On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:25:30 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:07:14 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
>
> > Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
> The Sun illuminates the ISS at night.
>
> The orbit of the ISS is ***STEEPLY*** inclined by over 51 degrees relative to the Equator,
> and the Earth's axis is tilted by over 23 degrees. Therefore, for great portions of the year,
> the ISS will not by eclipsed by the Earth. There are other portions of the year when it
> -does- enter Earth's shadow.

Part of the ISS's mission has been to make close observations of most of the
Earth's surface, and you can't do that if, as you apparently imagine, the ISS was
launched with zero inclination. Launched with 51+ degrees of inclination, it
eventually passes closely overhead most inhabited areas.

The height of the ISS is to low to be illuminated by the Sun, at night.

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:07:14 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
> >
> > > Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
> > The Sun illuminates the ISS at night.
> >
> > The orbit of the ISS is ***STEEPLY*** inclined by over 51 degrees relative to the Equator,
> > and the Earth's axis is tilted by over 23 degrees. Therefore, for great portions of the year,
> > the ISS will not by eclipsed by the Earth. There are other portions of the year when it
> > -does- enter Earth's shadow.Wh
> Your statement is patently untrue since the ISS height of 250 miles above the surface of the earth results in the shadow of the earth incident to the ISS, at night, preventing the ISS from being illuminated.

What is 51 degrees plus 23 degrees?
(The math is actually more complicated than that, but you obviously can't
cope with anything but the simplest logic.)

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 20:34:24 UTC+1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:07:14 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
> > > The Sun illuminates the ISS at night.
> > >
> > > The orbit of the ISS is ***STEEPLY*** inclined by over 51 degrees relative to the Equator,
> > > and the Earth's axis is tilted by over 23 degrees. Therefore, for great portions of the year,
> > > the ISS will not by eclipsed by the Earth. There are other portions of the year when it
> > > -does- enter Earth's shadow.Wh
> > Your statement is patently untrue since the ISS height of 250 miles above the surface of the earth results in the shadow of the earth incident to the ISS, at night, preventing the ISS from being illuminated.
> What is 51 degrees plus 23 degrees?
> (The math is actually more complicated than that, but

But it's always good to remind that your bunch
of idiots had to announce its oldest part false, as
it didn't want to fit your madness.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
>> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. Religious
>> leaders said all heavenly bodies orbited the earth, and so they were
>> convinced no moons could be orbiting Jupiter. Galileo invited them to bend
>> over and look through his telescope to see for themselves. They declined to
>> look, saying that there would be nothing to see.
>>
>> They were as crazy as you are.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
>
> Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
>

Someone who doesn’t waste much time in discussions with crazy people.

Is it “unscientific” to decline to waste time in discussion with crazy
people?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 19:44:03 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
>> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter.
>
> There is also a story of a poor idiot woodworker invited to
> look at GPS clocks, indicating t'=t. He said that all clocks
> have to indicate holy dilation

I said no such thing or anything like it.

Now, if you’re just going to make shit up, what’s the point of arguing with
you?

> and declined to look, saying
> that there would be nothing to see.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:34:24 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail..com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:07:14 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
> > > The Sun illuminates the ISS at night.
> > >
> > > The orbit of the ISS is ***STEEPLY*** inclined by over 51 degrees relative to the Equator,
> > > and the Earth's axis is tilted by over 23 degrees. Therefore, for great portions of the year,
> > > the ISS will not by eclipsed by the Earth. There are other portions of the year when it
> > > -does- enter Earth's shadow.Wh
> > Your statement is patently untrue since the ISS height of 250 miles above the surface of the earth results in the shadow of the earth incident to the ISS, at night, preventing the ISS from being illuminated.
> What is 51 degrees plus 23 degrees?
> (The math is actually more complicated than that, but you obviously can't
> cope with anything but the simplest logic.)

