|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 18:52:33 GMT -4
I have moved your photograph and the comments that followed it to a hidden section of the forum. Once you wrap up existing arguments I will bring it back. Evidence ruled inadmissible then? I thought there was an unusually long pause after I posted it...
|
|
|
Post by rodin on Oct 17, 2010 18:53:42 GMT -4
OK my time's almost up. See you in a day or so, Mods permitting
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Oct 17, 2010 18:54:50 GMT -4
Does time slow down in lower gravity, or is it just that clocks go slower? How would a Grandfather Clock perform in orbit for example? What is the relevance of that question exactly? What does it have to do with answering other people's questions?
|
|
Topher
Venus
I'm in yo' planet, abducting yo' farmers.
Posts: 31
|
Post by Topher on Oct 17, 2010 18:55:41 GMT -4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics Common sense, observation rather than just measurement and esoteric calculation Does time slow down in lower gravity, or is it just that clocks go slower? How would a Grandfather Clock perform in orbit for example? It depends on if it's designed to work in a vacuum or lower gravity. But that has nothing to do with time, but more about the mechanics of a clock. You should try to answer their questions. Or are you going to go talk about it on the David Icke forum again?
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 17, 2010 18:56:47 GMT -4
Does time slow down in lower gravity, or is it just that clocks go slower? How would a Grandfather Clock perform in orbit for example? I think you'll find that clocks actually run faster in lower gravity, and that has recently been shown experimentally. www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/3762/hold-back-time-dont-climb-stairsNow, are you going to answer Jay's questions regarding error analysis. 1. Have you performed an error analysis on your data? If not, why not? If so, what is the result?
2. Have you performed a photogrammetric rectification on the photograph? If not, why not? If so, how does that affect the measurement?
3. Have you performed a statistical curve-fit (instead of a subjective visual curve-fit)? If so, how did your results differ from the visual method? If not, why not?I'd like to see you make a point by point response to those questions as they are fundamental to your analysis. From what I can see, you have plotted a curve and said it doesn't quite fit a parabola perfectly. Why do you expect a perfect fit based on experimental observation?
|
|
Topher
Venus
I'm in yo' planet, abducting yo' farmers.
Posts: 31
|
Post by Topher on Oct 17, 2010 19:04:11 GMT -4
He's trying to say that streak patterns caused by the LM exhaust is evidence of brush strokes on concrete.
He's on the David Icke forum saying he's duped all of you and he's "got you".
-,-
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 17, 2010 19:06:13 GMT -4
He's trying to say that streak patterns caused by the LM exhaust is evidence of brush strokes on concrete. He's on the David Icke forum saying he's duped all of you and he's "got you". -,- Oh well, I guess we lost the argument then...
|
|
Topher
Venus
I'm in yo' planet, abducting yo' farmers.
Posts: 31
|
Post by Topher on Oct 17, 2010 19:23:58 GMT -4
He's trying to say that streak patterns caused by the LM exhaust is evidence of brush strokes on concrete. He's on the David Icke forum saying he's duped all of you and he's "got you". -,- Oh well, I guess we lost the argument then... Yeah, he used the old "run away to my safe zone and talk about how I outplay you all" trick.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Oct 17, 2010 19:37:58 GMT -4
Its your forum do as you wish Yes, that's it rodin, prove to everyone that you can't cope with people actually questioning your suppositions. Are they so weakly founded that you would rather run and cry "but he banned me before I could prove anything" than actually try to defend them? Apparently they are. How nice for you. Have fun telling all your 'friends' how you 'beat' us.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 17, 2010 20:33:12 GMT -4
Look I am sorry I can't be around all the time. No one is asking you be around all the time. We're asking you to make more effective and productive use of the time you do spend. Instead of pursuing a particular line of reasoning to a productive conclusion, you dance around and try to change the subject. As long as you continue to post here and refer elsewhere to our posts and discussions here, you'll have to get used to our low tolerance for distractionary tactics.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Oct 17, 2010 20:39:25 GMT -4
Rodin, the only person to blame for you spreading yourself too thin is you. Instead of posting multiple claims at the same time, start with just one and focus solely on that. If you can't prove your case then just admit it.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Oct 17, 2010 21:14:00 GMT -4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics Common sense, observation rather than just measurement and esoteric calculation There nothing esoterical about statistical analysis. You quote refers to the abuse of statistical data by politicians and demagogues, not its usefulness as a scientific tool. Experience tells me 'common sense' often gets in the way of discovering the truth, it is highly unreliable. Does time slow down in lower gravity, or is it just that clocks go slower? Relativity is an hoax as well? How would a Grandfather Clock perform in orbit for example? It wouldn't perform at all.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 17, 2010 21:18:27 GMT -4
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers,So your answer obviously is no, you have not performed a statistical curve fit, and you have no intention of doing so, and you have no good reason for not having done it. You found an ad hoc visual fit that serves your predetermined purpose, and you refuse to consider the possibility you may have erred. You seem to have latched onto statistics as a pariah you can exploit in order to deflect your responsibility. It's as if you thought, "Oh, he said the word 'statistics,' which means I can launch into an irrelevant diatribe that also mentions the word 'statistics.'" Sorry, statistics is a much larger field than you imagine. It is more than just the pretense of numerical support for some polemical purpose. You have presented to us a set of measurements derived from observation. You propose to see whether those measurements differ from an ideal prediction, and if so by how much. That is exactly a statistical argument. So since you've chosen to go down the statistical-analysis path, what remains to be seen is whether you are willing or able to perform that analysis correctly. Your apparent disdain for statistics is irrelevant; you chose the approach. Now it's time for you to walk the walk. Common sense, observation rather than just measurement and esoteric calculation...No. "Common sense," as you're using it here, is just a euphemism for "wild guess." You have demonstrated at length that you have very little if any useful understanding of the relevant sciences and methods. You've attempted a statistical argument. You don't get to backpedal onto "common sense" now. You have further shown that you don't know what to do with observations -- whether to take them correctly, to interpret them wisely, or to assign value to themrationally. The error analysis I asked you about is precisely aimed at determining your facility with observation. You refuse to do it, so I have little to say about your observational ability. What you propose to dismiss as "esoteric" calculation is actually the mainstay of real scientists, who use it to establish reproducibility in their results -- especially when the results count. Rather than your method of arbitrarily mousing the curve around on the screen until you like what you see, statistically-based curve-fitting techniques provably produce the same results every time, and provably produce the optimal (i.e., least-error) fit. Your conclusion on the title issue of this thread is based entirely upon whether the experimental data conform to an ideal curve. Hence the strength of that conclusion is based entirely on whether you've produced the least-error fit. Your fit method is purely subjective and prone even to innocent error. The method I describe is not. So which of us is really "lying with statistics?" Which of us is pretending to supply geometric and numerical rigor, but ultimately uninterested in how that's normally done defensibly? You're merely playing at science. You pretend to do it, but you do it just enough to give your gullible friends the impression that you know what you're talking about. You don't do it enough to actually determine any useful results. Your friends don't know enough science to challenge you, and you likely avoid discussion here because you know people here won't let you slip by with pseudoscience. Either do science right, or don't do it at all. Now you have said you've addressed all the questions put to you in this forum. My questions are not yet answered and you have failed either to answer them now or to show me where they were previously answered. I press them to you again. Put up or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 17, 2010 21:19:45 GMT -4
Evidence ruled inadmissible then? No. New business tabled until old business is transacted.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 17, 2010 22:26:29 GMT -4
Either do science right, or don't do it at all. That has to be quote of the year. I simply cannot add to that sentiment.
|
|