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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 354  Next >
41
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 09:15:05 PM »
Quote from: JSS
Or Hydroxychloroquine, which you ignored.  He certainly pushed THAT pretty hard.

And it works. There are more positive studies than negative studies, and 100% of early treatment studies show effectiveness.

Meta-Analysis: https://c19study.com/



Quote from: JSS
When did I refuse to provide a source?  You called me a liar in your very first response. Show me where I said I wasn't going to provide a source or stop saying that.

You still have not provided a source of Trump instructing people to ignore medical advice. You are just posting things that you are absolutely wrong about. There have been a range of medical opinions on these topics of masks and Hydroxychloroquine, which Trump has discussed at various times. Pointing out these studies and opinions isn't telling people to ignore medical advice. Trump has never told people to ignore medical advice. So stop lying.

42
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 08:18:25 PM »
Quote from: Tunemi
Tom, when someone addresses (say) two out of three things that you say, that's not your cue to say that NOBODY can address your third point, and claim victory.

If you had followed the conversation, JSS was trying to argue that Trump caused the extra deaths in the 200,000 because he was encouraging people to ignore medical advice and refused to wear masks. It must have been something more than him not wearing masks in public if he caused those extra deaths. So lets see Trump telling people to ignore medical professionals. So far nothing has been provided on this.

Quote from: JSS
You keep calling me a liar, please stop that.

Why? You said that Trump told people to ignore medical professionals and refuse to provide a source.

Quote
This is not a lie.  Here is some more anti-mask talk by Trump.

“Now there are, by the way, a lot of people don’t want to wear masks"
"There are a lot of people think that masks are not good.”

Howe about this?  He directly contradicted Dr. Redfield. That's directly telling people to disregard medical advice.

Dr. Robert Redfield, the head of the CDC. Redfield testified about masks, saying: “We have clear scientific evidence they work, and they are our best defense. I might even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect me against Covid than when I take a Covid vaccine.”

None of that is a direction to people to ignore medical professionals.

There were a range of opinions from medical professionals on the topic of masks.


43
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 07:37:33 PM »
So you guys can't provide a source of Trump instructing people to ignore medical professionals, or where he said anything about refusing to wear a mask, or said anything to discourage people to wear masks. Got it. You guys are just fibbing as usual then, for your own political meandering.

44
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 07:15:51 PM »
I’m sorry you can’t see that the USA underperformed compared to almost every other country despite having vastly superior resources at their disposal.

Your country is a sad, pathetic meme when it comes to its COVID response and Trump is leading the charge.

No. You're projecting again. The CDC stated that 94% of people who died from this in the US had other serious diseases going on. Any difference in COVID death counts between countries could simply be due to how many more sick people there are. Maybe in the European cesspit of medical science people with cancer and other serious diseases are dying sooner.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada-gets-high-ranking-for-cancer-survival-rates-1.309105

"The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent."

So sick people with cancer are surviving for longer in the US vs Europe, which means that there are more sick people in the US, per million. Everything isn't on an even plane. There could also be higher rates of sicker people in different countries for various reasons. Or more older people, for various reasons. Once again, the CDC said that 94% of people who died from this in the US had other serious illnesses.

As you stated, statistics are not science. There is no certainty on what they mean.

45
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 07:04:37 PM »
Where did Trump tell people to ignore medical professionals and refuse to wear masks or tell people not to wear masks? Please provide a source for that. I see that you are fibbing again.

The graph could be red because people in California and NY gathered and got it earlier. These statistics are not science, as stated by Rama Set.

46
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 06:47:45 PM »
Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

It continues to be a disaster.  The wealthiest, most advanced nation in the world has some of the worst case fatalities in the world.  This is a fact despite the lies he tried to tell Chris Wallace on Fox News.

It's also worth noting that there is a strong argument to make that lives were saved despite Trump.  If everybody listened to his idiotic prattling about the uselessness of masks and how everyone should just get on with their lives, then the situation would be markedly worse.

I don't see how 2M saved and 200K dead is a disaster. This is a triumphant victory for Trump that so many lives were saved.

47
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 06:32:37 PM »
Now, no one has ever said Trump did nothing

AATW says that Trump handled it wrongly and it was a disaster.