It does not matter what angles that you are using since the height of the ISS is to low to be illuminated by the Sun, at night. Common sense and logic has precedence before your angle argument since I believe (I may be wrong)--------------- you are attempting to justify that the ISS being illuminated at night which is not physically possible since the shadow of the earth would prevents the ISS from being illuminated by the Sun, at night. Do you understand what precedence is? Example, if you went out on a date with a perceived lady (female) and you notice a bugle between her legs, it would not matter if he/she was wearing a Bottega Veneta, using Les Exclusif Chanel perfume and had nice breasts in a La Perla bra since he/she had a bulge between her/he legs would have precedence over all other implications or arguments in the contrary.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:34:24 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:30:12 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:07:14 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what
>>>>> does that make you?
>>>> The Sun illuminates the ISS at night.
>>>>
>>>> The orbit of the ISS is ***STEEPLY*** inclined by over 51 degrees
>>>> relative to the Equator,
>>>> and the Earth's axis is tilted by over 23 degrees. Therefore, for
>>>> great portions of the year,
>>>> the ISS will not by eclipsed by the Earth. There are other portions of the year when it
>>>> -does- enter Earth's shadow.Wh
>>> Your statement is patently untrue since the ISS height of 250 miles
>>> above the surface of the earth results in the shadow of the earth
>>> incident to the ISS, at night, preventing the ISS from being illuminated.
>> What is 51 degrees plus 23 degrees?
>> (The math is actually more complicated than that, but you obviously can't
>> cope with anything but the simplest logic.)
>
> It does not matter what angles that you are using since the height of the
> ISS is to low to be illuminated by the Sun, at night. Common sense and
> logic has precedence before your angle argument since I believe (I may be
> wrong)--------------- you are attempting to justify that the ISS being
> illuminated at night which is not physically possible since the shadow of
> the earth would prevents the ISS from being illuminated by the Sun, at
> night. Do you understand what precedence is? Example, if you went out on
> a date with a perceived lady (female) and you notice a bugle between her
> legs, it would not matter if he/she was wearing a Bottega Veneta, using
> Les Exclusif Chanel perfume and had nice breasts in a La Perla bra since
> he/she had a bulge between her/he legs would have precedence over all
> other implications or arguments in the contrary.
>

Sigh. Penumbra vs. umbra.
Objects in earth’s penumbra are illuminated enough by sun to be seen from
ground. Only objects in umbra are in full shadow of earth.

Shape of umbra is a cone with apex 930,000 miles from center of earth,
which means the diameter of the umbra decreases with distance from the
earth. At the moon’s distance, the size of the shadow has reduced in size
from about 8000 miles diameter to 6000 miles. Anything that lies between
the cylinder of diameter 8000 miles and this cone will be in the penumbra
and not the umbra and will be illuminated though it is still after sunset
on the surface.

Your common sense is full of crap and counter to simple facts.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

> Sigh. Penumbra vs. umbra.
> Objects in earth’s penumbra are illuminated enough by sun to be seen from
> ground. Only objects in umbra are in full shadow of earth.
>
> Shape of umbra is a cone with apex 930,000 miles from center of earth,
> which means the diameter of the umbra decreases with distance from the
> earth. At the moon’s distance, the size of the shadow has reduced in size
> from about 8000 miles diameter to 6000 miles. Anything that lies between
> the cylinder of diameter 8000 miles and this cone will be in the penumbra
> and not the umbra and will be illuminated though it is still after sunset
> on the surface.
>
> Your common sense is full of crap and counter to simple facts.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

The height of 250 miles compared by to the radius of the earth 4,000 mile would prevent the Sun from illuminating the ISS at night which is simple common sense. Example, you (Bodkin) probably cannot dunk a basketball but maybe you can dribble a basketball across the court.

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 21:00:28 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 19:44:03 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
> >> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter.
> >
> > There is also a story of a poor idiot woodworker invited to
> > look at GPS clocks, indicating t'=t. He said that all clocks
> > have to indicate holy dilation
> I said no such thing or anything like it.

Well, it's just a story, poor halfbrain.

> Now, if you’re just going to make shit up, what’s the point of arguing with
> you?

Why should I expect or want a fanatic, lying, incredibly
stupid piece of shit arguing with me?

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Sigh. Penumbra vs. umbra.
>> Objects in earth’s penumbra are illuminated enough by sun to be seen from
>> ground. Only objects in umbra are in full shadow of earth.
>>
>> Shape of umbra is a cone with apex 930,000 miles from center of earth,
>> which means the diameter of the umbra decreases with distance from the
>> earth. At the moon’s distance, the size of the shadow has reduced in size
>> from about 8000 miles diameter to 6000 miles. Anything that lies between
>> the cylinder of diameter 8000 miles and this cone will be in the penumbra
>> and not the umbra and will be illuminated though it is still after sunset
>> on the surface.
>>
>> Your common sense is full of crap and counter to simple facts.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> The height of 250 miles compared by to the radius of the earth 4,000 mile
> would prevent the Sun from illuminating the ISS at night which is simple common sense.

