On 2/11/2022 8:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

[...]

> 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.

You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The missing feature in
your recounting is that Nash was treated for years by professionals, and
I don't see any here. Even so, Nash achieved the ability to successfully
manage his situation with professional help. The core issues were not
corrected.

I don't see any valid comparison between what is happening here and the
Nash case that I provided as an example of the apparent inability to
"cure" insanity.

Bear in mind that schizophrenia is a degenerative disease that has the
feature of rewiring the human brain in an ever increasing debilitating
mode. In the "improvement" you apparently hope to achieve with the other
categories of individuals we are discussing here it seems to me you're
hopeful of achieving some rewiring as well, and I have no faith that can
be achieved. After all, the basic issue is the capacity these
individuals have for learning and understanding.

[...]

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

On 2/11/2022 1:56 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 8:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 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.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The missing feature in
> your recounting is that Nash was treated for years by professionals, and
> I don't see any here. Even so, Nash achieved the ability to successfully
> manage his situation with professional help. The core issues were not
> corrected.
>
> I don't see any valid comparison between what is happening here and the
> Nash case that I provided as an example of the apparent inability to
> "cure" insanity.
>
> Bear in mind that schizophrenia is a degenerative disease that has the
> feature of rewiring the human brain in an ever increasing debilitating
> mode. In the "improvement" you apparently hope to achieve with the other
> categories of individuals we are discussing here it seems to me you're
> hopeful of achieving some rewiring as well, and I have no faith that can
> be achieved. After all, the basic issue is the capacity these
> individuals have for learning and understanding.
>
I am not familiar in detail about John Nash. Did he require significant
treatment before he recovered enough to realize he was sick and he had
to do something about it, so he was able to remain somewhat sane?

I have a friend whose wife has mental health issues, but she was on
medication and was generally fine. Due to some screwup related to
Covid, she went off the medication, and became psychotic and delusional,
imagining all kinds of schemes against her, and doing things like hiding
car keys and other important things because of delusions. She also
refused to take medication or even see a doctor about it. For a while,
since she wasn't considered a threat to anyone, she could not be forced
to see a doctor, be committed or medicated. Finally a judge ruled for
an involuntary commitment, and after a few days of medication she was
back to her sweet old self again, living normally and taking her meds.
She is well enough to know she is sick.

On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 20:36:43 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote:

> I have a friend whose wife has mental health issues, but she was on
> medication and was generally fine. Due to some screwup related to
> Covid, she went off the medication, and became psychotic and delusional,
> imagining all kinds of schemes against her, and doing things like hiding
> car keys and other important things because of delusions.

Do these delusions include a difference in the measured
height depending on how far a way a person is, stupid
Mike?

On 2/11/2022 1:36 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 1:56 PM, whodat wrote:
>> On 2/11/2022 8:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The missing feature in
>> your recounting is that Nash was treated for years by professionals, and
>> I don't see any here. Even so, Nash achieved the ability to successfully
>> manage his situation with professional help. The core issues were not
>> corrected.
>>
>> I don't see any valid comparison between what is happening here and the
>> Nash case that I provided as an example of the apparent inability to
>> "cure" insanity.
>>
>> Bear in mind that schizophrenia is a degenerative disease that has the
>> feature of rewiring the human brain in an ever increasing debilitating
>> mode. In the "improvement" you apparently hope to achieve with the other
>> categories of individuals we are discussing here it seems to me you're
>> hopeful of achieving some rewiring as well, and I have no faith that can
>> be achieved. After all, the basic issue is the capacity these
>> individuals have for learning and understanding.
>>
> I am not familiar in detail about John Nash. Did he require significant
> treatment before he recovered enough to realize he was sick and he had
> to do something about it, so he was able to remain somewhat sane?

Nash had significant periods of hospital confinement with treatments
including insulin shock therapy and various medications. There are
many web pages dedicated to Nash and his challenges that do a much
better job of telling his story than I could hope to achieve in this
medium. Some of them clearly rely solely on the "beautiful Mind"
book and movie, so the usual cautions are raised.

