is exactly the EA explanation for sunset.

52
Technology & Information / Re: GDPR
« on: June 02, 2018, 12:12:21 PM »
Google is a huge tech company using Android and paying no one to use it. It makes a fortune from its app store. Linus Torvald is a peasant when compared with the likes of Sergey Brin or Bill Gates. Linux is not owned by a successful global tech giant that makes squillions of money.

Of course Linux isn't "owned" by anybody. That's what makes it open-source. This doesn't mean that none of the people and companies who use it make any money from it, as you have correctly pointed out occurs with Android.

None of this makes any difference to the fact that "Linux doesn't make money like Android" is a hilariously nonsensical statement.

To top it all off, Linus Torvalds lives in the US, so it doesn't make any difference to your "EU a shit" rant whether or not he makes a lot of money out of it.

53
Technology & Information / Re: GDPR
« on: June 02, 2018, 12:03:24 PM »
Split this rant off to somewhere more appropriate than S&C. Now to business...

Linux doesn't make money like Android

I can't stop laughing at this. You know that Android is Linux, right?

54
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: GDPR
« on: May 29, 2018, 04:24:25 PM »
No, we haven't.

If anyone needs clarification on how we use your data: Your posts go into a database and are then displayed when somebody reads the threads you posted in later.

55
Out of scope, but has there ever been any thought to hosting out own images allowing users upload?

This is already possible, although it might be worth considering increasing the size limit.

56
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Political compass
« on: May 20, 2018, 01:41:19 PM »
I think children should be parented

Whoa there, Stalin.

57
Or maybe it was a specific range of IP addresses because I have an IPv6 address and never had any problems connecting.

No, the server literally did not have an IPv6 address. It could not be accessed at all over IPv6.

It's possible that either your IRC client explicitly uses IPv4, or it has a very short connection timeout and falls back to IPv4 after that elapses.

58
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Political compass
« on: May 19, 2018, 10:14:53 PM »
Taxation is infrastructure, infrastructure is necessary, taxation is necessary.

Both of your premises are wrong. How remarkable.

59
Apparently the server didn't get its IPv6 address configured after the most recent maintenance (for some reason?). This meant that if you had an IPv6 address on your phone (or on any device), the connection would time out. I'm still not sure what happened, but I've manually configured the address for now and confirmed it works with Rushy. Sorry about that.

60
I'd be interested in the views of longer term users of the site ... particularly those who use the upper forums. I care less about what new people think and not so much about those that never venture from CN or AR because to be honest, they likely wouldn't even notice and this isn't their problem. But Rushy, Junker, Parsifal, Dither etc.

I've always said my main concern is providing a reliable platform for debate to happen rather than being overly invested in how the debate happens. I haven't posted much in the upper fora in years and I'm happy to let the people who do post there decide this.

Now, if you ever have some suggestions for how to better architect our hosting setup for reliability, then I'll be a more active participant in the discussion.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 87  Next >