Not without calculations and data. Anything that lies between the cylinder
of diameter 8000 miles and the umbra cone will be illuminated. So the
question you have to ask is, does the orbit of the ISS ever take it to that
region between the cylinder and the cone? That’s a yes or no question, and
you’re going to be hard pressed to answer it with just common sense. See
below.

> Example, you (Bodkin) probably cannot dunk a basketball but maybe you can
> dribble a basketball across the court.
>

Well, you’re wrong about that. I’m 6’6”. See what common sense does for
you?

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 2/10/2022 2:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
>>> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. Religious
>>> leaders said all heavenly bodies orbited the earth, and so they were
>>> convinced no moons could be orbiting Jupiter. Galileo invited them to bend
>>> over and look through his telescope to see for themselves. They declined to
>>> look, saying that there would be nothing to see.
>>>
>>> They were as crazy as you are.
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
>>
>
> Someone who doesn’t waste much time in discussions with crazy people.

Looking at history, short or longer term, that's about all you have been
doing here.

>
> Is it “unscientific” to decline to waste time in discussion with crazy
> people?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Op 10-feb.-2022 om 19:44 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With the LICK you should be able to read the astronaut's name tag. How
>>>> come the photos have such low resolution. Surely, you can find better
>>>> photos, unless the ISS is fake. Did you see the movie Gravity?
>>>>
>>> This may not occur to you, but the ISS is moving across the sky at a pretty
>>> good clip. A full pass overhead takes about 5 minutes, horizon to horizon.
>>>
>>> Large telescopes do not move this fast. They are built to track the motion
>>> of stars in the sky due to the rotation of the earth, not to track
>>> something in low-earth orbit.
>>>
>>> To collect enough light to “read the astronaut’s name tag”, one of these
>>> large telescopes would need to stay on target for several minutes at least.
>>>
>>>
>>> As you can see, your idea is simply dead in the water technically.
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>>
>> How is the ISS illuminated at night?

I'd say, from within :-)
Or does carlito think they turn the lights out and go to
sleep for 45 minutes every 90 minutes?

Dirk Vdm

>>
>
> It’s illuminated by two or three hundred amateurs who watch the ISS every
> night, holding flashlights aimed at the ISS to make it brighter in their
> amateur telescopes. One or two wouldn’t do it, but two or three hundred
> flashlights add up.
>

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 2/10/2022 2:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
>>>> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. Religious
>>>> leaders said all heavenly bodies orbited the earth, and so they were
>>>> convinced no moons could be orbiting Jupiter. Galileo invited them to bend
>>>> over and look through his telescope to see for themselves. They declined to
>>>> look, saying that there would be nothing to see.
>>>>
>>>> They were as crazy as you are.
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
>>>
>>
>> Someone who doesn’t waste much time in discussions with crazy people.
>
>
> Looking at history, short or longer term, that's about all you have been
> doing here.

Well, maybe we have a different view of who should be marked as crazy.
Hertz for example is IMO not crazy, just a little misguided. Same with
“itsalllies”.

There are a few people who I think are REALLY crazy. “carl eto” is one, so
is Ken Seto, so is Mitch Raemsch, so is Maciej Wozniak. And while I talk to
them on occasion, I try to make a point not to engage seriously with them.
What would be the point?

>
>>
>> Is it “unscientific” to decline to waste time in discussion with crazy
>> people?
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 10:23:55 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 6:46:01 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:47:56 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > > This diagram shows the Earth in late May when the space station’s orbital track is closely aligned with the day–night terminator.. The astronauts see the Sun 24 hours a day (midnight Sun effect) while Earth-bound skywatchers watch the satellite pass by every 93 minutes from dusk till dawn.
> > > Bob King https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/watch-international-space-station/
> > >
> > >
> > > This statement is patently incorrect since the ISS is in the shadow of the earth at night.
> > So, you read the article and still didn't anything it said!
> >
> > Your ignorance of the subject matter is just overwhelming. You need to get a new hobby because this one is just kicking your ass.

> No, I did not read the said article since the article shows the ISS illuminated at night which is not physically possible since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS to be illuminated at night; henceforth, the described article is moot.

Yes, I suppose that you really are that stupid...

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 10:31:52 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:

> How is the ISS illuminated at night?

Asked and answered many times... are you really that stupid?