> I have a friend whose wife has mental health issues, but she was on
> medication and was generally fine.  Due to some screwup related to
> Covid, she went off the medication, and became psychotic and delusional,
> imagining all kinds of schemes against her, and doing things like hiding
> car keys and other important things because of delusions. She also
> refused to take medication or even see a doctor about it.  For a while,
> since she wasn't considered a threat to anyone, she could not be forced
> to see a doctor, be committed or medicated.  Finally a judge ruled for
> an involuntary commitment, and after a few days of medication she was
> back to her sweet old self again, living normally and taking her meds.
> She is well enough to know she is sick.

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

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/2022 8:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 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.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The missing feature in
> your recounting is that Nash was treated for years by professionals, and
> I don't see any here.

RIght. But the people who encouraged Nash to get help, and let him know
that he was not in synch with reality, were not trained professionals
either. They were colleagues, family, and friends. This enabled John Nash
to recognize for the first time that he needed help from a professional,
which he then agreed to.

Whether or not his insanity was cured, he at least was compelled to
recognize that he did have a problem. As alcoholics are prone to say, that
is the biggest step. (And in fact, alcoholics are another fine example of a
condition that is never “cured” though a person can become sober for the
rest of their life.)

> Even so, Nash achieved the ability to successfully
> manage his situation with professional help. The core issues were not
> corrected.
>
> I don't see any valid comparison between what is happening here and the
> Nash case that I provided as an example of the apparent inability to
> "cure" insanity.
>
> Bear in mind that schizophrenia is a degenerative disease that has the
> feature of rewiring the human brain in an ever increasing debilitating
> mode. In the "improvement" you apparently hope to achieve with the other
> categories of individuals we are discussing here it seems to me you're
> hopeful of achieving some rewiring as well, and I have no faith that can
> be achieved. After all, the basic issue is the capacity these
> individuals have for learning and understanding.

No, I’m not trying to rewire or improve.

I’m only trying to get some people to recognize the problem and the fact
that it is going to make their scientific comprehension problematic until
they take action to get it addressed.

For some people, who come to a physics group with no background in physics
at all, and out of naivety think that all it should take is a modicum of
common sense and some time to think, it’s even simpler. Because all one has
to do is illustrate to this person that he doesn’t even know what the words
mean in the context of physics, and that some of the basics they THOUGHT
they knew natively they in fact do not understand at all, and that unless
he has some competency in math skills then you really can’t do my physics
at all. This is simply the illumination of ignorance, which some people are
surprised by, but then accept and decide whether they want to correct.

Some people, though, don’t even accept the illumination of ignorance. These
are people who have emotional issues that prevent them from acknowledging
what they in fact know to be true.

>
> [...]
>

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

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 10:31:08 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> 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.

Speechless?

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 10:31:08 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> Speechless?
>

Daring for attention, whore?

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

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. The ISS is fiction.

The ISS cannot be viewed at night since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS from being illuminated yet the ISS can be illuminated at sunrise/set and during the day but the earth's atmosphere would prevent the viewing of the ISS by an observer on the surface of the earth 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, the ISS cannot be illuminated. Michael Moroney's cone argument is superfluous since the ISS is fiction.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
> >
>
> 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.

Yes, and they all watch skiesabove and other websites like that
to know when they must all switch off their flashlights
to produce the impression that the ISS has entered the Earth's shadow.

Dedicated people, very dedicated,

Jan

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:05:59 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:

The ISS cannot be viewed at night since the shadow
of the earth would prevent the ISS from being illuminated yet
the ISS can be illuminated at sunrise/set and during the day but the earth's
atmosphere would prevent the viewing of the ISS by an observer on the surface of the earth
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, the ISS cannot be illuminated. Michael Moroney's cone argument is superfluous since the ISS is fiction.

On 2/11/2022 1:31 PM, carl eto wrote:
> 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.

