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 - Benjamin Franklin

Pages: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 19, 2018, 09:01:52 PM »
Some are more tolerant/less religious than others, I'd guess.  Explain how you can be pro-abortion and religious.  Pro-gay marriage and Christian.
No one, outside of a psychopath, is pro-abortion. And it's not about being pro-gay marriage, it's about marriage equality. People were not advocating for a separate "gay marriage", but for equal marriage rights. And Christ was really clear on that shit

Luke 6:31 ESV
And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

John 15:12 ESV
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

I'm using andchat on my galaxy s7. Which I've not had a problem with in the past.  I just get a "connection timed out" message before connecting.

Anastas told me he's also having issues connecting. "Yeah it still gets stuck on 'opening SSL connection' ".  Iirc he's using atomic irc or something.
Yeah I have no idea what the solution is I just figured that was the information the real nerds would probably want. I've never found a mobile IRC client that isn't ass, so I just use my computer and a web browser.

I seem to be having trouble connecting on my mobile app! Any idea what the problem could be?
What app/what phone/what's the specific problem or error code?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Witcher 3 - Contains spoilers
« on: May 18, 2018, 05:59:38 PM »
Considering it requires that you make, unanimously, ALL of the wrong decisions. Most people couldn't get her killed by just outright playing, but I'm really glad you lived down to expectations and made it happen.
Yeah I got her killed too. Thork, we're not that different afterall. Just two good ol' degenerates trying to make it through life.

You want to drink some 40's and harass people on the street later?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« on: May 18, 2018, 05:44:08 PM »
For what it's worth, very few modern Flat Earthers are religious.

Are you sure? Some of the most prominent certainly are.
I guess I can only speak for my decade or so of experience within the Flat Earth Society. Of course, there are other Flat Earth organizations or individuals that are religiously motivated, but at least the type around here tend towards agnostic/atheist.

Polling Flat Earthers in general is a difficult proposition. We rarely have large in-person meetings, and online polls rely on self-identification. When you consider that Flat Earthers are both a minority opinion, and one that is often mocked, it's easy to see the data as less than reliable.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« on: May 18, 2018, 12:42:05 AM »
Can I suggest something?

If The Bible included passages which stated that the earth was spherical and it revolved around the sun, would we have the current situation with flat earth believers?

I think for most - for the religiously-motivated - it's less about an irrational belief in the shape of the earth, and more about being forced to perform mental gymnastics which appear irrational in order to support the notion that their holy book is literally word-for-word true.

Biblical Literalists would be just as against the flat earth theory as anybody else, if their holy book said the earth was a sphere (i.e., if those long ago Jews had figured it out and written it down, rather than either: a) not figuring it out; or b) not writing it down).

Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand...
For what it's worth, very few modern Flat Earthers are religious.

Technology & Information / Re: Your PC specs
« on: May 16, 2018, 09:48:09 PM »
I'll actually contribute to the thread, but in the interest of keeping this as low-quality as possible, I'll just sorta guess at what I have from when I bought my PC a few years back.

Some i7, i dunno like a 4700 or a 6 something?
two hard drives, an SSD and a big old HDD,
12 gigs of ram. An 8 and a 4 stick because lol
An under powered like 500w power supply or something

A logitech g502, the only mouse worth owning
Generic Mechanical Keyboard that is really clicky clacky
Shitty second monitor
Amazing Dell gaming monitor with like all the best stats and it's not even close. this shit was like 600 dollars.
Really nice headphones that barely work from lots of abuse
Generic $10 walmart mic

I'd be interested in the views of longer term users of the site ... particularly those who use the upper forums.
I've been dabbling in and out of the upper fora for a while, and I don't have much new to add, but I think Tom Bishop has the best approach here.

It may be a side-effect of the split, or just time wearing down the Flat Earth advocates, but it used to be that those that "got it" would be willing to advocate for a Flat Earth. I haven't seen a new voice, at least on this forum, enter the Flat Earth side in a while and there's only so many times people can handle the same discussions and questions from Round Earth advocates who refuse to lurk moar. Also, when did we quit having "lurk moar" as an acceptable response?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« on: May 16, 2018, 01:02:04 AM »
Also, in baseball news, I'm formally inviting all of you onto the Twins Bandwagon.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« on: May 13, 2018, 07:04:54 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Political compass
« on: May 11, 2018, 08:57:01 PM »

I founded America so this is the objective truth.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Atheism.
« on: May 11, 2018, 08:50:31 PM »
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists

    a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    "he is a committed atheist"
    synonyms:   nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
    "why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
    antonyms:   believer

Their mandate does not include determining the shape of the world, but they did so on the way.
Okay, but the political reasons an organization gets funding are never as simple as "so they can fulfill their mandate". There's a whole host of things that go into it that you can lean all about at your local community college's Political Science department. Or go back earlier into the thread for a brief discussion of motivations for a space agency beyond the shape of the earth.

You've already been shown photos of satellites from the ground. That gives you the burden of proof.
Are you just fucking with me now? Because you googled a picture of a satellite dish the burden of proof for explaining how it works is on me? We've established it's well within the realm of existing technologies to receive signals without the use of satellites orbiting a round earth. As for the specific mechanism in the case of this (admittedly random and possibly non-existent) dish, how should I know? Must I now individually explain every wackjob that claims to get internet by space, magic pixies, or dragons? You're making the claims, but failing to provide evidence.

