CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24080
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:19 pm
 


CharlesAnthony wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:
So tell is, arbiter of truth, how did NASA fake those photographs that we all saw in newspapers and Magazines, back in 1969? [huh]
The image is fake by the laws of rudimentary geometry.

Oh please go on.


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30082
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:50 pm
 


He wouldn't know rudimentary geometry if it bit his quadrilateral.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35241
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:04 pm
 


CharlesAnthony wrote:
You did not answer my questions.
No problem. You are not obligated.


I asked for clarification. Are you going to? Do you actually expect an answer, or are you just pretending to have them?

CharlesAnthony wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
Take your globe, put pins in it representing those those locations. Take string proportional to the distance to the moon, and apparent angle listed in your links.

The two strings, from the apparent angles and distances, will meet where the moon physically was.
Strings???
I am sorry, I thought you knew what a protractor is and some rudimentary geometry.


Well yes, that's why a flat surface only touches a sphere at a single point, and why I ased exactly what you are trying to demonstrate. Tough to answer a question that is only gobbledygook.

CharlesAnthony wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
So tell is, arbiter of truth, how did NASA fake those photographs that we all saw in newspapers and Magazines, back in 1969? [huh]
The image is fake by the laws of rudimentary geometry.

Scientists Are Figuring Out How to Get Astronauts to Eat Their Own Poop


So what does recycling of waste got to do with a photograph I clearly remember being in magazines - and is responsible for starting the environmental movement?

How was it faked?


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35241
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:08 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
I don't think it's any of those, check out the time in his links

utc-3, -5, and -12. But all the same "time".

He's not accounting for time zones from the looks of it. 12:52 utc-3 is not 12:52 utc-5 and utc-12


If you were to imagine that flat surface wrapped around a sphere, then the lines to the apparent solar position will nearly be at right angles to the points he's chosen. But there is a slight rotation to the points that I assumed would be because of the tilt of the Earth with respect to the orbital plane.

And yes, I noticed he's got the time zones all messed up, but if he performed an experiment he'd have figured that out for himself. Hopefully. ;)


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35241
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:16 pm
 


Quote:
New image shows Betelgeuse isn’t dimming evenly

Image

From Earth's perspective, one of the brightest stars in the sky is the red supergiant Betelgeuse. Found in the constellation of Orion, it's large enough and close enough that when it's destroyed in an inevitable supernova, it will put on a spectacular light show for anyone who happens to be on Earth to see it. So when the star started dimming late last year, speculation rose that the show was about to start.

Because Betelgeuse is so large and so close, it's actually possible to resolve some details of its surface rather than simply seeing it as a point source of light. Some astronomers have used the Very Large Telescope at the European Southern Observatory to do just that, and they've found something extremely weird: Betelgeuse's dimming isn't even.

As you can see in the before-and-after images above, Betelgeuse was more or less spherical about a year ago. By December, it was most decidedly not. While the upper hemisphere of the star looked much as it had a year earlier, the lower portion looked diffuse and distorted, with at least two regions of distinct brightnesses.

What in the world could be going on here? Betelgeuse has always been a variable star (though far less variable than at present), and there are a couple of potential causes. Both are related to the star's enormous size, which means that its surface layers are only distantly and indirectly related to the fusion reactions that are taking place in its core.

That means the star has only a tenuous gravitational grip on some of its outer layers, which have a lot of heavier elements in them due to Betelgeuse's advanced age. The net result of this is the production of dust—lots of dust. Eventually, that dust will go into seeding heavier elements into newborn exosolar systems, helping produce rocky planets like Earth. But in the meantime, it's still in the area of Betelgeuse, which the European Southern Observatory has helpfully imaged as well. It's possible that the dimming is simply caused by a dense cloud of dust residing between us and the star.



https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02 ... ng-evenly/


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 64817
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:19 pm
 


I'm seriously hoping that thing goes off soon!


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35241
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:26 pm
 


Say it's name 3 times, maybe it will blow. ;)


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30082
PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:04 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
Quote:
New image shows Betelgeuse isn’t dimming evenly/

He!He!He! :twisted:

Image


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35241
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:26 am
 


Quote:
Don Eyles: Extra! Weird-Looking Freak Saves Apollo 14!
A mantra of peace and love — fueled by a little weed — inspires M.I.T.’s latest computer genius
By Timothy Crouse

March 18, 1971 12:00PM ET

Image

This doggerel, prominently posted on a wall of M.I.T.’s Draper Laboratory, celebrates the heroism of Don (The Ey) Eyles, the 27-year-old computer expert whose quick calculations spared Apollo 14 the ignominy of returning from the moon without ever having touched down.