And which one of those opinions is a lie?
He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

So Trump did things that saved the lives of millions of Americans, by this logic.

Quote from: JSS
That was a projection of what could happen if we did nothing.

And Trump did things and saved millions of lives. Thanks for admitting that.

48
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 06:15:17 PM »
And which one of those opinions is a lie?
He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

Actually the scientific authorities were predicting over 2.5 million dead. Looks like it wasn't a lie.
Where is your source?  Considering the US has done the literal worst job of any developed nation, I am going to guess that your are cherry-picking or misinterpreting the prediction.

https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-08-21-20-intl/h_6f8ce2cf0a4ff534fc8bbf48f4374250

"Early coronavirus models run by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed as many as 2.4 million Americans could be dead from the virus by October, CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield told the Journal of the American Medical Association Thursday."

Another one said 2.2 million:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/europe/coronavirus-imperial-college-johnson.html

"That messy back-and-forth has been on vivid display this week with the publication of a startling new report on the virus from a team at Imperial College in London. The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain, triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus. American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public."

49
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 05:59:02 PM »
And which one of those opinions is a lie?
He literally says “we have it totally under control” in the first one. Back in January.

The 220,000 dead Americans would beg to differ

Actually the scientific authorities were predicting over 2.5 million dead. Looks like it wasn't a lie.

50
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 13, 2020, 04:20:58 PM »
And being optimistic about the coronavirus (he didn't say in a week though) is not a lie at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNpr7_iRHa8

And which one of those opinions is a lie?

51
Another quote from Anatoly Alekseyevich Logunov, a theoretical physcist:

https://pdfroom.com/books/the-theory-of-gravity/X623zYb6g4Z

"GRT does not comply with the equivalence principle,
does not explain the equality of the inert and active
gravitational masses, and gives no unique prediction
for gravitational effects. It does not contain the usual
conservation laws of energy–momentum and of angu-
lar momentum of matter."

GRT = General Relativity Theory, as defined earlier in the paper:

"Therein, also, critical comments are presented con-
cerning general relativity theory (GRT), which still remain in
force."

Here is another quote, from a publication of the AIAA on p.99:

"Newton proposed two formulas: the law of motion, F = ma, and the law of gravitation, F = GMm/r2. The mass, m, has two distinct meanings in the two formulas, one as the receptacle of inertia, the other as the source and receptacle of gravitation; yet somehow the two are identical. Stated another way, if mi and mg are respectively inertial and gravitational mass, then for any two bodies A and B, regardless of what substance they are, the quantity



appears to be identically zero. It was just this identity that Einstein denominated a principle (weak equivalence) and extended (strong equivalence) to all the laws of phyics in accelerated frames, whether the acceleration is ineitial or gravitational in origin. Strong equivalence is the basis on which it becomes possible in general relativity to represent gravitation by a curvature of spacetime. Contrary to what is sometimes thought, however, general relativity does not explain equivalence. The principle is an assumption that, once made, allows the effects of gravity to be represented thus. The phenomenon remains a mystery and still needs testing."

52
Quote
I don't see how declaring the equivalency as a fact provides a physical process for why it should be so. And apparently those authors I quoted don't either

That is more than just “declaring equivalency.”  It is an explanation as to why.  IM and GM are the same quality…as opposed to just the same quantity.  And Einstein made the point more than once.

Quote
Inertia and gravity are phenomena identical in nature.  From this and from the special theory of relativity it follows necessarily that the symmetric "fundamental tensor" determines the metric properties of space, the inertial behavior of bodies in space, as well as the gravitational effects.  We shall call the state of space which is described by this fundamental tensor, the "g-field"
https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/49?highlightText=metric

That's not an explanation of physical process. That's just a statement that says "Inertia and gravity are phenomena identical in nature."

Quote
If you want to play dueling experts, no problem.

