Max

Members
  • Content Count

    234
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Max

  1. That man is a crackpot. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between rest mass and relativistic mass. Relativistic mass is a somewhat outmoded concept. It is related to the total energy E of a particle, (mrel = E / c2 )and therefore dependent on the velocity with regard to the observer. If the particle approaches the speed of light the energy and therefore also the relativistic mass increase without bound. Today we prefer to use the rest mass (the energy of the particle at rest, divided by c2), which does not increase with its velocity. It is just a different definition, the calculated
  2. I can read the article without subscribing (following the link given above), no problem.
  3. I haven't posted for some time here, because most discussions are now about American politics and conspiracy theories, neither of which interest me. In most cases I don't know the people concerned, or have only a vague notion who they are. I prefer to discuss things I know something about.
  4. I suppose it is this Doris Gordon: https://humanlifereview.com/pro-life-movement-loses-doris-gordon-libertarians-life-founder/
  5. I just give some possible alternatives to Ellen's notion that "not being able to handle criticism" would automatically imply "banning your opponent", that's all. I myself don't continue a discussion if I've clearly stated my viewpoint and the other side is just going to resort to personal attacks. In such cases I let the other have the last word, I'm not interested in some endless ping pong game that doesn't solve anything.
  6. "Not being able to handle criticism" doesn't necessary imply banning the other person. It could also mean "always insisting on having the last word", or "not being able to say 'lets agree to disagree'" for example.
  7. The ten climate commandments: Among the worshiping public, Pope Franciscus, German Chancellor Merkel and President Steinmeier (the owl). April 2019. Of course, today many other politicians could be added...
  8. 23 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said: Sorry, I took you for meaning the dumb ones’ failures are ignored, but you surely meant the fails, period, are ignored. Do have experience with cats? Allowed outdoors? You’ve watched them while they are outdoors? In my experience the intelligence depicted in the video just scratches the surface of cats’ abilities. Almost my whole life I've lived with cats. Only when the last one died, 18 years old, we've decided not to take another cat, as that one would probably survive us, and that is an unbearable idea to us, as we've no idea what would
  9. It wouldn't affect that proposition, but neither would it prove it. The file drawer effect or publication bias is a serious problem in many research fields, like psychology or medicine, not ot mention more dubious fields (it's the way to "prove" with spurious significance values desired theories.) If the skill is genuine, I think the cat uses a different strategy. In the video you can see that the cat sometimes doesn't look at all at the cups, so it wouldn't have been able to keep track of the right one. I think a more likely explanation is that it reacts to the sound of the ball. No n
  10. Very funny and charming, but of course cheating is very easy. Just don't publish the articles that don't confirm your thesis, um... I mean. don't show the videos that don't contain the desired result. That's called the file drawer effect.
  11. I think it's highly unlikely that any sophisticated form of life that is not carbon based can evolve anywhere in the universe. It's the carbon chemistry that is at the basis of the enormously complex and sophisticated machinery that makes such life possible.
  12. You could just shrink the map to a smaller size and project it back onto a smaller globe. After all, you can buy globes in all sizes... Cutting away some pieces will of course not conserve the number of "pixels". The result of reattaching your cut halves wouldn't be an ellipsoid, but a "globe" with a discontinuity in its tangent planes at the "new equator". You could deform this thing to a new spherical globe, that is however missing the pixels around the original equator. Too bad for the people who lived there, they've disappeared.
  13. Nathaniel Branden in "Who is Ayn Rand" (p.92):
  14. There is nothing moral in Roark's blowing op that building. He made a serious error of judgment by surreptitiously helping Keating in designing that building, and therefore he would have had to bear the consequences when that went wrong. In spite of all the noble excuses for a "morally perfect hero", this was just an unwarranted act of scorched earth.
  15. Insecurities? Psychobabble framing. I'll tell you what my intent in this discussion was: to show that your arguments for implying tampering with the picture were false. Reread our discussion on that matter. You'll see that I quite neutrally, without any personal remark, told you why your argument was fallacious. You return with new arguments, which I also show to be false. Then you start with personal remarks: Observe the condescending tone, and the start of psychologizing: I would have no experience in such matters. How do you know? Because I disagree with you? Further I'm a
  16. Why? Suppose you can identify the position of one of the lamps. Then you can draw lines from that position to the head of the person (light ray, shadow margin). But where the ray hits the wall, will depend on the distance of that person to the wall. What from the current perspective is one single line, may, seen from above, be a series of diverging lines, resulting in different positions of the shadow on the wall, depending on the position of that person. And that is known in only one dimension, the second coordinate is unknown. We don't know where his feet are, nor how tall he is. You
  17. I was just talking about the picture with the red and green circles. In that message it was claimed that a shadow was "missing" and that that would be evidence of tampering. That picture (I didn't know then it was a still of a video) does not contain enough information to predict where the shadows of the walking people would fall on the wall behind.them. For that you should have to know where on the floor their feet are (what their x-y position is), and that information is missing. When I later saw the video and other photos, it became clear that the tall man (whose shadow was supposedly "mis
  18. At least I showed how you were lying, you just utter wild accusations without substantiation.
  19. You don't understand the importance of the second photo, although I've told you that already. When you compare (enlargements of) both statues, you see that the viewing angle is slightly different (can best be seen in the shadows), but on the face of the statue the difference is practically imperceptible. However, there is an important difference: the resolution. Compare the light distribution on both photos, then you'll see that they are completely in agreement, only is the first picture far less detailed. But there is nothing in the first picture that you cannot find back, in much greater det
  20. Oh, now you are also a clairvoyant? You "know" that I haven't even looked at the picture correctly before I gave my reaction? Well, for your information: I dowloaded the picture first, and opened in my photo editor, tried different settings of brightness and contrast to enhance the details. So you're just lying to dismiss my criticism. If my technical explanations show that there is no evidence that your arguments are valid, that is enough to dismiss those. No, your views are not valid: motion blur in walking persons is no evidence for tampering, sharpness artefacts are no evidence for
  21. What intimidation? Do you find it intimidating when someone points out an error in your argument? Apparently you've no answer, as you every time come up with new arguments, ignoring the previous one. Now who is misrepresenting an argument? You never claimed it didn't have a beard? Well, neither did I say that you did, I said that you claimed "that it didn't have a real beard". Is that so strange after you wrote: "A beard that runs past the side of his eyes, up the side of his head, on up to the top and top-front of his head?" and "That's a beard? A UFO alien beard maybe?" Yes,