On 2/10/2022 4:17 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 2/10/2022 2:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
>>>>> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. Religious
>>>>> leaders said all heavenly bodies orbited the earth, and so they were
>>>>> convinced no moons could be orbiting Jupiter. Galileo invited them to bend
>>>>> over and look through his telescope to see for themselves. They declined to
>>>>> look, saying that there would be nothing to see.
>>>>>
>>>>> They were as crazy as you are.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Someone who doesn’t waste much time in discussions with crazy people.
>>
>>
>> Looking at history, short or longer term, that's about all you have been
>> doing here.
>
> Well, maybe we have a different view of who should be marked as crazy.
> Hertz for example is IMO not crazy, just a little misguided. Same with
> “itsalllies”.

> There are a few people who I think are REALLY crazy. “carl eto” is one, so
> is Ken Seto, so is Mitch Raemsch, so is Maciej Wozniak. And while I talk to
> them on occasion, I try to make a point not to engage seriously with them.
> What would be the point?

I grew up in a world in which the pejoratives formed a continuum. As
such, the finer points of differentiation for such descriptives as
"stupid," "ignorant," and "crazy" generally weren't considered worth
the time and energy to ascertain. It has, during my lifetime, been
considered impossible to cure stupidity while craziness is supposedly
improvable, although I've never actually seen a real example. So why
bother? Those who want to improve (John Nash is an excellent example
[1]) appear to. At the point of deciding which individual belongs in
which category where the rubber meets the road there's actually no
difference IMO, so a bit of sloppiness in categorizing individuals
saves, to me, resources that at my age I don't have very much of
available.

{1] Even so, Nash didn't actually "improve" in any quantifiable sense, he
merely became able to differentiate the real from the imagined and to
deal with
those accordingly. To the end of his days he saw and heard much that
was unreal. Superficially and externally he seemed to have improved but
the reality was that he continued to suffer unabated.

I am still of the opinion that since dealing with the individuals you
mention doesn't make any real difference in the end I don't see any
point in bothering with them.

>>> Is it “unscientific” to decline to waste time in discussion with crazy
>>> people?

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 2/10/2022 9:14 PM, whodat wrote:

> I grew up in a world in which the pejoratives formed a continuum. As
> such, the finer points of differentiation for such descriptives as
> "stupid," "ignorant,"  and "crazy" generally weren't considered worth
> the time and energy to ascertain. It has, during my lifetime, been
> considered impossible to cure stupidity while craziness is supposedly
> improvable, although I've never actually seen a real example. So why
> bother? Those who want to improve (John Nash is an excellent example
> [1]) appear to. At the point of deciding which individual belongs in
> which category where the rubber meets the road there's actually no
> difference IMO, so a bit of sloppiness in categorizing individuals
> saves, to me,  resources that at my age I don't have very much of
> available.

There is still valid differentiation. Ignorance and stupidity. The
expression "Ignorance is curable; stupidity is forever" comes to mind.
Compare someone who doesn't know about something like SR but wants to
learn, or misunderstands, get corrected and accepts that, vs the poster
who stomps in, boasting how he'll destroy relativity but it becomes
quickly obvious he doesn't understand how science works very well. An
example of stupidity.

Or the one who writes this: "No, I did not read the said article since
the article shows the ISS illuminated at night which is not physically
possible since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS to be
illuminated at night; henceforth, the described article is moot."

Another example of stupidity, since he rejects the cure for ignorance,
which is learning/education.

On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 07:05:13 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/10/2022 9:14 PM, whodat wrote:
>
> > I grew up in a world in which the pejoratives formed a continuum. As
> > such, the finer points of differentiation for such descriptives as
> > "stupid," "ignorant," and "crazy" generally weren't considered worth
> > the time and energy to ascertain. It has, during my lifetime, been
> > considered impossible to cure stupidity while craziness is supposedly
> > improvable, although I've never actually seen a real example. So why
> > bother? Those who want to improve (John Nash is an excellent example
> > [1]) appear to. At the point of deciding which individual belongs in
> > which category where the rubber meets the road there's actually no
> > difference IMO, so a bit of sloppiness in categorizing individuals
> > saves, to me, resources that at my age I don't have very much of
> > available.
> There is still valid differentiation. Ignorance and stupidity. The
> expression "Ignorance is curable; stupidity is forever" comes to mind.

But it's false, stupid Mike. You'll die.
How is that relativistic prediction of the measurement of
a 6-foot-tall person standing 100m away?

On 2/10/2022 1:23 PM, carl eto wrote:

> No, I did not read the said article since the article shows the ISS illuminated at night which is not physically possible since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS to be illuminated at night; henceforth, the described article is moot.

We are still waiting for your math which shows how long the ISS stays
illuminated after local sunset if it's 250 miles up.