Quote
The equality of inertial and gravitational mass, without which Galileo’s principle that all bodies fall alike would not hold, is an unexplained coincidence in Newtonian physics. To Einstein it suggested that there is an intimate connection between inertia and gravity. The universality of gravity’s marching orders makes it possible to move gravity from the column of assorted forces to the column of the space-time structure. General relativity combines the space-time structure (more accurately: The inertial structure of space-time) and the gravitational field into one inertio- gravitational field. This field specifies the trajectories of particles on which no additional forces are acting. Einstein thus removed the mystery of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass in Newton’s theory by making inertia and gravity two sides of the same coin.
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4377/

Feel free to look up the author’s credentials if you have any doubts about his level of expertise on Einstein or general relativity.

That author describes himself as a "historian of science" rather than a physicist or an astrophysicist.

Various physicists disagree with this. Your author just says that Einstein did it by stating that they were the same, like you quote above.

Quote
Quote
An equation does not directly provide insight to a physical process behind physics
Einstein believed it does, at least in this case.  Can you explain why he is wrong?

Where does Einstein state that if you make an equation it explains why processes occur behind those equations?

53
What you quoted is the same thing those authors are talking about. You quoted:

Quote
We then have the following law: The gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass. It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in mechanics, but it had not been interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation can be obtained only if we recognise the following fact: The same quality of a body manifests itself according to circumstances as “inertia” or as “weight” (lit. “heaviness”). In the following section we shall show to what extent this is actually the case, and how this question is connected with the general postulate of relativity.

Pg 77-78  The Meaning of Relativity by Albert Einstein

I don't see how declaring the equivalency as a fact provides a physical process for why it should be so. And apparently those authors I quoted don't either.

Your next quote is about an equation:

Quote
The unification of inertia and gravity is expressed in the geodesic equation

An equation does not directly provide insight to a physical process behind physics.

54
Quote
The first problem with this statement

That's a statement by a physicist. The problem is that you are not more qualified than the sources given on those pages. Why should we change anything based on what some person on an internet forum thinks?

Quote
In short, the wiki relies on the equivalence principle, which states that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing, and explains why that's true, to make the argument that inertial mass and gravitational mass are not the same thing and there is no explanation for their equivalence.

Einstein came to his theory because of the unexplained empirical coincidence.

     "Whilst preparing a review article on his new special theory of relativity, [Einstein] became convinced that the key to the extension of the principle of relativity to accelerated motion lay in the remarkable and unexplained empirical coincidence of the equality of inertial and gravitational masses. To interpret and exploit this coincidence, he introduced a new and powerful physical principle, soon to be called the ‘principle of equivalence,’ upon which his search for a general theory of relativity would be based. ” —John Norton, What was Einstein's Principle of Equivalence?

On p.112 of Introductory Physics: Building Models to Describe Our World by astrophysicist Ryan Martin (bio), Et al., it says:

     “ As you recall, the weight of an object is given by the mass of the object multiplied by the strength of the gravitational field, g. There is no reason that the mass that is used to calculate weight, Fg = mg, has to be the same quantity as the mass that is used to calculate inertia F = ma. Thus, people will sometimes make the distinction between “gravitational mass” (the mass that you use to calculate weight and the force of gravity) and “inertial mass” as described above. Very precise experiments have been carried out to determine if the gravitational and inertial masses are equal. So far, experiments have been unable to detect any difference between the two quantities. As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence!

So we have astrophysicists calling it a coincidence, even after Einstein's theory, and that there is no physical reason that the two are the same.

Another quote:

     “ Einstein himself thought the equivalence principle deeply mysterious. ‘Mass,’ he wrote, ‘is defined by the resistance that a body opposes to its acceleration (inert mass). It is also measured by the weight of the body (heavy mass). That these two radically different definitions lead to the same value for the mass of a body is, in itself, an astonishing fact.’ Francis Everitt of Stanford put it more forcibly. ‘In truth, the equivalence principle is the weirdest apparent fact in all of physics,’ he said. ‘Have you noticed that when a physicist calls something a principle, he means something he believes with total conviction but doesn’t in the slightest degree understand.’ ” —Nigel Calde, Magic Universe - A Grand Tour of Modern Science, 2005

A deeply mysterious thing that physicists don't understand.

55
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing Technology-Adam ruins everything
« on: October 12, 2020, 07:31:16 PM »
You are getting two projects called "Moonbeam" mixed up.  Again, these two amateurs  did their work before the project you mentioned existed.

