|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2005 : 12:47:11 [Permalink]
|
I'm not a troll. I'm only a very skeptic (incredulous) person.
Well, pleco said:
" ... those tracking station now have different x,y,z locations in 3D space ..."
Where is the origin of x, y, z axes 
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/13/2005 13:31:07 |
 |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 13:54:46 [Permalink]
|
In the solar system the origin of x, y, z axes is the sun, the fixed point.
All objects turn around the sun, ok?
Have NASA's buffoons taken the sun as origin of x, y, z axes and the Earth's orbit as x, y plane |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/13/2005 14:44:46 |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 14:32:26 [Permalink]
|
Well, you can't confute my statements and then you are doing conspiracy of silence.
I will answer for you:
NASA's buffoons have taken a point of the Earth as origin of x, y, z axes, but the Earth runs at 65,000 miles per hour and turns around itself at 1,000 miles per hour.
The Earth is not a good reference point to locate probes and planets of the solar system because it creates too many difficulties.
FOURTH STATEMENT: suppose NASA's buffoons can locate in 3D space their probe and Mars.
Well, they couldn't steer their probe to Mars because it has not foot brake.
How can they brake their probe in 3D space?
If they turned their probe 180 degrees and burnt rocket engine, since the probe runs at highest velocity it would buzz about and would become uncontrollable  |
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/14/2005 00:56:22 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 19:24:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, you can't confute my statements and then you are doing conspiracy of silence.
First of all, you don't even consider what we say. You have yet to reply to the math that has been posted. The only thing you tell us is that we sound like professors, which to me just means you are saying you aren't intelligent enough to understand.
But let's ignore all this for now, all 19 pages of it. Let's assume you're right, that we can't confute your statements. Where exactly does that leave you? Nowhere! We are not NASA employees (at least, none that I know of) and in no way connected with NASA.
So maybe you could explain to me how we should know (again, we are ignoring all the stuff that has been posted) how NASA controls their probes?
You don't seem to understand the difference between not being able to explain something, and showing that something is impossible, or at least unlikely. If we can't explain how NASA controls it's probes, it means jack shit (nothing). We aren't really supposed to know how NASA controls it's probes, that isn't our job. But as Dave W. said*, it is just a bonus when we do.
So stop claiming victory. It really just makes you look pretty damn pathetic.
* This is from one of our encoded conversations, so no one else has read it. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 19:37:03 [Permalink]
|
| You shouldn't have bothered, Ricky. While you are, of course, absolutely correct, it won't help. Not with a person who assumes that actual rocket scientists are as mathematically and scientifically as incompetent as himself. bigbrain's "it's too complicated" means that it's too complicated for him to understand. His saying so, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on what NASA engineers understand. But rather than admit his ignorance and get on with his life of not being an aerospace technician, bigbrain has decided instead that if he can't understand it, nobody can, and if anyone says they can, they must be lying and/or calling him stupid. In other words, he's just jealous. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 19:43:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You shouldn't have bothered, Ricky. While you are, of course, absolutely correct, it won't help. Not with a person who assumes that actual rocket scientists are as mathematically and scientifically as incompetent as himself. bigbrain's "it's too complicated" means that it's too complicated for him to understand. His saying so, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on what NASA engineers understand. But rather than admit his ignorance and get on with his life of not being an aerospace technician, bigbrain has decided instead that if he can't understand it, nobody can, and if anyone says they can, they must be lying and/or calling him stupid. In other words, he's just jealous.
I wouldn't even give him that much credit. I don't think he's even remotely interested in the topic being discussed. His only aim is to tease people. Of this, I am not incredulous. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 20:10:07 [Permalink]
|
bigbrain wears his ignorance like a badge of honor. The way he plays the game, as long as he refuses to understand or learn from his mistakes he can claim victory.
I have learned a fair bit from this thread, largely thanks to sts60's posts among others, but responding to bigbrain is obviously an exercise in futility, except perhaps from a troll ecologist's perspective. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 20:28:06 [Permalink]
|
| Shoot. Given his desparation at having had no one reply to his latest rant, I was hoping that we'd just stop paying attention to him and that he'd go away. Still, it's a clear indicator that he's not quite as popular as he thinks. And moreover, most of this thread is the regular SFN crowd laughing at him, and not actually addressing his, uh, "arguments." |
|
|
|
tw101356
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 21:22:37 [Permalink]
|
Is there any evidence that bigbrain is an actual human being? Remember that Eliza program from the 60s that emulated a Rogerian psychologist? You would type a sentence and it would respond from a script using pattern recognition.
Could bigbrain be nothing more than a slightly more complex program that's scripted to aggravate people on internet forums? Could bigbrain be an attempt to simulate a human being by using artificial stupidity instead of artificial intelligence?
Whaddyathink?
|
- TW
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 21:49:07 [Permalink]
|
TW, since I spent several hours of my youth typing in the BASIC source code for Eliza, I feel qualified to say that comparing bigbrain to that program is an insult to Eliza's authors. bigbrain doesn't show anything close to the sophistication reached by that few hundred lines of code. His script would be more like10 PRINT random objection which parrots a small part of the input
20 GOTO 10 Followed by a fairly short list of stock "objections." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 21:53:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tw101356
Is there any evidence that bigbrain is an actual human being? Remember that Eliza program from the 60s that emulated a Rogerian psychologist? You would type a sentence and it would respond from a script using pattern recognition.
I remember it. I had a version of it that ran on my Commodore 64. As I recall, it was a tad repeditive.quote:
Could bigbrain be nothing more than a slightly more complex program that's scripted to aggravate people on internet forums? Could bigbrain be an attempt to simulate a human being by using artificial stupidity instead of artificial intelligence?
Whaddyathink?
Possibly. Hmmm... is there any way to test this hypothesis?
Eliza is repetitive. bigbrain is repetitive. Any other obvious similarities? |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 22:16:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Is there any evidence that bigbrain is an actual human being?
Why does this claim always seem to come out whenever a woo-woo is posting? If I remember correctly, it was suggested that jimi and tksgurl were just people created by tkster on the Skeptic Times forum. I believe it also happened when latin started posting, but I'd have to check on that.
You're right of course. It is a bit silly. Nothing more than idle speculation to be sure. Perhaps it results from our incredulity (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that anyone could be so far out to lunch and still compose legible sentences.
Despite appearences bigbrain is probably of adequate intelligence. There's probably some very interesting, though not uncommon, psychology going on behind the scenes that motivates his antisocial posting behaviour. |
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2005 : 23:18:38 [Permalink]
|
You don't want to believe in evidences like people who believe in God: a mother loses her son 2 years old because of a cancer and tells the painful fact to the priest. The priest tells her: "don't be anguished, God is loving and merciful"
Do you believe this picture is real?
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/f/044/2F130264571EFF0700P1120L0M1.HTML
Why do NASA's buffoons use fisheye lens?
To make all these poor pictures more mysterious, more interesting.
But all these pictures are very ugly, very poor: is Mars only a sphere full of stones?
WHY IS THIS PICTURE FAKE?
Look at the "sky". It seems a grey level surface illuminated by a spot light. Where are all the variegated gradations, shadows, tones, nuances of the atmosphere?
Is Mars so insignificant, so inexpressive?
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE, DEAR GULLIBLE PEOPLE
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
| Edited by - bigbrain on 08/13/2005 23:21:59 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