The Draper Lab (named after Charles Stark Draper, “The Father of Inertial Guidance”) has the NASA contract for programming the computers that keep the spaceships on course. Eyles, who has worked at the Lab ever since he graduated from Boston University in 1966, specializes in writing programs for the landing phase of moonshots.

As the Lunar Module neared the moon last month, a vital switch broke down, jeopardizing the landing. Eyles took only two hours to devise a new computer program that bypassed the faulty switch. Not exactly the little Dutch boy, but heroic enough for 1971.

A week after his feat, Don Eyles, wearing John Lennon glasses, a drooping mustache, long blond hair, black cords and shitkickers, walks down a long hall past phones labeled “Don’t Chatter Classified Matter” and red padlocked waste cans marked “Classified Waste Only” on his way to Draper’s million-dollar mockup of the Lunar Module. The mock-up is his favorite toy. “I remember so many afternoons just sitting in this thing, flying around the universe at random,” he says in his soft Georgia accent.

“This one’s pretty crude actually,” he says, tapping the plywood frame and vainly trying to make a slide show of the lunar surface appear in the window of the Module. “They have some beautiful ones in Cape Kennedy and Houston. I’ve flown in those, too — even crashed ’em.”

Seating himself in front of the Module’s dazzling instrument panel, he points to a large, yellow “Abort” button in the middle of the board. “That’s the switch,” he says. An astronaut pushes the abort switch if anything goes wrong with the descent to the moon’s surface. The switch tells the on-board computer to reverse the engines — blasting the Module away from the moon, back into orbit. On the Apollo 14 flight, the switch accidentally jammed and would have told the computer to reverse the Module’s course despite the fact that the astronauts wanted to complete the descent. “We had to write a new program that would make the computer not see the switch,” says Eyles.

Eyles finished his task only 10 minutes before the Module was due to drop down toward the moon. As he worked out his solution, which involved punching in 26 sets of five-digit figures, his colleagues checked his calculations on the mock-up’s computer and phoned the results to Houston.

Celebrity immediately descended upon Eyles. Reporters from newspapers and radio stations called him incessantly. The presidents of both Boston University and M.I.T. sent letters of congratulations. The Boston City Council summoned him to City Hall. “There were 10-minute handshakes with all these politicians who I expected not to like but turned out to like in a way,” says Eyles. “They passed a resolution with a lot of whereases and things in my honor. I was introduced to Monsignor somebody-or-other. I was stoned out of my mind.”
. . .




https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... -14-40737/


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1460
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:04 am
 


Quote:
Some astronomers have used the Very Large Telescope at the European Southern Observatory to do just that, and they've found something extremely weird: Betelgeuse's dimming isn't even.
Great news! Maybe 1 day real people will be able to see it!!!
The thpathe cadet army can charge tourists $10 to catch a glimpse through the Very Large Telescope and end world poverty!!! The thpace farthe can 1 day start doing something good for the world!



BartSimpson wrote:
I'm seriously hoping that thing goes off soon!
Why?
You are never going to see it.



DrCaleb wrote:
Well yes, that's why a flat surface only touches a sphere at a single point, and why I ased exactly what you are trying to demonstrate. Tough to answer a question that is only gobbledygook.
If you test what you were told, you would hit geometrical inconsistencies. You have demonstrated that you do not test the elements of your faith.
No problem. I believe the testimony (from 2K years ago) of 12 men (whom I never met) that shares the good news that God came down in the flesh and walked on water and swam on land. I do not test that either.

DrCaleb wrote:
How was it faked?
The marble is in the wrong place. If everything NASA tells us is true about that bullshit mission, then that image is impossible to photograph. Just like you, they know fuck-all about basic geometry.

I aint throwing pearls before swine. Good Xians need to be able to smell blasphemous XINOs from a mile away without the devil knowing that his puppets have been identified.

If you tested what you were told --- instead of parroting Disney/NASA/Hollyweirdo fantasy headlines --- you would have arrived at the same conclusion yourself a long time ago.



Tricks wrote:
CharlesAnthony wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
So tell is, arbiter of truth, how did NASA fake those photographs that we all saw in newspapers and Magazines, back in 1969? [huh]
The image is fake by the laws of rudimentary geometry.
Oh please go on.
No. It is a litmus test to distinguish people who believe what they are told without questioning from people who have a scientific mind. I already did all of the hard work for you. You just have to copy it and apply the same principles to what you believe to be true about the "moon landings" that everybody saw on the radio.