I am not interested in your unsupported claims. I am interested in your
calculations for how long something appears in sunlight after local
sunset, if it is 250 miles up.

Do you even recognize the situation I am trying to describe? Or are you
too far gone for that?

Let's change the problem a bit. A tower is built on the equator. It is
250 miles tall. At sunset, when the base of the tower passes into
earth's shadow, how long does the top of the tower remain in sunlight
before it, too, moves into the earth's shadow?

Can you even set this problem up, perhaps draw it on paper, even if you
can't solve it? Do you understand that it takes some time for the top of
the tower to pass into shadow as the earth rotates, and why?

On 2/11/2022 1:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>> On 2/11/2022 8:22 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. The missing feature in
>> your recounting is that Nash was treated for years by professionals, and
>> I don't see any here.
>
> RIght. But the people who encouraged Nash to get help, and let him know
> that he was not in synch with reality, were not trained professionals
> either. They were colleagues, family, and friends. This enabled John Nash
> to recognize for the first time that he needed help from a professional,
> which he then agreed to.

Not true. Initially he fought "help" hiring a lawyer to get him out of
involuntary commitment. It was eventually the professionals and a judge
that convinced him to accept treatment. In short, treatment as forced on
him.

> Whether or not his insanity was cured, he at least was compelled to
> recognize that he did have a problem. As alcoholics are prone to say, that
> is the biggest step. (And in fact, alcoholics are another fine example of a
> condition that is never “cured” though a person can become sober for the
> rest of their life.)
>
>> Even so, Nash achieved the ability to successfully
>> manage his situation with professional help. The core issues were not
>> corrected.
>>
>> I don't see any valid comparison between what is happening here and the
>> Nash case that I provided as an example of the apparent inability to
>> "cure" insanity.
>>
>> Bear in mind that schizophrenia is a degenerative disease that has the
>> feature of rewiring the human brain in an ever increasing debilitating
>> mode. In the "improvement" you apparently hope to achieve with the other
>> categories of individuals we are discussing here it seems to me you're
>> hopeful of achieving some rewiring as well, and I have no faith that can
>> be achieved. After all, the basic issue is the capacity these
>> individuals have for learning and understanding.
>
> No, I’m not trying to rewire or improve.

Then I am confused by what you have written. No matter.

> I’m only trying to get some people to recognize the problem and the fact
> that it is going to make their scientific comprehension problematic until
> they take action to get it addressed.

> For some people, who come to a physics group with no background in physics
> at all, and out of naivety think that all it should take is a modicum of
> common sense and some time to think, it’s even simpler. Because all one has
> to do is illustrate to this person that he doesn’t even know what the words
> mean in the context of physics, and that some of the basics they THOUGHT
> they knew natively they in fact do not understand at all, and that unless
> he has some competency in math skills then you really can’t do my physics
> at all. This is simply the illumination of ignorance, which some people are
> surprised by, but then accept and decide whether they want to correct.

All of the above opens another difficulty, that being physics is not
based on "fact" but on modeling that works in a predictive manner.

There may actually be no real relationship between the models and the
realities, such a relationship is not the goal of the discipline.
Accurate prediction *is*.

But that topic is actually far more complex than I want to get into in
a Usenet discussion so please consider it stated and dropped while
feeling entitled to agree or disagree. And certainly most of the people
we've been discussing do not grasp the implications.

> Some people, though, don’t even accept the illumination of ignorance. These
> are people who have emotional issues that prevent them from acknowledging
> what they in fact know to be true.

Dunning-Kruger is well demonstrated in newsgroups. Circling back to my
opening concepts stated in this particular discussion the reason hardly
matters, I don't think any worthwhile improvements come out of these
discussions in most cases. Over there in the peanut gallery I hear a
whisper, "But if there is one case of improvement...." The inquisition
had similar goals.