The amateur "Project Moonbeam" done by W4AO and W3GKP in 1953. This bounced radio off the Moon.

And the Project Vanguard "Moonbeam" which wasn't started until 1956 to fund amateur HAM operator projects.  You even quoted that Project Vanguard started in 1955.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4202.pdf

The enthusiasm of amateur star-gazers over the opportunity to have a part in an important scientific venture early impressed the USNC's Executive Committee. Here evidently was a simple way of widening public interest in the IGY both at home and abroad. In response to the committee's suggestions that the men in charge of other phases of the IGY open the doors to amateur participation, in early 1956 the technical panel authorized "Moonbeam" for ham radio operators

Oh, so now you have two different Project Moonbeams for radio hams, one which is funded by the military and one which you think is independent, and which both take place within the few years of each other. How absurd. It says in the caption of the first image I provided "after three years of trying". These projects take years.

You quote doesn't even say that it was started in 1956. It says "in early 1956 the technical panel authorized 'Moonbeam' for ham radio operators;". That doesn't say that it was started in 1956. It says that they authorized it for something.

Names like Project Moonbeam and Project Vanguard are clearly military-style project names.

Quote
Actually, it is you who are once again mistaken by failing to line up the historical record in the right order. As JSS just pointed out, you have the wrong dates. The amateur moonbounce was in 53', pre-dating any NRL affiliation by 2-3 years. So again, what about their amateur moonbounce echo test do you disagree with and why? And please pay special attention to facts.

I do pay attention to the facts. You don't. If you had gone to the link JSS provided you would see what it was authorized for. The quote continues with a semicolon. Here is the whole thing.

"The enthusiasm of amateur star-gazers over the opportunity to have a
part in an important scientific venture early impressed the USN C’s Execu-
tive Committee. Here evidently was a simple way of widening public inter-
est in the IGY both at home and abroad. In response to the committee’s
suggestions that the men in charge of other phases of the IGY open the
doors to amateur participation, in early 1956 the technical panel authorized
“Moonbeam” for ham radio operators; the Naval Research Laboratory
accepted responsibility for indoctrinating licensed applicants in the essen-
tial do’s and don’t’s, chiefly by means of a descriptive and technical manual
to be prepared by John Hagen. At the same time Whipple agreed to draft
instructions for Moonwatch teams.
"

So no. It, doesn't say it was started in 1956. You aren't paying attention. Do learn what a semicolon is, and do read the sources that you are trying to champion. You are continuously wrong, and should do something to change that.

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing Technology-Adam ruins everything
« on: October 12, 2020, 07:14:34 PM »
So what if it references Sam Harris. The quote about the amateurs has nothing to do with Sam Harris. It's right there in the quote, "The first amateur work at receiving one’s own echoes was accomplished back in 1953 on 144 MHz by W4AO and W3GKP." See that, by W4AO and W3GKP? Sam Harris, W1FZJ, was doing his own thing and had nothing to do with the amateurs, W4AO and W3GKP. Why are you bringing this Sam Harris guy up?

So this conclusion you made:

Quote
Super cool that even amateur, non-military, non-NASA folks can do it, right?

Is dead wrong. An engineer for a NASA-connected facility isn't an amateur, or unconnected to NASA.

Actually, your conclusion is just weird and irrelevant. You bring up this Sam Harris guy who was doing his own thing and had nothing to do with the amateurs mentioned. Then go on about Harris' affiliation with space agencies, or whatever.

Focus on the amateurs referenced - What about their echo testing do you object to?

W4AO and W3GKP were part of Project Moonbeam

From http://www.ok2kkw.com/eme1960/eme1960eng.htm



Project Moonbeam had a "staff", from that same page:

    "Meanwhile, the staff of Moonbeam had been augmented by the addition of Ted Tuckerman, W3LZD, of Dunmore, Penna., who erected a 30-wavelength rhombic array in time for tests in late January."

Who was paying this "staff" to work on Project Moonbeam?

From Project Vanguard: The NASA History -



So it was the military sponsoring this project and paying that staff, to support their satellite/orbiter project and tell the world that amateurs tracked satellites, as related in a book titled Project Vanguard: The NASA History. Totally independent. Yeah right.

Once again we see that you are mistaken for taking these sources at face value.