If you need me to demonstrate basic geometry of the space farce, I will do it but you are going to have to take my bet: I bet you 1000$ that I can prove that photograph is a lie using only NASA's public testimony and YOUR globe and YOUR tennis/ping-pong ball to model the moon. I suggest you attempt to re-create the crime scene before you believe any more science fiction fantasy.

Quote:
Jésus Fils de Marie (als) a recommandé de ne pas déposer la sagesse auprès de qui ne la mérite pas, car c'est injuste envers elle, comme il a recommandé de ne pas en priver qui en est digne, car c'est injuste envers lui ; il a recommandé d'être tel le médecin attentionné qui dépose le remède juste sur la maladie. Une autre version rapporte que Jésus Fils de Marie (als) a dit : celui qui dépose la sagesse auprès de ceux qui ne la méritent pas a commis une ignorance, et celui qui la refuse à qui la mérite a commis une injustice. La sagesse a un droit et des gens, il faut donner à chacun son dû.
VIVIFICATIO SCIENTIAE RELIGIONUM Abou Hamed Mohammad ben Mohammad ben Mohammad al-Ghazali Attouçi


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35241
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:38 am
 


CharlesAnthony wrote:
Quote:
Some astronomers have used the Very Large Telescope at the European Southern Observatory to do just that, and they've found something extremely weird: Betelgeuse's dimming isn't even.
Great news! Maybe 1 day real people will be able to see it!!!
The thpathe cadet army can charge tourists $10 to catch a glimpse through the Very Large Telescope and end world poverty!!! The thpace farthe can 1 day start doing something good for the world!

BartSimpson wrote:
I'm seriously hoping that thing goes off soon!
Why?
You are never going to see it.


You can see it any time you like, free of charge. Betelguse is the star that forms the left shoulder of the constellation Orion. If you whip out the telescope I challenged you to make (Newton made his 300 years ago from apple seeds and spit, what is stopping you?) then you can see a better view of it. It looks mighty fine in my 8" reflector.

Image

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bete ... -1.5407038

CharlesAnthony wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
Well yes, that's why a flat surface only touches a sphere at a single point, and why I ased exactly what you are trying to demonstrate. Tough to answer a question that is only gobbledygook.
If you test what you were told, you would hit geometrical inconsistencies. You have demonstrated that you do not test the elements of your faith.


Faith is not required where equations prove that a sphere touches a flat surface (ie: a protractor) at only one point.



So, explain to us what you mean by "geometrical inconsistencies" when a flat surface encounters a perfect sphere? What should we see when we put a protractor on to a sphere that leads to "geometrical inconsistencies"?

Show your work.

CharlesAnthony wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
How was it faked?


The marble is in the wrong place. If everything NASA tells us is true about that bullshit mission, then that image is impossible to photograph. Just like you, they know fuck-all about basic geometry.


What "basic geometry", exactly? Show me your calculations where orbiting one sphere that orbits another sphere will not result in that exact condition.

You claim to have watched "The Incredible Hulk" on TV, which was 1978. The last Apollo mission to put men on the moon was 1972. Surely you remember that?

https://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and- ... ollo17.cfm

So, how does someone with 1972 technology fake that photograph, the one we all saw on TV and in magazines? Show your work.

Bonus points:

How does one fake tens of thousands of photographs in 1972?

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35241
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 11:48 am
 


Here is some background you can use in the testing of your faith based claims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24080
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:03 pm
 


CharlesAnthony wrote:
No. It is a litmus test to distinguish people who believe what they are told without questioning from people who have a scientific mind. I already did all of the hard work for you. You just have to copy it and apply the same principles to what you believe to be true about the "moon landings" that everybody saw on the radio.

If you need me to demonstrate basic geometry of the space farce, I will do it but you are going to have to take my bet: I bet you 1000$ that I can prove that photograph is a lie using only NASA's public testimony and YOUR globe and YOUR tennis/ping-pong ball to model the moon. I suggest you attempt to re-create the crime scene before you believe any more science fiction fantasy.
I don't own a globe. Or a tennis ball for that matter. :lol:

So basically what you're doing is claiming you can disprove something, and expecting us to take your word at it, because you unwilling to show your work.

Seems legit.


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30082
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:23 pm
 


Siriusly... 8O


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35241
PostPosted: Tue Feb 18, 2020 12:28 pm
 


Boooo!


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 2551 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 163  164  165  166  167  168  169 ... 171  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.