When does the new year begin?

[Cowpolk]

I have a shipment of black eyed peas, scarlet runner beans, and royal corona beans arriving friday. If you have never tried scarlet runner beans, they are worth a try

I always use pork shanks chopped onions jalapenos and Cajun seasoning in mine with a lil cumin and black pepper

 

[dsturgeon]

Are you proposing the time zones be divided into minutes? (That was kind of a joke, but not completely since I honestly don't know what inconsistencies you're referring to.)
The sunrise is never going to happen at the same moment for everyone, obviously, so I'm wondering if you mean the inconsistency of my sunrise being 5 minutes earlier than someone just West of me.

I didn't really have a point. You were saying the beginning at midnight is the only one that is consistent, but that is only true if you believe time zones are a consistent measurement. If you are 5 feet in one time zone and someone is five feet in another, everything in the heavens looks the same, but the time is an hour different, whether it is sunrise or midnight. If you re on one side, the sun is up and the day begins, then you walk the 5 feet over and you have to wait an hour for the day to begin.

Therefore I dont see how much more accurate it is than going by sundown or sunset

I am not trying to be contrary or anything, like I said i think about this stuff, and it is interesting. Long ago they had floating calendars and time keeping that utilized all of the heavens, and many believe it was more accurate and followed the seasons and growing season.

 

[Runwildboys]

I didn't really have a point. You were saying the beginning at midnight is the only one that is consistent, but that is only true if you believe time zones are a consistent measurement. If you are 5 feet in one time zone and someone is five feet in another, everything in the heavens looks the same, but the time is an hour different, whether it is sunrise or midnight. If you re on one side, the sun is up and the day begins, then you walk the 5 feet over and you have to wait an hour for the day to begin.

Therefore I dont see how much more accurate it is than going by sundown or sunset

I am not trying to be contrary or anything, like I said i think about this stuff, and it is interesting. Long ago they had floating calendars and time keeping that utilized all of the heavens, and many believe it was more accurate and followed the seasons and growing season.

Seems to me, you just validated the use of midnight to start the new day, since sunlight is a long way off for every part of that particular time zone, so the sky would be more consistent than any other time.

BTW, have you ever thought about what time it is at the North and South Poles, where all the time zones meet? Or for that matter, how much smaller the time zones get as you approach either of the Poles? Go far enough North or South and you could throw a frisbee to your friend 4 hours away!

 

[dsturgeon]

Seems to me, you just validated the use of midnight to start the new day, since sunlight is a long way off for every part of that particular time zone, so the sky would be more consistent than any other time.

BTW, have you ever thought about what time it is at the North and South Poles, where all the time zones meet? Or for that matter, how much smaller the time zones get as you approach either of the Poles? Go far enough North or South and you could throw a frisbee to your friend 4 hours away!

Not in that regard, but I have though about the poles.

Charles Hapgood has some really good theories on us having 3 north poles in history and the earths crust moving. You have to look into how he says the earths crust shifts, but it can be understood that a mountain is in one place, the crust shifts, and it is in another.

In his pole shift book, he theorized that the 3 previous north poles were in the Yukon, Greenland Sea, and the Hudson Bay, and has scientific evidence for it. There is also evidence that we are going through another pole shift now.

He corresponded with Einstein on it, and Albert wrote the forward on one of his books. This is also another quote, "I find your arguments very impressive and have the impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the crust have taken place repeatedly and within a short time."

It is interesting when you look at old maps and Antarctica does not have ice on it, and has a lush landscape.

 

[Runwildboys]

Not in that regard, but I have though about the poles.

Charles Hapgood has some really good theories on us having 3 north poles in history and the earths crust moving. You have to look into how he says the earths crust shifts, but it can be understood that a mountain is in one place, the crust shifts, and it is in another.

In his pole shift book, he theorized that the 3 previous north poles were in the Yukon, Greenland Sea, and the Hudson Bay, and has scientific evidence for it. There is also evidence that we are going through another pole shift now.

