Since you said I should have bumped a Flat Earth thread, and that I was "derailing" (even though YOU called ME out), I'll make a thread where the entire subject is me beating your talking points down @xCivicx
From the other thread:
The Earth isn't a perfect sphere, it is slightly oblate. Take a perfect circle and superimpose it over that image. Oh wait, I did that for you:
Why are you expecting to see stars in that image? Do you know how exposure works? No, of course you don't-- the camera is trying to take an image of the Earth, which, while illuminated by the Sun, is extremely bright. This causes the Earth to appear perfectly in the image, but stars wouldn't be able to be seen. I demonstrate this for you, again:
None of those movies or video games were in the 70s when that image was taken, so you can stop. We had no technology even close to the detail in that image from '72, what the hell are you talking about?
And composite image =/= computer manipulated. A puzzle is a composite image, genius. Those aren't computer manipulated. You don't know what words mean, so let me help you with that too:
made up of distinct parts or elements : such as; relating to or being a modification of the Corinthian order combining angular Ionic volutes with the acanthus-circled bell of the Corinthian… See the full definition
www.merriam-webster.com
And as I said, The Blue Marble ISN'T a composite; it is a single image of the Earth from space, taken on ACTUAL FILM in 1972, which was before computer generated imagery.
Post any questions you had for me in the other thread in here, and I will gladly eat them shyts.
Then he is required to explain why things fall down.
Him and his ilk always say "density and buoyancy" unaware that without gravity, those two concepts literally mean nothing.
I explained to him that air is on every side of a ball, meaning the ball would be more dense than all the air around it, meaning if his explanation was correct a ball should theoretically "fall up" or "fall sideways"
Of course, when things drop, they ALWAYS fall down.
His earlier, stupid ass explanation when I questioned him on this was that "objects seek the quickest at rest state"
He's literally suggesting that objects are sentient, and move on their own. The nikka is perilously out of his element.
But he minored in physics... give me a fukking break
and acceptance rate is a group statistic. there are pre-requisites that have to be considered first.
and acceptance rates are skewed by location (california >>>), price, number of applicants, class sizes, available of grants, tuition, local competition.
for example georgetown has a low acceptance rate above its national ranking position because it has very little local competition.
also UCB historically has a higher acceptance rate than inferior UCLA.
a TLR specific analogy:
any popular IG "thot" has a lower acceptance rate than a selection of miss world winners but the quality of those ms. world beaus is going to be historically "higher' than IG's partners.
-
The direct rebuttal to "you are not good enough" is to show your grades, show your SATS, show where you did get accepted i.e. show your academic profile is indeed good enough to pass the initial hurdle so that acceptance rates would at least come into play.
The answer is not to parade around about the broader difference between university education generally in California and GT (while not checking subject tables) as if that says anything specific about you.
he said you would not get accepted. he didn't say that you "did not apply". therefore "why i would not apply" prefixed arguments are irrelevant.
TL;DR TLR distracted by smoke and mirrors again. there isn't much of note in those videos that isn't already in this thread. other than fanfare. stop letting fanfare distract from the facts.
GA Tech in those rankings is 28th on that list, behind 3 different Californian institutes.
The point I was making was that why would I, a born an bred Californian, even think to apply to a school in Georgia, when we have better schools in my own state?
He tried to imply that I wouldn't be admitted, and my point was I wouldn't have even tried, because we have better schools here; even your list ranks three Cali schools higher.
I can produce plenty of lists with even more Californian schools ranked higher than Georgia Tech, like this one:
As you can see on this list, there are FIVE Californian institutes ranked higher than GA Tech. So again, no one from California is even thinking about Georgia, unless they have family there or really, really want to go to Atlanta or something. That's what I was saying.
Brother, GA Tech is a public school. There are no pre-requisites to be considered that aren't also present at a run of the mill college, what are you talking about???
Compare this with Cal Tech
I demonstrated Cal Tech is simply more selective than Georgia Tech.
Again, the point was to show that they are far more accepting, which nullifies the idea that I wouldn't even be accepted. I'd have a 1.6 out of 10 chance, which is greater than
Cal Tech: 3.9%
UCLA: 9%
USC: 12.5%
Stanford: 3.9%
Berkeley:11%
The best schools in California are also, strangely, the most selective, and MORE selective than GA Tech.
Then there are the myriad colleges most Californians are familiar with in the UC system, like Davis, Santa Barbara, CP San Luis Obispo, San Diego, Irvine, Santa Cruz, Merced, and so on. Then you have the Cal State system, which has over 20 other universities.
These are less selective than GA Tech, but no one who applies to these schools is ever thinking about going to Georgia
What fukking Californian is looking to go to the South, when they can get accepted at UC San Diego and enjoy perfect weather year round while getting their education?
and acceptance rates are skewed by location (california >>>, price, number of applicants, class sizes, available of grants, tuition, local competition)
for example georgetown has a low acceptance rate above its national ranking position because it has very little local competition.
It's not a great example, because California is literally the opposite-- MORE Universities than D.C./DMV area, but clearly more selective when it comes to the top tier unis.
UCLA, for example, is less than 12 miles from USC, but is still more selective and prestigious. There are 24 Universities in Los Angeles ALONE (there are 19 in the whole DMV area), and yet somehow, UCLA is still one of the more selective schools in the nation while being highly ranked all the time.
Considering this topic is about Flat Earth, and he decided to pivot the conversation about ME applying to a school I have zero interest in, I can answer the jab any way I like.
- He thinks I wouldn't get accepted.
- OK? And? I would never even apply. There are far too many options in my hometown, let alone my entire state.
It's a deflection; make the argument about me proving I'd be able to get into that school, so he doesn't have to actually prove he'd been in those courses at that school, further moving the debate away from Flat Earth...
...and you completely fell for it, suggesting I'd have to provide academic achievements to dispel that talking point
What y'all in this thread have to stop doing, is letting this nikka distract you from the actual topic.
What he loves to do is try to get you caught up arguing semantics or unrelated shyt so that he can avoid arguing the real points. It's his go-to tactic.
and acceptance rate is a group statistic. there are pre-requisites that have to be considered first.
and acceptance rates are skewed by location (california >>>), price, number of applicants, class sizes, available of grants, tuition, local competition.
for example georgetown has a low acceptance rate above its national ranking position because it has very little local competition.
also UCB historically has a higher acceptance rate than inferior UCLA.
a TLR specific analogy:
any popular IG "thot" has a lower acceptance rate than a selection of miss world winners but the quality of those ms. world beaus is going to be historically "higher' than IG's partners.
-
The direct rebuttal to "you are not good enough" is to show your grades, show your SATS, show where you did get accepted i.e. show your academic profile is indeed good enough to pass the initial hurdle so that acceptance rates would at least come into play.
The answer is not to parade around about the broader difference between university education generally in California and GT (while not checking subject tables) as if that says anything specific about you.
he said you would not get accepted. he didn't say that you "did not apply". therefore "why i would not apply" prefixed arguments are irrelevant.
TL;DR TLR distracted by smoke and mirrors again. there isn't much of note in those videos that isn't already in this thread. other than fanfare. stop letting fanfare distract from the facts.
Personally I think you being a punk here.
You are extremely egotistical and consider yourself the smartest in every room.
So what you doing is actually challenging posters in a slick way.
To state YOUR qualifications and smarts.
You aint slick.
If you trying to go at Birdman then SAY SO
Cause I am sure you have no respect for @xCivicx
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.merriam-webster.com
yeesh
