Latest activity

Mick, once again you've chosen to respond only to a minor side point while ignoring the central question I've asked multiple times now. The glare theory, as currently refined, requires an extra rotation mechanism beyond normal pod elevation...

No, it does not. There is nothing in the code that predicts bumps or steps. We simply observe those things happening. All it predicts is the curve (which is hard math, constrained by the physical reality of the gimbals, which is maybe why the...

Your sim roll predict bumps though, because it predicts when the pod is supposed to roll in steps. And you say rolling in steps induces bumps. So it in fact it tells us when bumps should happen, or not happen in this case. You are super harsh...

That it's a glare. Your assertions don't invalidate any of it. Like: There is no "predictive roll simulator" that identifies bumps. No bumps are predicted by anything; they are simply observed slightly before rotations. You utterly...

Did you ever demonstrate this?

That the "object" is glare. You've seen my video. There's a huge weight of evidence. A LIZ noisy-data puzzle does not override all of that.

Like a big balloon? Surely that's a subset of a broader "nearby object" theory? In all seriousness, perhaps we need a hierarchical taxonomy of theories? And then a ranked list? And are you saying that a theory should get a high ranking if it...

There are two theories, and it's a mistake to conflate them. 1) The Glare Theory - which I think is very well demonstrated, and does not rely on the distant plane theory. 2) The Distant Plane Theory - Where there's a set of possible traversals...

Or the glare-from-a-distant-plane theory. To me it exactly fits this description you give.

I meant: strange, quirky, incomprehensible. Theories that look halfway reasonable, but are based on unstated complex assumptions. Once those assumptions come out, the theory just seems unsustainable. But it LOOKS good. Triangulation is a good...

I think Mick used "odd" in the sense of "occasional", not "strange".

I think those are more hypotheses than data. Triangulation, for example, rested on a heap of assumptions and seemed like something AI spat out without really understanding all the variables. Your continued insistence on its validity was, IIRC...

You described my contributions as "odd theories" from the refinements thread, while claiming those points were "actively discussed." They weren't. I was the main (often only) person in that thread consistently posting detailed tests: frustum...

But they are all thing actively being discussed here, not settled facts.

Mick, You say you haven't watched Marik's video in full, yet you've already framed the entire thing as just "recycling old arguments" plus "odd theories from Zaine." That's not exactly starting from a position of good faith analysis. The core...