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing Technology-Adam ruins everything
« on: October 12, 2020, 06:13:10 PM »
The NASA facilities existed. It just wasn't called NASA. The US allegedly put up a satellite before NASA was "founded". It was just a name change of existing organizations.

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing Technology-Adam ruins everything
« on: October 12, 2020, 06:03:30 PM »
Yes, the internet has been around for decades. And HAM Earth-Moon-Earth transmissions are decades older than the internet. In fact, from an article published by The National Association of HAM Radio (ARRL):

"A team of folks at the Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories accomplished the first attempt at bouncing signals off the Moon on January 10, 1946 on a frequency of

You must be getting pretty desperate of you have to cite something that the military allegedly did during the cold war. I guess you really do have nothing.

I'm not sure how, but you seemed to miss everything after that sentence - You must be getting pretty desperate that you have to have to disregard 9/10's of a post - Here's what you seemed to have missed:

The first amateur work at receiving one’s own echoes was accomplished back in 1953 on 144 MHz by W4AO and W3GKP... It was not until after many years of work that the first 2304 MHz EME QSO took place between W4HHK and W3GKP on October 19, 1970.[/i]"
https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/0210028.pdf

You're wrong though. Even that reference references Sam Harris. From your source:

"The first amateur work at receiving one’s own echoes was accomplished back in 1953 on 144 MHz by W4AO and W3GKP. VHF pioneer Sam Harris, W1FZJ, was also very active in the late '50s. Having heard his echoes on both 50 and 144 MHz, Sam decided it was time to switch to 1296 MHz"

From A short history of geophysical radar at Arecibo Observatory

"The Higuillales location was that of an earlier 15-m parabolic dish built by – and at the then residence of – the famed ham radio operator Sam Harris (W1FZJ) and his wife Helen (W1HOY). Sam Harris was the head receiver engineer for AO. He pioneered early moon bounce communications at 432 MHz using this dish, as well as the main AO dish (DeMaw, 1965)."

AO = Arecibo Observatory

From To See the Unseen: A History of Planetary Radar Astronomy on Arecibo Observatory:

Quote
In 1961, when the first successful detections of Venus took place, virtually the sole funder of planetary radar astronomy in the United States was the military. The one exception was JPL's Goldstone facility, which NASA funded. Ten years later, the NSF took over the role of prime underwriter of the Arecibo Observatory from ARPA, and NASA agreed to support a major S-band upgrade of the facility‘s radar. As a result, NASA became the de facto patron of planetary radar astronomy at Arecibo, Goldstone, and Haystack. NASA supported planetary radar at those three centers through a variety of financial arrangements. Only at Arecibo, however, did NASA formally agree to support a planetary radar facility, as well as the research conducted with it. That agreement, moreover, was an obvious departure from its policy formulated in the wake of the Whitford Report.

NASA and the military (ARPA) has been funding this facility from the start.

NASA continues to provide funding: Arecibo Observatory Gets $19 Million NASA Grant

So this conclusion you made:

Quote
Super cool that even amateur, non-military, non-NASA folks can do it, right?

Is dead wrong. An engineer for a NASA-connected facility isn't an amateur, or unconnected to NASA.

59
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 12, 2020, 05:35:07 PM »
You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

I have no idea where this stupid idea comes from but lots of things that aren't science are valuable.  All I am saying is that applying the scientific standards to statistics is nonsensical.

So your source doesn't meet scientific standards? Compelling argument there. Very compelling.

When you can support your ideas with science let us know.

60
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 12, 2020, 04:48:31 PM »
You guys would have no idea what the government is looking at. The government is always concerned about UFOs and UFO reports. That term doesn't even mean aliens, and has a military concern.

And being optimistic about the coronavirus (he didn't say in a week though) is not a lie at all.

Those aren't really lies. Falsely claiming academic credentials and achievements is certainly a lie, though.

some buzz words about the scientific American reporting on statistics being unscientific; this should t surprise anyone as statistics aren’t science.

Since you have discredited your own source it appears that you have conceded the discussion.

I have no idea what you are talking about

You discarded your source by saying that statistics aren't science. I can only see that as a concession of the discussion by you. Statistics aren't good enough.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 354  Next >