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

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

>
> All of the above opens another difficulty, that being physics is not
> based on "fact" but on modeling that works in a predictive manner.
>
> There may actually be no real relationship between the models and the
> realities, such a relationship is not the goal of the discipline.
> Accurate prediction *is*.
>
> But that topic is actually far more complex than I want to get into in
> a Usenet discussion so please consider it stated and dropped while
> feeling entitled to agree or disagree. And certainly most of the people
> we've been discussing do not grasp the implications.

This discussion has been had several times in the last few years on this
group.
While formally true that we do not *know* how nature operates, and all we
have is some operational prescription of model acceptance on the basis of
experimental agreement, there remain a couple of obvious points that get
repeated but not always absorbed.

First, *all* knowledge is on a spectrum of certainty, and just about any
sound epistemology acknowledges that 100% certainty about any proposition
about the external world is unobtainable and pointless to claim. So the
statement that we don’t *know* how nature operates is tautologically
obvious and doesn’t really dispel anything. Really the question is, what
indicators might we have that gives us some confidence in an incremental
increase in certainty?

Second, science has a stated purpose, which is to understand nature.
Whether that is behind a Platonic shadow-veil or not, it’s pointless to
deny the reason people pursue physics and to try to reduce it to, “We do it
because it works, and only because it works.” That reduces the entire
discipline to navel gazing. Now what is true is, our ONLY reference for
whether nature actually behaves the way we think it does is experiment and
observation. Nevertheless, that is taken to be nature itself having a voice
either affirming or denying our proposed understanding. It is precisely
this referral to external nature that distinguishes science from
mathematics or metaphysics.

>
>> Some people, though, don’t even accept the illumination of ignorance. These
>> are people who have emotional issues that prevent them from acknowledging
>> what they in fact know to be true.
>
> Dunning-Kruger is well demonstrated in newsgroups. Circling back to my
> opening concepts stated in this particular discussion the reason hardly
> matters, I don't think any worthwhile improvements come out of these
> discussions in most cases. Over there in the peanut gallery I hear a
> whisper, "But if there is one case of improvement...." The inquisition
> had similar goals.
>

I do not think it serves anyone justice to let the ignorant, the stupid, or
the insane to simply vent their opinions without comment and therefore
allow that statement to amplify in their own echo chamber. But that’s me
that has that view.

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

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:24:56 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> I am not interested in your unsupported claims.

Is the Sun and earth forming a shadow on the moon to form a crest moon? Also, can you see the stars that you see at night during the day? If you are unwilling to answer these questions, why bother me? What is the point. You are abusing logic and science by not addressing the facts. These are the facts. Plain an simple common sense facts that you are ignoring. What more is there to say?

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:24:56 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

At sunset, when the base of the tower passes into
earth's shadow, how long does the top of the tower remain in sunlight
before it, too, moves into the earth's shadow?

It does not matter how long since the illuminated ISS cannot be seen during sunset because of the atmosphere which is the reason stars do not appear during the day.

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 2:29:54 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:

Is this Bodkin's way of acting out? Michael Moroney I was wondering if you could privately console Bodkin or ask Tom to give some physical affection for his unfortunate grieving since you seem to be taking it all in stride yet Bodkin seems to be emotional affected by the current situation. I have tried to be a generous, gentle, loving and kind to Bodkin but it appears that his emotions are at the limits but the good thing is that the pain will subside and Bodkin may enjoy a new vitality of light (Sunrise/set) which is the purpose of good friends and simulating conversation and internet interactions especially when you are winning.

Great news Bodkin, I may have seen the ISS today at the end of Fl on a boat at 3 p.m. EST (2000 GMT). Bright light it was great.

On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 12:02:08 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:

> 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. The ISS is fiction.

What this comes down to, in the end, is that you just don't know what you don't know.

Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger would like to explain their "effect" to you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The mass of a 50 kg astronaut on the earth is calculated using Newton's gravity equation,

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.38 x 106)2 = 492 N or 50.2 kg.............92

The mass of a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station (ISS) that is 250 miles (402,336 m) above the earth surface is calculated where the distance r from the center of the earth to the astronaut is equal to 6.88 x 106 m.