Again, for now, that is for the simplest case. Observer is on the
equator, ISS is directly above observer and remains directly overhead.
Once you finish that, take into account the observer isn't on the
equator, ISS actually is orbiting and is not straight overhead, it
orbits at a significant angle to the equator etc. Just the simple case,
Carl.

On 2/11/2022 1:10 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 07:05:13 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 2/10/2022 9:14 PM, whodat wrote:
>>
>>> I grew up in a world in which the pejoratives formed a continuum. As
>>> such, the finer points of differentiation for such descriptives as
>>> "stupid," "ignorant," and "crazy" generally weren't considered worth
>>> the time and energy to ascertain. It has, during my lifetime, been
>>> considered impossible to cure stupidity while craziness is supposedly
>>> improvable, although I've never actually seen a real example. So why
>>> bother? Those who want to improve (John Nash is an excellent example
>>> [1]) appear to. At the point of deciding which individual belongs in
>>> which category where the rubber meets the road there's actually no
>>> difference IMO, so a bit of sloppiness in categorizing individuals
>>> saves, to me, resources that at my age I don't have very much of
>>> available.
>> There is still valid differentiation. Ignorance and stupidity. The
>> expression "Ignorance is curable; stupidity is forever" comes to mind.
>
> But it's false, stupid Mike. You'll die.

Ah yes, our janitor, the best example of stupidity. Not only that, the
janitor is PROUD of his stupidity, parroting the stupidest of the stupid
quite often, with less intelligence than an actual parrot.

> How is that relativistic prediction of the measurement of
> a 6-foot-tall person standing 100m away?

It's relativistic now, Janitor? Do you believe transits don't work under
relativistic situations?

On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 07:43:11 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 1:10 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 07:05:13 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 2/10/2022 9:14 PM, whodat wrote:
> >>
> >>> I grew up in a world in which the pejoratives formed a continuum. As
> >>> such, the finer points of differentiation for such descriptives as
> >>> "stupid," "ignorant," and "crazy" generally weren't considered worth
> >>> the time and energy to ascertain. It has, during my lifetime, been
> >>> considered impossible to cure stupidity while craziness is supposedly
> >>> improvable, although I've never actually seen a real example. So why
> >>> bother? Those who want to improve (John Nash is an excellent example
> >>> [1]) appear to. At the point of deciding which individual belongs in
> >>> which category where the rubber meets the road there's actually no
> >>> difference IMO, so a bit of sloppiness in categorizing individuals
> >>> saves, to me, resources that at my age I don't have very much of
> >>> available.
> >> There is still valid differentiation. Ignorance and stupidity. The
> >> expression "Ignorance is curable; stupidity is forever" comes to mind.
> >
> > But it's false, stupid Mike. You'll die.
> Ah yes, our janitor, the best example of stupidity. Not only that, the
> janitor is PROUD of his stupidity, parroting the stupidest of the stupid
> quite often, with less intelligence than an actual parrot.
> > How is that relativistic prediction of the measurement of
> > a 6-foot-tall person standing 100m away?
> It's relativistic now, Janitor?

Yes, it is, stupid Mike. Classical physics and common sense
is prerdicting 6 feet here. Only relativistic morons are babbling
something about being less, and even most of them are not
THAT stupid.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 2/10/2022 4:17 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/10/2022 2:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
>>>>>> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. Religious
>>>>>> leaders said all heavenly bodies orbited the earth, and so they were
>>>>>> convinced no moons could be orbiting Jupiter. Galileo invited them to bend
>>>>>> over and look through his telescope to see for themselves. They declined to
>>>>>> look, saying that there would be nothing to see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They were as crazy as you are.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what
>>>>> does that make you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Someone who doesn’t waste much time in discussions with crazy people.
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at history, short or longer term, that's about all you have been
>>> doing here.
>>
>> Well, maybe we have a different view of who should be marked as crazy.
>> Hertz for example is IMO not crazy, just a little misguided. Same with
>> “itsalllies”.
>
>> There are a few people who I think are REALLY crazy. “carl eto” is one, so
>> is Ken Seto, so is Mitch Raemsch, so is Maciej Wozniak. And while I talk to
>> them on occasion, I try to make a point not to engage seriously with them.
>> What would be the point?
>
> I grew up in a world in which the pejoratives formed a continuum. As
> such, the finer points of differentiation for such descriptives as
> "stupid," "ignorant," and "crazy" generally weren't considered worth
> the time and energy to ascertain.

