@beayn
‘The first thing I noticed when skimming your post is that you are angry I didn't read your whole post last time. I don't have to, and didn't this time. It's meaningless drivel, and large quantities of it. (Note: we'll talk about quantities later). I also notice you're angry because I pointed out you have a massive ego affecting your judgment. You got pretty upset throughout your last post because of it, tossing around even more insults than usual. Typical egotistical response.’
Yeah, cos saying somebody is angry is a really good way to prove them wrong? Not to mention that you actually have to tell yourself I’m angry just to make yourself feel better for having no answers to the obvious truth I’m stating. In case you misinterpreted capital letters as anger, I only included them because the only explanation for your idiocy is that you missed them the first time.
‘You could not provide any evidence of your wild theories and so you have no basis for an argument whatsoever. Thus you are arguing for the sake of it, and I will always point it out when you do it. ‘
Sorry? There is no evidence that software can make software behave differently? LMFAO! Not to mention the fact that I already said I don’t have to PROVE anything for it to be POSSIBLE. Even if the reality was that it was a hardware issue, it would still not make me wrong. As I’ve also said, since you’re stating that it MUST be a hardware issue, you in fact have to prove that this is the case.
‘You want me to say something like "there are UNIQUE things about the iPhone antenna that go beyond the basic laws of RF signals and antennas." If I told you I DID know those UNIQUE problems and they couldn't be fixed in software, you would then tell me there were OTHER UNIQUE problems that I don't know about. You would provide no solid evidence or theory behind what is happening, not even a BASIC ballpark explanation of what you claim. That's simply how you argue. You just make it up as you go along while claiming to be intelligent. It really is humorous.’
You say nothing whatsoever, again, in this lengthy tearful paragraph. Again, you refer to the IPhone specifically though, which makes me wonder if you even know what we’re arguing about. I invite you to journey back and realise that this whole discussion is based on the fact that the issues WHICH ARE SEEN in the IPhone COULD POSSIBLY be caused by software. Not that they are, or anything PROVABLE, just a simple statement that the possibility exists. It’s beyond belief that you are still trying to maintain that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for software to cause software issues.
‘I'm working off the basic ways behind how antennas work (which you proved you know nothing about), real life quantifiable incidents (other phones, radio devices & iphone itself) and sticking to the exact same point each time while usually ignoring anything else you claim that doesn't directly affect REAL signal loss. ‘
Again – if you look closely you make no actual points here. You effectively just said ‘im looking at other phones, and incidents’. It’s a completely meaningless, content-free, point-less comment. And to suggest I’ve deviated at all, just shows your inability to read, particularly after the long post which proved you wrong on that count.
‘You, however, keep coming up with random things like a "unique" antenna not affected by normal antenna & RF laws, special interference caused by your hand that can be detected and more idiotic and unproven points that are just plain hilarious they're so dumb. Your "logic" in trying to explain most of your crap is so backwards that 90% of the time it isn't even worth repeating.’
This time you go back to false claims? Saying an antenna is unique is not the same as saying it ISN’T affected by ‘normal’ antenna and RF laws (which btw, is so vague you may as well not have said the sentence at all). First of all, it’s possible for any new type of antenna to respond to any of these ‘normal’ laws in any way. Secondly, even if it was responding in exactly the same way as all other antennas, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The point is that it’s doing something… ELSE. Something which other devices which follow the ‘normal’ rules DON’T. You claim it’s doing the same, but more, but you try to evidence this by pointing to the devices that DON’T do ‘more’. So even IF EVERY antenna had to respond in the exact same way (which it doesn’t), and even IF the IPhone antenna worked exactly the same way as other phones (which it DOESN’T), it STILL wouldn’t mean that I couldn’t reproduce this problem by programming software. Which in turn means that it could potentially be a software problem.
‘Now, I already explained how the antenna is NOT unique and will do so again for your young, feeble mind to understand.’
Yeah, you’re right, the antenna which the whole world has described as unique, the uniqueness of which being the very fabric of your whole argument that the antenna is to blame, is in fact, the same as the rest. LMFAO.
‘You are disputing that all antennas are governed by the same laws and theories...’
Again, your inability to understand English is exposed. Your definition of ‘laws and theories’ is so vague you may as well not even say it, by the way. You may aswell say ‘all objects follow the laws of physics’ in an attempt to prove that a mountain will behave the same when you kick it as air does.
‘By your logic then, this means the radio signal received by Apple's antenna does NOT induce a current in the material?’
When have I ever said anything remotely meaning that? You’re now claiming I said that the Antenna doesn’t get a signal? LOL
‘I suppose it isn't sensitive to positioning either, meaning it won't reflect any signal? It has no impedance? Is its length tuned to the frequency wavelength it's receiving or does that not apply either? Does it work on electricity? Is it not affected by grounding at all or other electromagnetic fields? (ie: People).’
