Re: was (one thing I want to show the courtroom and public)

On Aug 8, 1:28 pm, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Great Dayne" <ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:40fe5cc8-d629-4504-a06c-18c54856930a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 8, 11:45 am, "Mike Dworetsky"





<platinum...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Great Dayne" <ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7ffc19ce-edef-4f65-964c-bb5c29d06645@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 7, 1:06 pm, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"Great Dayne" <ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:0f04871d-f0e0-4c71-988f-daec456930f7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 6, 11:33 pm, Stuart <bigdak...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 6, 4:37 am, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 5, 5:37 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Great Dayne wrote:
On Aug 5, 3:12 pm, Augray <aug...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:01:24 -0700 (PDT), Great Dayne
<ihavethecode...@xxxxxxx> wrote in
<c2741eef-86a3-43f7-8360-ead0afba4...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
:

On Aug 5, 2:44 pm, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Great Dayne wrote:
Now when it comes to proof of their theory, what they claim
is
that
it appeared to happen in this particular instance, and use
an
example
they claim just had to be because of evolution, and say it
must
have
occurred everywhere else.
That sentence is hard to imagine referents for. Maybe you
could
provide
a specific or two.
Let me borrow that logic, and utilize and apply it to
elsewhere.
The example of parallax, part of the stage prop, used to
make
you
think the stars are very far away. Since that was made to
look
like that, then what you found in the ground ....
What is your alternative explanation for parallax?
First off parallax relies on assumptions ...
What assumptions?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think I may have a few moments to show you what parallax is,
and
the math involved and at least one of the assumptions real quick
off
the top
of my head.

First of all, the measurement comes from trigonometry, in that
if
you
know the length of one
side and 2 angles, you get the third angle because in a triangle
all
three sides
add up to a certain number of degrees, so you can now calculate
the
length of the other 2 sides.

Correct.

The assumption is that the item in question you are measuring,
as
the
earth orbits the sun (another assumption we
won't get into here) it is a certain distance giving you the
length
of
one side, that the item
for instance, the star (another assumption is that is indeed
what
it
is) is relatively stationary.

It's not an assumption. It's an easily verifiable fact.

What they call fact in here all the time are not fact at all.

The constellations looked pretty much the same to Ptolemy and
Galileo
as
they do today. That's why the ancients called them "the *fixed*
stars."

Correct. But they are far from fixed.

On human time scales they are quite fixed. On the time scales requried
for a parallax measurement they are quite fixed.

Your point is silly.

My point is if they weren't, your parallax measurement to
dtermine distance is erroneous.
Can we agree on that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­--

I would not agree.

That is because you are an idiot and aren't being scientific at all.
If new evidence came in a scientist would consider it.
If the stars are moving, then you have to think for a moment.
What if they have been subtly moving the whole time
to give us the illusion of great distance?
If you don't take this into consideration, you need to
pull your head out of your ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MD::

I note that you cut the part of my reply where I explained why you were a
fool and an idiot because your fantasy was not based on any facts.

You have not presented any actual evidence.

That is because the way the case is being run, I don't have access to
the things
I need to back my arguments here on usenet.
All news stories and the case are kept from me.
This substantially prejudices me and the whole planet, because
I need those in order to convince you with arguments to turn off
the camera. That claim they are doing this to be fair to the rollock,
as
a petition is in front of the judge, to get him to stop this behavior.
As of yet, the court system has failed to reign him in.

By allegedly being fair to the govt, it has prejudiced me and everyone
else
on the planet earth. The rollock says that that is fair.
He obviously doesn't know what fair is.

But regardless, you would agree if what I were saying is true, that
parallax
measurement would be erroneous, wouldn't you agree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MD:

If you had two heads and a tail, then I might be prepared to discuss your
bicephalism problem.  Do you agree that you have two heads and a tail?  If
so, then it would explain a lot.

here is your problem:  You can't just make shit up and say, "Well, if the
shit I made up is true, then this part of science is wrong", if for no other
reason than the fact that the shit you made up is false.

If you cannot grasp that you can't just ask for hypotheticals to be presumed
even though there is a vast body of observation that contradicts your
particular hypothetical and none that confirms it, there seems little point
in continuing such a crazy conversation.


It is simple.
Maybe I can simplify it so even your braindead self can understand.

You have a tree off in the distance. You walk 20 feet one direction.
You measure the 2 angles to the tree.
You now have a triangle with the length of one side known
and 2 angles from which you find out the third.
You can now calculate the length of the other two sides.
Now you know the distance to that tree, assuming, of course,
the tree didn't move while doing that ....

.

Relevant Pages