F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.88 x 106)2 = 422 N or 43.2 k..............93

According to Newton gravity equation (equ 91), a 50 kg astronaut would weigh 43.2 kg (eqeu 93) while in the international space station (ISS) yet the described astronaut is weightless which proves Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. It is argued that the weightlessness of the astronaut is caused by the centripetal force caused by the ISS orbiting the earth but when an astronaut is accelerated by a jet packet to 45 mph, in a direction tangent to the ISS orbital path around the earth, the jet packet and astronaut are not propelled toward the earth which invalidate the centripetal force argument and the ISS is orbiting the earth at the velocity of 7 km/s yet the earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/s; consequently, since the ISS is orbiting the earth at 250 miles above the surface of the earth and astronauts within the ISS are weightless, it would not be physically possible for the ISS to be propagating with a tangential orbital velocity of 7 km/s without leaving the orbit around the earth. In addition, it is argued that the astronauts are in a free fall which forms the weightless of the astronauts in the ISS but there is not a significant free fall downward velocity that could form the weightless of the astronauts.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The mass of a 50 kg astronaut on the earth is calculated using Newton's gravity equation,
>
>
>
>
>
> F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.38 x 106)2
> = 492 N or 50.2 kg.............92
>
>
>
>
>
> The mass of a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station (ISS)
> that is 250 miles (402,336 m) above the earth surface is calculated where
> the distance r from the center of the earth to the astronaut is equal to 6.88 x 106 m.
>
>
>
>
>
> F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = [(6.674 x 10−11) x (6 x 1024) x (50)] / ( 6.88 x 106)2
> = 422 N or 43.2 k..............93
>
>
>
>
>
> According to Newton gravity equation (equ 91), a 50 kg astronaut would
> weigh 43.2 kg (eqeu 93)

Mistake. 422N is not a weight of 43.2 kg. The conversion factor you just
used only applies on the surface of the earth.

> while in the international space station (ISS) yet the described astronaut is weightless

Mistake. The astronaut is not weightless in orbit. That’s an elementary
school misconception. Even astronauts in orbit are good enough to explain
that that’s not true.

The rest of your nonsense is ignored.

> which proves Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. It is
> argued that the weightlessness of the astronaut is caused by the
> centripetal force caused by the ISS orbiting the earth but when an
> astronaut is accelerated by a jet packet to 45 mph, in a direction
> tangent to the ISS orbital path around the earth, the jet packet and
> astronaut are not propelled toward the earth which invalidate the
> centripetal force argument and the ISS is orbiting the earth at the
> velocity of 7 km/s yet the earth's escape velocity is 11.2 km/s;
> consequently, since the ISS is orbiting the earth at 250 miles above the
> surface of the earth and astronauts within the ISS are weightless, it
> would not be physically possible for the ISS to be propagating with a
> tangential orbital velocity of 7 km/s without leaving the orbit around
> the earth. In addition, it is argued that the astronauts are in a free
> fall which forms the weightless of the astronauts in the ISS but there is
> not a significant free fall downward velocity that could form the
> weightless of the astronauts.
>