The sensitivity to all of the above is dependant on a whole host of factors. The size, the shape, the location, any insulated covering, the sensitivity, the signal strength. AS A RESULT, the fact that it is DIFFERENT IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES means it will RESPOND DIFFERENT IN EVERY ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES. Even IF it was the same size, the same material and exactly the same sensitivity and technology as other phones, that does NOT prove that this has to be a hardware issue. There are numerous ways to engineer antennas and each of them produce antennas with different sensitivities to interference. Your whole argument is based around this premise. You claim that the antenna is more sensitive to interference because of its location, whilst at the same time claiming that the claim (I made) that antennas can be affected by interference at different levels depending on a whole host of factors is ‘hilarious’. Your own logic completely defeats your point. If an antenna can be MORE susceptible to interference, it NECESSARILY follows that antennas CAN BE LESS susceptible to interference. And IF that was the case (which IS possible), the additional ‘interference’ manifested purely in the software, could just as easily be caused by the software.
‘You're so clueless it's hilarious. Seriously, Wikipedia Antennas and you'll get some basic info on them. It should give you the basics and is actually relatively simple for someone with a tech background. They explain the way it works for all antennas, including those on radios and cell phones, wifi etc.’
Again, this statement has no content or logical argument at all. I may as well tell you to go and look on wikipedia for ‘phones’ or ‘software’ because it is an alien concept to you, but that would just be an angry last resort, so lets not be tragic ;-)
‘Claiming there is something beyond the basic laws which govern these things that totally defies said laws is more evidence of your LACK of understanding. When people can't explain stuff, they often call it "magic". A word used often by fanboys such as yourself. Since you can't explain your theories, they are simply magical to you.’
LMFAO!!! New winner for dumbest statement yet. Now you’re claiming that my argument that different materials, technologies, sizes, shapes and orientations of antennas can respond differently is in fact an argument that basic laws don’t apply? Beyond dumb. You know, it’s absolutely ironic. You’re reaching the conclusion that I must be stupid because you are too stupid to properly interpret anything I’ve said. ;-)
‘By your flawed logic using the 1 apple, 2 apples analogy that was clearly too complicated for you, it would mean EVERY SINGLE antenna in the world that is a different length and shape is totally UNIQUE and thus governed by an entirely different set of RF laws. The sheer idiocy in your statement is astounding.’
Sorry, this again is a completely false conclusion. Sometimes I wonder why your comments make no sense, and have no relevance to any of my points. What I SAID would mean that:
Firstly: Antennas of different lengths, shapes sizes ARE unique, that is correct. Do you know what unique means? If there isn’t one the same, it’s unique. Arguably, each apple is unique too (showing your previous example to be wrong again)
Secondly: Saying something is UNIQUE does NOT, (I repeat does NOT) mean the same thing as saying that fundamental laws of physics don’t apply. It simply means that the item in question will RESPOND DIFFERENTLY by applying the SAME LAWS in DIFFERENT CONTEXTS (such as my ice cube example by the sun, or at the north pole). Not only that, but depending on the technology and materials in question, sometimes the SAME LAWS may not even APPLY. What YOU’RE claiming is like saying that a Cathode Ray Tube must behave the same way as an LCD because the ‘same laws apply’. LOL. It’s RIDICULOUS. It’s like you don’t even recognise that there are different ways to pick up radio signals, different ways to protect against interference, different technologies to amplify and filter etc, there’s just THOUSANDS of variables, and yet you’re trying to argue that they MUST always (and this includes in the future too) behave the same. You just don’t get it, lol.
‘Also consider that your 'L' shaped apple that is 10x larger than normal and placed in the sand is still an apple’
So does that mean when I kick it it will roll away?
‘Even if it is unique among apples due to its shape and size, it is STILL an apple governed by said laws. Its taste, texture, density, and genetic structure is all still an apple’
How do you know? If scientists found an L shaped apple which was 10x the size and grows in sand, it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY it isn’t the same test, texture, density OR genetic structure. HIGHLY unliky. Even if it was made of the same material, the very shape itself would inherently cause differences to the density, taste and texture, not to mention the size issue that it would have an entirely different physical composition. At the very least, no scientist would EVER try to CLAIM that this unique, L-Shaped apple which is 10x the size of a normal one and grows in completely separate conditions, must BEHAVE THE SAME WAY AND RESPOND TO EVERYTHING IN THE SAME WAY as a normal Apple. They would just NEVER be that stupid, presumptuous or illogical.
‘If it is not governed by the basic things that define the apple, then it is NOT an apple at all, is it. It's something else entirely.’