If you are suggesting that the something which my dish is pointing at is not a geostationary satellite then you need to provide some evidence for an alternative technology which would allow something to hover in a fixed location for many years. It must be fixed, if a dish is knocked then you lose signal, the angle has to be precise which demonstrates that the thing it is pointing at is in a fixed location. You have yet to suggest what that could be or provide any evidence for how it would work.
You're the one presenting your premise (space-faring satellites orbiting a round earth) as fact. If you want to make the claim it's space-faring satellites, you need to prove your claim.

First of all, you can three get avatars? It's like I'm talking with three generic people named Terry.

Not needed is not the same as do not exist. I have a dish that receives multi channel tv pointing at an object over the equator. Maybe you can explain how it works with links to the satellite or otherwise operator.
It's hardly fair to expect me to explain how something on your property, which could be anywhere in the world away from me. We've already established there are many methods of technology that could be used. I can't be expected to describe a specific set-up that I literally can not observe.

The presence or absence of those other methods is not, of itself, a disproof of satellites.
I can't prove a negative. You're the one making the claim and I have to provide the evidence?

At no point has anyone claimed that funding for NASA was used to confirm what the shape of the earth was. You came up with that assertion all on your own.
So NASA isn't proof of a round earth? Got it.

Did you actually read my post? Highlighted in bold the part you are still ignoring.
You have let to prove a link between watching TV and the earth being round. You keep just stating your premise (this ridiculous orbiting satellite theory) as a fact. I have demonstrated, over and again, that satellites orbiting the earth are not needed for TV.

If no one mentioned anything about them being paid solely to find out the earth's shape then why mention that?
This whole thread is about why people would claim the earth is round despite the reality of it being flat. You don't think the motivation of space agency's funding is relevant to that conversation?

Here's a video demonstrating the products of Plane Wave Media. In it, you can see a telescope tracking orbital satellites, with the star field moving in the background as the telescope moves across the sky. You can see the output from the telescope, a depiction of the star chart, showing where the telescope is pointing, a view of the telescope as it operates, and a data chart showing attributes of the telescope and its targets.

Or do you think it shows something else? Do you think the manufacturer is tracking them based on something other than global tracks, and they're deceiving us about it? Why would they do that?

I can make a video showing the mechanics of dragons flying. That hardly proves the existence of dragons flying, it just shows off my ability to make a video. Hell, Tolkien made worlds with much more detail than round earth advocates can usually conjure up.

As for how the manufacturers of navigation technology make the stuff, there are numerous ways to transmit a signal both wireless and with wires that do not require orbiting satellites in space.

A+ strawman. Didn't Tontogary also tell you that those cables would be wildly impractical for a ship that regularly moves between continents?
I never claimed that ships at sea were using my personal internet connection.  If you're going to interject at least pay attention.

They are NOT paid for the singular purpose of confirming earth's shape. That is exactly what I said in that quote.

So then where did you get the idea that they were funded solely for that purpose? That was my question which you neglected to answer.
I never claimed it was a singular reason for funding. They are funded for a number of reasons I already addressed, and many I have not had to mention.

So if they are not orbiting a round earth, what do they do? How do they stay in a fixed geostationary place?
I've seen aircraft move at many speeds, as well as hold still. There are numerous methods that could be used, and I'm hardly qualified to tell you the exact mechanics of hypothetical aircraft.

We believe it is because the data is being beamed to a Geostationary satellite above us, which in turn relays that data to a ground station, which in turn puts it into the system of high speed data transmission used for the inter web.

What is your explanation? A few basic details would be good.
You want me to explain how the internet works to you? I can tell you my connection uses a series of cables buried in the ground, and the data usually runs to some major city and then back to me. It seems like running all the data up into space, or the upper atmosphere, would really be unnecessary.

Really? What better technology exists to get television and communications to places that are not reached by mobile masts and hard cables, and the limited range and bandwidth of terrestrial broadcasts?

When a ship is outside of about 30 miles from land there are no cables, and mobile phone technology doesn’t reach that distance, and there are no long trailing fibre optic cables, how do you think we communicate?
We have a satellite dish, gyro stabilised, to compensate for the ships motion, and this points up to a satellite which provides the voice and data connection we need. If this fails we do not have any connection. If the satellite is obscured by a mast, we lose data connection and voice comms. We need to switch or point the dish at a different satellite.
Please explain how this happens if there are no satellites. You must know how it happens to be able to say we are lying. In fact behind able to respond and post on this forum requires a satellite connection to allow me to do so when we are many hundreds of miles from land.

And guess what, there are no mobile masts floating around the ocean!

Some ships have satellite television that works in the same way. If not pointing at a satellite, there is no tv. Point the dish at a satellite, and hey presto, a picture appears. Just to make it clear in case you missed my earlier comment, we have no cables attached to the ship, no Wi-fi signal, and no mobile signal, and no terrestrial tv signal. How does that work?
I don't believe I ever claimed satellites don't exist. I just claimed they are not orbiting the earth as the round earth model describes. I've never doubted the existence of devices outside the human eye that aid in transmitting television signals. Just because you go in detail about some insane scheme you think is happening doesn't make that scheme right. I can claim my graphics card is powered by magic pixies, and type plenty of details about how my computer pixies are on a boat, but that doesn't make my pixie theory right.

Oh, I didn't realize the Russian Space Agency was a sub division of NASA.
I was demonstrating that space agencies can develop technology besides space travel, and did so. I'm sure the Russians probably invent things too, but I'm not as familiar and don't speak Russian so digging for foreign language sources for a concept already demonstrated is silly.

No one has made that statement, where are you getting your information from?
From this guy who said they space agency's aren't funded to confirm the earth's shape.
Also they aren't paid to confirm the earth's shape.

Pages: < Back  1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 20  Next >