[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
FALSE-DICHOTOMY ALERT!!!
Point to Ponder: Just because a verse includes a metaphor, doesn't mean the verse is to be ignored.
If someone (not me of course) said that 'Billy is as dumb as an ox' that would still have propositional content even though you aren't literally an ox or even as dumb as a literal ox.
Hope you now have a better understanding of how language works.
I see.
So how do you decide that "day" means "day" whereas "world" means "people"?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
JFC, you need everything spelled out, don't you? I couldn't give a **** that you think that I know the things I know because I googled them 5 seconds ago or have known them for 20 years.
Yes, very few are experts, you just have no idea what being an expert would entail. It's certainly more than whatever Mickey Mouse test someone as dumb as you can pass.
And a pretty reliable tell that someone is not an expert is that they call themselves one. But go on, tell me more about your expert grasp of tensor calculus.
And once more asking me what I think while just now you said you did not care what I think.
*I think* d2 needs to work out whether his purpose here is
A) to troll.
B) to bully.
C) to learn.
D) other?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
And once more asking me what I think while just now you said you did not care what I think.
*I think* d2 needs to work out whether his purpose here is
A) to troll.
B) to bully.
C) to learn.
D) other?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
To entertain myself. This may involve none, some, or all of the above depending on the day and which way the wind is blowing.
I've answered your question, now you answer mine.
Again whatever.
Put it this way, completing the required undergrad coursework on SR and examination to a first class standard puts me in a reasonable position to state the basics of the matter here.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
A first degree is not an 'expert' qualification. In your post #5737 you claimed 'expert' qualification.
I see.
So how do you decide that "day" means "day" whereas "world" means "people"?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That's a good and important question that would take a while to explain. If you want I can provide some helpful links for you. But I'm not going to expend any effort to answer your question myself given your proven inability or unwillingness to engage any topic in a coherent manner.
Oh good, a betting man. I'll lay you evens on flat, stationary earth if you like? Escrow required.
That's a good and important question that would take a while to explain. If you want I can provide some helpful links for you. But I'm not going to expend any effort to answer your question myself given your proven inability or unwillingness to engage any topic in a coherent manner.
Sure ill take a link.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Except it's misleading to call oneself an 'expert' when being called out on it compels you to say 'it's all relative..."
I have a B.A. in Philosophy, but I am far from an 'expert' in the field.
I think "it's all relative I suppose" was in fact the extent of his expertise in relativity.
Nobody has used the vanishing point method nor the Biruni method to demonstrate the shape of the earth yet?
Puzzling.
I can also just post that Lynch article in full using my hospital access if need be to settle this since poor billy couldn't access the paper. It's pretty thorough. Let me know if anyone would like to peruse it.
Except it's misleading to call oneself an 'expert' when being called out on it compels you to say 'it's all relative..."
I have a B.A. in Philosophy, but I am far from an 'expert' in the field.
The definition of expert is broad enough to encompass all of its uses here.
Another good example as to the importance of defining terms.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), an expert is a person qualified by specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to offer opinions assisting the trier of fact. They are formally defined by their role in litigation: either as a testifying witness (governed by FRCP 26(a)(2)) or a non-testifying consultant (FRCP 26(b)(4)(D)).
I see no evidence presented here that supports you meeting such qualifications.
Nobody has used the vanishing point method nor the Biruni method to demonstrate the shape of the earth yet?
Puzzling.
"To demonstrate the shape of the Earth"
By assuming the sphericity of Earth.
By gorgo. (Actually by Al Biruni but gorgo is funnier).
For clarity, Al-B measured the radius. The radius of a flat plane. Go figure.
See the *straight* line segment CA? Yeah that is the passage of light directly from the assumed sphere edge, the horizon. The very same horizon that is measured to an arbitrary distance depending on the resolution power the observer has at his disposal. Or in globe-tarding terms, the ever changing refracted horizon.
So the variable, alpha, the dip angle, is busted.
What remains? The altitude of the mountain: you will be needing a flat earth for that measurement. A flat earth from which to measure the angle of elevation.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Nobody has used the vanishing point method nor the Biruni method to demonstrate the shape of the earth yet?
Puzzling.
I can also just post that Lynch article in full using my hospital access if need be to settle this since poor billy couldn't access the paper. It's pretty thorough. Let me know if anyone would like to peruse it.
Please allow the peasantry to see this great work.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Nobody has used the vanishing point method nor the Biruni method to demonstrate the shape of the earth yet?
Puzzling.
I can also just post that Lynch article in full using my hospital access if need be to settle this since poor billy couldn't access the paper. It's pretty thorough. Let me know if anyone would like to peruse it.
I'd be interested to have a look to see what factors they take into account when calculating the altitude at which curvature is visible. I did ask Billy how he'd calculate it but unfortunately he must have missed that post and its dozen or so follow-ups.
Speaking of posts Billy missed - being an expert on SR, you must have a pretty solid grasp of tensor calculus, right, Billy? And differential equations generally? So if I give you a couple of simple PDEs, you should be able to solve them, right?
The very same horizon that is measured to an arbitrary distance depending on the resolution power the observer has at his disposal.
Repeating this doesn't make it true, and it is in fact not true. But we digress.
What remains? The altitude of the mountain: you will be needing a flat earth for that measurement. A flat earth from which to measure the angle of elevation.
You can't measure the elevation of bumps on a circle? Tell us more, Brofessor.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), an expert is a person qualified by specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to offer opinions assisting the trier of fact. They are formally defined by their role in litigation: either as a testifying witness (governed by FRCP 26(a)(2)) or a non-testifying consultant (
My having a mere B.A. in Philosophy certainly wouldn't qualify me for being a 'expert' per the above definition. I'd bet a Big Mac (TM) that Billy isn't an expert by that definition in any field either.
Your science acumen is that of a 7 year old, perhaps your maths is also. Actually even a 7 yr old tends to know what an angle is.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Oh noes, someone sounds tRiGgErReD.
Perhaps your exposition could use some work. Why don't you try to explain to the class why it's impossible to measure the height of a mountain on a curved Earth. A diagram would probably be helpful, as your grasp of words is unfortunately not as expert as your grasp of special relativity.
I'd be interested to have a look to see what factors they take into account when calculating the altitude at which curvature is visible. I did ask Billy how he'd calculate it but unfortunately he must have missed that post and its dozen or so follow-ups.
Gorgo does not know. He refers to lol-tubz, which is in Arabic (I think).
Let Billy help. The required variables are the dip angle* and the height of the mountain. The height of the mountain requires the elevation angle** between the flat*** baseline and the summit. Two angles in fact, to then calculate the height.
*dip angle assumes a circular Earth surface.
**angles are measured between straight lines.
***Earth must be flat to measure the height of the mountain.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