This could not really be much further from correct. You’ve completely lost your sense of direction whilst making this point. An Apple can be unique, and can behave completely differently to other apples, and yet still be defined as an Apple. That is a fact. Is it a ‘basic’ law of an Apple that it must roll away when I kick it? Of course not? Would a normal Apple roll? Of course. Would our L shaped apple roll? Of course not. Does this prove that two objects with the same ‘label’ can behave differently? Of course. Not to mention that for my example to be correct, we could EVEN be talking about IDENTICAL APPLES, but placed in different situations, different surroundings, and read/interpreted in different ways. And finally (I know I’ve already found about 10 ways in which you’re wrong AND irrelevant) but finally, the definition of an ‘antenna’ does not specify ANYTHING to do with a) what it’s made of b) what it actually picks up b) how it picks it up .. or really ANYTHING, other than something which picks up some kind of signal from something, it DOESN’T EVEN HAVE TO BE ELECTROMAGNETIC. So that makes it...11 ways in which your comment was completely irrelevant and wrong.
Lets make it 12? EVEN IF this antenna was the same as every other phone and NOT unique, it STILL doesn’t change the fact that I could reproduce this problem in any phone, using SOFTWARE. So it STILL wouldn’t mean anything. So why are you so idiotically pursuing an argument that isn’t even relevant? Let alone the fact that it couldn’t be much further from the truth.
‘By your logic, that must mean that the iPhone antenna is not actually an antenna... AND If all different length and shaped antennas are all unique and governed by different laws, then none of them are actually antennas, are they?’
Again, you seem to fail to interpret basic English. I never said it wasn’t an antenna, I simply said that a DIFFERENT antenna can respond in a DIFFERENT WAY. It couldn’t be much more obvious, to be honest.
‘How can you define an "antenna" or an "apple" if they are completely different and each governed by a different set of laws?’
This is, I think, the fundamental area where your brain just can’t comprehend, lol. If we label a car and a motorbike a VEHICLE, does that mean that a motorbike behaves the same way as a car? OH wait, have you now realised that things can be DIFFERENT whilst still being defined as the same word? Congratulations, you just passed year 1 of play school. LMFA!
‘Again, you must re-read the apple analogy and strain to understand the fundamental difference between one and two apples. Concentrate now. Nothing but the difference between ONE and TWO apples. Anyone with basic cognitive functions should come to the conclusion that the difference is QUANTITY. By simple logic then, having MORE or LESS of something, does not make it UNIQUE’
Actually, it does. If one car is the only car in the world to have 10 wheels, it IS UNIQUE. That is a fact. Quantity alone CAN be enough to define uniqueness, PARTICULARLY when comparing the object that contains those sub collections as a whole. Even if you look at the individual apples, you could argue that the apple on it’s own is unique because it’s on it’s own. You seem to not understand what unique means, to be honest. For this whole point to even be relevant you would have to show that the Apple Iphone was not infact a new phone with a totally unique aerial (as the world already knows), and that it instead it has 2 (or any multiple) of the same antennas as some other phone. And EVEN IF YOU COULD PROVE THAT complete lie – it would STILL be unique because the antennas would impact each other in a way that a single one wouldn’t be, causing different responses in various conditions.
‘We can even apply your flawed logic about QUANTITY being UNIQUE to the QUANTITY of BS you spew each day. Just because the amount you SPEW each day is DIFFERENT, does not mean it isn't still BS. Each post is not UNIQUE because it is a different size, it's still crap and it's still meaningless.’
Er, of course it is? JUST LIKE THE ANTENNA EXAMPLE, each post is unique because it is a different size, shape, location, and has different surroundings (context). Of COURSE each comment is unique. How are you seriously this stupid? Lol
‘Now after confronted with logic, the fanboy will respond with your usual twisted logic.’
LOL
‘You'll say that you weren't ACTUALLY disputing the laws of RF and antennas but that Apple's antenna is SO UNIQUE due to its SHAPE, it has some special UNIQUE RF laws that apply ONLY to it. When I ask what those laws are, you won't have any to provide.’
So you realised how stupid you were, again, before you even typed. I don’t have to prove that any unique RF laws apply. Even if the same laws applied, and even if the antenna wasn’t unique, and even if the Apple antenna was just two Nokia antennas shoved together, it would STILL NOT MATTER. Even putting aside the comprehensive proof I’ve provided as to why all of what you claimed is not the case, the fundamental point you don’t realise is that EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT IN TERMS OF THE ANTENNA DESIGN, IT WOULDN’T MATTER – because I could still reproduce the effects of the antenna in this case using software. As a result, it is POSSIBLE for the problem we saw in this case to be caused by software. ;-) You’ve now become so irrelevant that even if I posed the hypothetical situation that everything you said was correct, you would STILL BE WRONG, lool!