He corresponded with Einstein on it, and Albert wrote the forward on one of his books. This is also another quote, "I find your arguments very impressive and have the impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the crust have taken place repeatedly and within a short time."

It is interesting when you look at old maps and Antarctica does not have ice on it, and has a lush landscape.

The North Pole is just ice, with no land under it. As for Antarctica, any maps with no ice on it are just artist's renderings, because it's been frozen over for about 34 million years.

 

[dsturgeon]

The North Pole is just ice, with no land under it. As for Antarctica, any maps with no ice on it are just artist's renderings, because it's been frozen over for about 34 million years.

I guess you don't believe in the old world mount meru and sumeru maps

Funny how there are no accurate maps today even the globes, and they are all artist renditions

 

[Runwildboys]

I guess you don't believe in the old world mount meru and sumeru maps

Funny how there are no accurate maps today even the globes, and they are all artist renditions

What makes you say there are no accurate maps? What makes you say they're all artist renderings?
Do you believe we've never taken pictures of Earth from space?

 

[dsturgeon]

What makes you say there are no accurate maps? What makes you say they're all artist renderings?
Do you believe we've never taken pictures of Earth from space?

Scaling and size issues.

I think there is reason to question authenticity on everything we have seen from space and of space, both old and new. To take it further, I would push that to other technology platforms.

In hindsight a large part of everything around the creation of nasa and space exploration in history was lies, coverups, and scandals, from government, wars, propaganda etc. Believing that everything about the most far fetched aspect of our history is 100 % true seems naive.

I don't believe in the pictures and videos from nasa like I used to. A large part of it is cgi and artist renditions. They did not start admitting that until it was called out, and technology caught up, which does not inspire a lot of trust from me. Or maybe it was admitted in small writing or something, but not so that the average viewer was aware

 

[dsturgeon]

Being told an image is a picture of earth and believing it. Then being told far later, that it is not really a picture but a compilation of a whole lot of pictures, that were seamed together, altered, air brushed, tinted, altered by whatever photo shopping tool that was available at the time of the image, etc. kind of ruins it

Earth is a sphere. No, it is more of an oval, no it is oblong, it is pear shaped, it is bigger around the middle

 

[mrmojo]

The native New Year is the winter solstice and Is celebrated by the turtle dance....

 

[dsturgeon]

The native New Year is the winter solstice and Is celebrated by the turtle dance....

 

[CouchCoach]

How do you make your black eyed peas?

I grill them and there's barely enough left for a decent bite.

 

[Runwildboys]

Scaling and size issues.

I think there is reason to question authenticity on everything we have seen from space and of space, both old and new. To take it further, I would push that to other technology platforms.

In hindsight a large part of everything around the creation of nasa and space exploration in history was lies, coverups, and scandals, from government, wars, propaganda etc. Believing that everything about the most far fetched aspect of our history is 100 % true seems naive.

I don't believe in the pictures and videos from nasa like I used to. A large part of it is cgi and artist renditions. They did not start admitting that until it was called out, and technology caught up, which does not inspire a lot of trust from me. Or maybe it was admitted in small writing or something, but not so that the average viewer was aware

You're confusing CGI and artist renderings with composites. While there are while pictures of Earth, most are several photos put together, because the ISS and other satellites are too close to get the whole planet at once, so they take multiple pictures and overlap them.

 

[Runwildboys]

Being told an image is a picture of earth and believing it. Then being told far later, that it is not really a picture but a compilation of a whole lot of pictures, that were seamed together, altered, air brushed, tinted, altered by whatever photo shopping tool that was available at the time of the image, etc. kind of ruins it

Earth is a sphere. No, it is more of an oval, no it is oblong, it is pear shaped, it is bigger around the middle

When taking several pictures of Earth, the lighting and cloud formations change, which is why it's necessary to do some editing. If they just put the pictures together without doing so, it would look ridiculous.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid. It's very, very slightly larger at the equator and Southern Hemisphere. Just the fact that there are mountains and valleys is enough to eliminate it from being a perfect sphere, so don't let terminology taint your opinion.