That depends on the objective, doesn’t it? If your aim is to decide whether
a person is simply dismissible from conversation, then any of those
characteristics — stupid, ignorant, crazy — might serve as good indicators.
Your personal choice may be to only engage in a conversation if the person
is not stupid AND not ignorant AND not crazy.

If however, the objective is different, then being able to point out what
the source of the problem is might allow the person to move to a corrective
solution. Education can cure ignorance, but it can’t fix crazy. Mental
healthcare can remediate crazy, but it can’t fix stupid.

You mention John Nash who was never cured of schizophrenia, but
self-awareness DID improve his ability to operate and negotiate around the
problem. And had no one pointed out to him what his condition was, then
there would have been no opportunity for either treatment or
self-awareness.

With a lot of posters here, my objective is not to fix shortcomings, but to
isolate and raise self-awareness of what those shortcomings are, because
they CAN be addressed. It is also true that for many cranks here, the
motivators are largely based on emotional needs that are very difficult to
let go of. Ken Seto, for example, has a deep dissatisfaction against his
need for accomplishment beyond what he did as a fairly routine chemical
engineer; and this is why he felt the need to tap into potential glory for
his legacy by trying to tackle a subject he knows nothing about. If he were
able to let that go and find sources of satisfaction within his actual
accomplishment set, then he’d spend the rest of his days a lot happier than
he is now. On the other hand, Wozniak is so tired of being told that he’s
incompetent and stupid that he’s now on a campaign to tell as many people
as he can how stupid he thinks they are. Richard Hertz is also venting a
large reservoir of anger and general disgust with other people in general,
and so it’s going to be difficult to get him to think or respond in any
civil way, because it would not serve the emotional need of venting anger.

If people are reminded, for example, that they are ignorant, meaning that
they do not know enough about the subject, even at the basics level, to
discuss it knowledgeably, then at least there is an option for them —
should they elect to take it — to take a step back and fix that.

And a lot of people react badly to being told what their principle
shortcoming is, of course. Because they don’t WANT to have that identified.
They want to have their ideas and comments treated seriously as though the
shortcomings were not there. And they fundamentally think it is unfair to
be told that the value of their ideas and comments is essentially zero
until the shortcomings are recognized, acknowledged openly, and there is an
attempt to remediate them. Like what John Nash did.

> It has, during my lifetime, been
> considered impossible to cure stupidity while craziness is supposedly
> improvable, although I've never actually seen a real example. So why
> bother? Those who want to improve (John Nash is an excellent example
> [1]) appear to. At the point of deciding which individual belongs in
> which category where the rubber meets the road there's actually no
> difference IMO, so a bit of sloppiness in categorizing individuals
> saves, to me, resources that at my age I don't have very much of
> available.
>
> {1] Even so, Nash didn't actually "improve" in any quantifiable sense, he
> merely became able to differentiate the real from the imagined and to
> deal with
> those accordingly. To the end of his days he saw and heard much that
> was unreal. Superficially and externally he seemed to have improved but
> the reality was that he continued to suffer unabated.
>
> I am still of the opinion that since dealing with the individuals you
> mention doesn't make any real difference in the end I don't see any
> point in bothering with them.
>
>>>> Is it “unscientific” to decline to waste time in discussion with crazy
>>>> people?
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 15:22:45 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> If people are reminded, for example, that they are ignorant, meaning that
> they do not know enough about the subject, even at the basics level, to
> discuss it knowledgeably, then at least there is an option for them —
> should they elect to take it — to take a step back and fix that.

Oh, Odd, amongst many examples that there is no such option
for them you're one of the best.

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 10:12:48 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/10/2022 1:23 PM, carl eto wrote:
>
> > No, I did not read the said article since the article shows the ISS illuminated at night which is not physically possible since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS to be illuminated at night; henceforth, the described article is moot.
> We are still waiting for your math which shows how long the ISS stays
> illuminated after local sunset if it's 250 miles up.
>
> Again, for now, that is for the simplest case. Observer is on the
> equator, ISS is directly above observer and remains directly overhead.
> Once you finish that, take into account the observer isn't on the
> equator, ISS actually is orbiting and is not straight overhead, it
> orbits at a significant angle to the equator etc. Just the simple case,
> Carl.

The ISS cannot be viewed at night since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS from being illuminated and the ISS can be illuminated at sunrise/set but the earth's atmosphere would prevent the viewing of the ISS since stars cannot be seen during the day; when the stars appears at sunrise/set the sky is in the shadow of the earth; henceforth, your cone argument is superfluous.