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

During sunrise/sunset, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to the stars and the ISS since the stars and ISS are above the earth's atmosphere. On the surface of the earth's gases are formed which produces the earth's atmosphere that humans (Taylor Swift), animal (cats and dogs) and amphibian (frogs) breath to exist since life on earth requires air that the earth's atmosphere is composed but at 250 miles above the surface of the earth and in the vast distance of celestial space where the stars exist there is no atmosphere since in that region a vacuum is formed where all the gases are eliminated and a human cannot exist in the vacuum of celestial space without special equipment that would provide the air (atmosphere) used by human, animal and amphibians to live since they require oxygen which is part of the atmosphere. Sun light reflects from the earth's atmosphere during sunrise/sunset results in the opaque quality of the atmosphere when seen by the observer on the surface of the earth attempting to view the ISS since the air even though transparent is not really completely transparent from a far distance which is the reason that the sky is blue that color is the gases in the earth's atmosphere. When the sky is pitch black at night the atmospheres is transparent since light is being reflected and dispersed by the atmosphere. Henceforth, all the ISS photographs are fictional because we on the earth cannot see the star during the day which is implied by the bad people at NASA that are being naughty by lying to everyone. They (naughty people) are suggesting that when is it dim (sunset/sunrise) that it is possible to see the ISS since less light is being reflected but the bad people at NASA are lying (not telling the truth) since night is defined when stars cannot be seen and day is defined when stars cannot be see so the naughty NASA people say that they see stars during the day which is a naughty lie and nice people, like yourselves, do not lie because you mommy and daddy will tell you lying is bad and only bad people lie and since you are a nice person and going to grow up a nice person like your mommy and dadda you do not like it when bad people lie to you and the weightlessness of the ISS astronauts is additional proof that the ISS mission is a fabrication (lie). Thank you for the movie "Gravity" since the cinematic techniques in the movies are being used by NASA to justify the ISS.

On 2/13/2022 3:14 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> During sunrise/sunset, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to the stars and the ISS since the stars and ISS are above the earth's atmosphere.

No it is not.

You still haven't provided any calculation of the time between local
sunset and the time it takes before the ISS (at altitude 250 miles)
enters the earth's shadow.

[snip unreadable blather unread]

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> During sunrise/sunset, the earth's atmosphere is opaque to the stars and the ISS since the stars and ISS are above the earth's atmosphere. On the surface of the earth's gases are formed which produces the earth's atmosphere that humans (Taylor Swift), animal (cats and dogs) and amphibian (frogs) breath to exist since life on earth requires air that the earth's atmosphere is composed but at 250 miles above the surface of the earth and in the vast distance of celestial space where the stars exist there is no atmosphere since in that region a vacuum is formed where all the gases are eliminated and a human cannot exist in the vacuum of celestial space without special equipment that would provide the air (atmosphere) used by human, animal and amphibians to live since they require oxygen which is part of the atmosphere. Sun light reflects from the earth's atmosphere during sunrise/sunset results in the opaque quality of the atmosphere when seen by the observer on the surface of the earth attempting to view the ISS since the air even though transparent is not really completely transparent from a far distance which is the reason that the sky is blue that color is the gases in the earth's atmosphere. When the sky is pitch black at night the atmospheres is transparent since light is being reflected and dispersed by the atmosphere. Henceforth, all the ISS photographs are fictional because we on the earth cannot see the star during the day which is implied by the bad people at NASA that are being naughty by lying to everyone. They (naughty people) are suggesting that when is it dim (sunset/sunrise) that it is possible to see the ISS since less light is being reflected but the bad people at NASA are lying (not telling the truth) since night is defined when stars cannot be seen and day is defined when stars cannot be see so the naughty NASA people say that they see stars during the day which is a naughty lie and nice people, like yourselves, do not lie because you mommy and daddy will tell you lying is bad and only bad people lie and since you are a nice person and going to grow up a nice person like your mommy and dadda you do not like it when bad people lie to you and the weightlessness of the ISS astronauts is additional proof that the ISS mission is a fabrication (lie). Thank you for the movie "Gravity" since the cinematic techniques in the movies are being used by NASA to justify the ISS.

YOU need to read a dang textbook! Your writing (above) can easily be shown to be almost 100% inaccurate by just about any high-school physics student.

Why are you afraid to look up the schedule of the ISS and go outside and see it for yourself? If you still think it is not the ISS then I invite you to tell me what it is!

On Friday, 11 February 2022 at 23:11:13 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> While formally true that we do not *know* how nature operates, and all we
> have is some operational prescription of model acceptance on the basis of
> experimental agreement, there remain a couple of obvious points

Obvious for an idiot woodworker and some other insane,
incompetent halfbrains. But what is obvious for an
arrogant idiot simply must be true.