 

[dsturgeon]

You're confusing CGI and artist renderings with composites. While there are while pictures of Earth, most are several photos put together, because the ISS and other satellites are too close to get the whole planet at once, so they take multiple pictures and overlap them.

When taking several pictures of Earth, the lighting and cloud formations change, which is why it's necessary to do some editing. If they just put the pictures together without doing so, it would look ridiculous.

The Earth is an oblate spheroid. It's very, very slightly larger at the equator and Southern Hemisphere. Just the fact that there are mountains and valleys is enough to eliminate it from being a perfect sphere, so don't let terminology taint your opinion.

Yea, I talked about picture compliation in the post after the one you quoted.

I am not confused, but since you brought up the I.S.S., do you know which videos of it from the outside the station are cgi and which are not? Does the average person? Do cameras that capture the I.S.S., Earth, and stars have focusing, lighting problems, and glare?

My opinion is tainted from compliations, renderings, and cgi. They have been blended in and used to shape and create a narrative. People take all the videos from nasa as being real videos, because they do not know what is being given them. If you add in star trek and space movies there it is a hodge podge of truth in people heads

 

[Runwildboys]

Yea, I talked about picture compliation in the post after the one you quoted.

I am not confused, but since you brought up the I.S.S., do you know which videos of it from the outside the station are cgi and which are not? Does the average person? Do cameras that capture the I.S.S., Earth, stars have focusing, lighting problems, and glare?

My opinion is tainted from compliations, renderings, and cgi. They have been blended in and used to shape and create a narrative. People take all the videos from nasa as being real videos, because they do not know what is being given them. If you add in star trek and space movies there it is a hodge podge of truth in people heads

Yeah, this discussion is over.

 

[dsturgeon]

Yeah, this discussion is over.

It is amazing how much distance and clarity we get from the floating i.s.s video cameras. It must be the right enviroment for making movies. How far back are they from the iss that you get that perfect focus on the station and the surroundings

 

[Runwildboys]

It is amazing how much distance and clarity we get from the floating i.s.s video cameras. It must be the right enviroment for making movies. How far back are they from the iss that you get that perfect focus on the station and the surroundings

Surroundings? What surroundings are you referring to? There are no surroundings. This is why I don't want to have this discussion anymore. It's literally impossible to have a productive discussion with anyone who wants to believe he's being lied to.

 

[dsturgeon]

Surroundings? What surroundings are you referring to? There are no surroundings. This is why I don't want to have this discussion anymore. It's literally impossible to have a productive discussion with anyone who wants to believe he's being lied to.

There are cgi demonstration videos put out of all space activity including the iss, satellites approaching other planets, star activity,, etc. People see videos of a satellite approaching Jupiter shot in the 3rd person, and believe it is real. Like there is something following the satellite documenting it. There is really good cgi and bad cgi. It is hard to tell sometimes. I bet there are videos you have seen that are cgi and you think are real, but maybe not. The surroundings in the videos are one way to tell

The average person has a hodge podge of what is real, cgi, and stuff from movies that have been molded in their head.

Add in picture compilations, renderings, etc and there is another false narrative.

Lied to maybe, or a form of deception

 

[Runwildboys]

There are cgi demonstration videos put out of all space activity including the iss, satellites approaching other planets, star activity,, etc. People see videos of a satellite approaching Jupiter shot in the 3rd person, and believe it is real. Like there is something following the satellite documenting it. There is really good cgi and bad cgi. It is hard to tell sometimes. I bet there are videos you have seen that are cgi and you think are real, but maybe not. The surroundings in the videos are one way to tell

The average person has a hodge podge of what is real, cgi, and stuff from movies that have been molded in their head.

Add in picture compilations, renderings, etc and there is another false narrative.

Lied to maybe, or a form of deception

Anyone who's seen a video of a probe near Jupiter and thought it was a live action video isn't even worth tricking. Do you think they do that with the intention of fooling people, or do you think they just do it to make the video a lot more interesting and informative?