‘Next, On TOP OF ALL THIS, you even dispute the LAWS OF PHYSICS by saying quote: "It’s like saying that all OBJECTS are governed by the same laws of PHYSICS." Are you serious? You really just claimed this as a point in your favor?’
Yes, precisely. The fact IS that all objects are governed by the laws of physics, but that can NEVER BE USED in ANY WAY to try and prove that say, cheese will behave the same way as COPPER when faced with say, an electric current. The point (which I genuinely think you just didn’t get) is that it’s a NOTHING-STATEMENT, A TRUISM, an IRRELEVANT OBVIOUS TRUTH. THAT’S why it was a ‘point in my favour’ – because it was obvious, irrelevant, and didn’t prove a thing?
‘You're actually disputing that all antennas are governed by the same laws by disputing the fact that all objects are governed by the same laws of physics? Hysterical!! This is by far your BEST ONE YET. ‘
Sadly, this is the proof of my suspicions, that you just don’t realise what people are saying when they criticise. I think you are genuinely not intelligent enough to discuss with, but I’ll continue anyway because it’s fun/
‘So this means the laws of physics do NOT apply to Apple. They have their very own set of MAGICAL laws of Non-Physics that govern everything they do. Funniest one yet!’
… which makes this sentence all the more hilarious. ;-)
‘Like I said, it's great entertainment to see you continue to come up with these things and use them as a point of argument while insulting my intelligence. The sheer hypocrisy and utter stupidity involved in all of your comments is mind boggling and just pure comedy gold. AND they get better each time.’
Again, no content whatsoever.
‘You said: "Some BS about if signal loss happens, ALL phones would lose their calls." You are ignoring signal STRENGTH again. Keep twisting your "logic" to suit your needs. It makes you look dumber every time.’
LOL, so now you’re saying that the problem is SPECIFIC to Apple because the Apple phones have lower SIGNAL STRENGTH than ANY OTHER PHONE? Lmfao!!!!!!!!!
‘Yes, I plan to share your humorous, twisted logic with my friends again. They'll get a kick out of your disputing the laws of physics. It's like linking failblog vids to your friends. Don't get angry just because you have no fanboy friends to share your UNIQUE drivel with.’
= just in from our ‘cry for help’ department.
‘My point stands true no matter what laws you try to dispute. People interfere with signals. Signal strength can be reduced with said interference. Signal strength can not be fixed in Software.’
Again, your point, if as stated above, has been irrelevant from the start. My point all along is that we don’t actually KNOW that the ACTUAL signal strength is reduced, all we KNOW is that the software is telling us it is. In this case, as I have said all along, the problem could be caused by EITHER the hardware actually suffering signal loss OR the software MISREPRESENTING the signal. That is so obvious, when you read it it must make you cry that you dispute it. The whole premise of your argument is that it is a FACT that the signal is reduced, but that is a FALSE assumption – and is NOT NECESSARILY the case, in every case. For example, a case where I take a normal phone which isn’t adversely affected as much as you claim the iphone is, and I program the software to report lower signal loss when certain conditions are met, such as the pressure on a particular point which can be detected. That example alone, PROVES my point, which has been my point all along, that JUST because a problem is TRIGGERED by hardware, DOESN’T necessarily make it a HARDWARE problem, PARTICULARLY when the ONLY EVIDENCE OF THE PROBLEM is within the software. It’s OBVIOUS.
You also can’t prove that it’s a FACT that the signal is lost MORE in the Iphone based on the fact that it is lost LESS on another phone. That’s another huge flaw in your whole point.
‘The iPhone has the same type of antenna as every other cell phone out there regardless of shapes as proven with the "apple" analogy that you set up for me so eloquently.’
Even if this were true, your whole argument is that the ‘same types of antenna’ can behave differently. Your whole argument is that the IPhone antenna is behaving differently, so you render your own argument irrelevant.
‘The iPhone is more prone to human interference by touch because the antenna is exposed. Everything else you say is pure unsubstantiated drivel.’
Again, EVEN IF this were true, it DOESN’T mean that the SAME PROBLEM can’t POSSIBLY be caused by software. Even assuming this claim is correct, it has NO relevance to my original claim whatsoever. And you should note, I’ve ALWAYS and CONSISTENTLY (from post one) said that the problem could JUST AS EASILY be caused by Hardware.
‘Now, put down your "Apple Educated! Diploma" and stop thinking in "magical" terms. There are real laws of physics at work in the world and they govern that world. Antennas too! Apple can not defy them or make up their own laws, and neither can you!’
Yes, we all have to live by the ‘real laws of physics’ and that means that the space rocket is in fact, the same as a block of cheese. In fact, I wonder why NASA doesn’t save money by arguing that Cheese follows the laws of nature just as much as their rockets do, and therefore they must behave in the same way?
L M F A O ;-)
Facebook
Twitter