|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 18, 2010 16:27:10 GMT -4
Somehow, it's even our fault that he starts multiple threads on multiple boards, all with multiple statements each, and then doesn't have the time to answer questions he should have thought of himself before making any claims. Well if he's going to make it our fault that he's unable to keep up with the discussion, then he should respect our moderator's judgment in keeping him from opening new topics. He should welcome the restraint. See, the problem I have is the contradiction between, "I don't have time to keep up with all this discussion," and "You guys won't let me start a new discussion." That plus his comments about the "momentum of the investigation" lead me to conclude that he wants a Gish Gallop, and now he's smarting because his gallop has been reigned in. Real science prides itself on how much scrutiny it has withstood, not how much scrutiny it has avoided.
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 18, 2010 16:31:53 GMT -4
Everyone else blames me for everything, so jump on the bandwagon. My gold fish died this morning. Thanks for that Jay. But the fact remains that he talks the talk, but clearly won't walk the walk. So, know we have quotes from Full Metal Jacket. Excellent. Maybe when Rodin turns up, we can adopt the style of Animal Mother and Joker in our interaction with him.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Oct 18, 2010 16:32:47 GMT -4
You mean "reined," but yes. The fact is, in order to have a reasoned discussion, you have to actually be willing to discuss things, not make demands and then complain when you don't like the answers--especially as regards burden of proof. No, a claim that something "could" be shown to be done a certain way doesn't count, especially when you don't have a reasonable summary of how it could be done. Boo hoo that he doesn't realize that and gets all pouty.
|
|
Topher
Venus
I'm in yo' planet, abducting yo' farmers.
Posts: 31
|
Post by Topher on Oct 18, 2010 17:22:13 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Oct 18, 2010 17:24:33 GMT -4
NO! Respond to our questions first. I will ban you if you start any new topics before following through with your existing obligations. Its your forum do as you wish I thought it was about time rodin started to cry. But over on Icke he will plough on. Thats the best place for him if he is not interested in defending his claims.
|
|
Topher
Venus
I'm in yo' planet, abducting yo' farmers.
Posts: 31
|
Post by Topher on Oct 18, 2010 17:28:14 GMT -4
Yeah, a lot of the people there are a bit strange and many of them I know believe the moon landings didn't happen.
So he really doesn't have many contenders there, nothing short of a few people. Even then, his brothers in arms show up and spam the holy f**k out of the thread, leaving whatever evidence or rational discussion behind to be forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by captain swoop on Oct 18, 2010 19:45:08 GMT -4
Who cares what he says on other sites. It's what he says here that counts.
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Oct 18, 2010 20:19:12 GMT -4
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? That would be time dilation and special reality. Yes Gravity does have an effect on time, its been proven with atomic clocks using a test called the Twin Paradox. Go read. Hafele and Keating, Nature 227 (1970), pg 270 (proposal). Science Vol. 177 pg 166–170 (1972) (experiment). You should also read up on time correction for GPS systems and how they have to upload time corrections to synch their atomic clocks to keep within an error parameter of 59ns. I am not sure you are serious or being generally silly about the clocks, but as you well know a pendulum based grandfather, or Long Case clock works on the basis of having a counter weight to the pendulum which interacts with the escapement wheel to provide the continuos momentum. You wind the weights to the top and they slowly drop down to provide a counter to the pendulum. When they get to the bottom the clock stops and you wind the weights back up and start all over again. The problem with all of this is, in space where theres none of that silly stuff we have on earth..GRAVITY.... it wont work. Something to do with the laws of Physics and you don't want to mess with them or we will all launch into space and become bananas ( or is that the law of reality) . You could alternatively try and prove that Pi is incorrect and if you do so please let the engineers around the world know just in case all the structures and bridges in the world suddenly collapse after finding out this shocking news. Maybe you could put your life energy into something more interesting like appearing on XFactor. Alternatively you can go back to the so called self professed "son of god" site and wax lyrical about the Lizards who our running our world and blaming everyone else, except you, for your inability to actually prove your case with sound argument and facts. By the way hats off to the giant space rake theory on DI forum. Orbital photos made by a garden rake (Nothing to do with the way the film strips were put together)... i must bow to your keen eye and intellectual deduction of that photo. I must apologise unfortunately care in the community isn't working in the UK. Right back to the "i collect GI Joe websites"
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Oct 18, 2010 21:49:57 GMT -4
Don't worry Jay and Lunar, all you need do is purchase an industrial sized crab cracker, and you'll be fine. ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 19, 2010 0:34:55 GMT -4
With respect to Jay, the questions are not rocket science.No offense taken. You're right: my questions aren't about esoteric niceties or overly formal sophistry. They're about the basic mathematical principles that make science useful. By "basic" I don't mean easy. Error analysis is tricky. "Basic" here means the minimum effort a proponent must make before his claims acquire credibility. Rocket science -- or at least aerospace engineering -- requires basic management of uncertainty right down at the grease-monkey level. When you check assemblies for tolerance or wear, you load the meters at slack so that they read some value greater than zero. Then you apply the operating load and repeat until you get some number of measurements that agree within some epsilon, subtracting your slack reading to get the actual value. These "loaded at zero" and supersampling methods are basic techniques to deal with the uncertainty in measuring a real world quantity. This is done not pro forma or for abstract sophistication; this is done because to fail to do so risks human life through inattention to the real phenomenon of uncertainty. Forensic science and engineering, such as what I sometimes do, depends heavily on the proper management of uncertainty. In forensic matters there are parties who are very well motivated to exploit any flaw in method. Statistical methods in this case, far from being dishonest, are used to demonstrate the impossibility or unlikelihood of lying. We use objective methods of data-fitting, transformation, and approximation, for example, instead of interactive methods. Interactive methods are fertile ground for bias. The concept is straight forward enough.The concept of uncertainty is straightforward, but the execution can be tedious. There are certainly quantitative issues in uncertainty and subsequent error analysis. Phrases such as "significant digits" should ring a bell. Confidence intervals, etc. These all allude to the statistical management of quantities that vary for reasons we can't always predict, but which are known or suspected to vary according to a normal distribution. Any geometric point in a scene may be represented by any number of pixels or grains in an image. Conversely it may lie anywhere within a single pixel, where discrete quantization occurs. Knowing how the different possible positions affect the precision of your results is a matter of minimal competence in such inquiries. There are qualitative concerns as well. You have to know enough about your subject and methods to know what sorts of errors may arise. You can't defensibly say, "Well I don't know about it, therefore it doesn't affect my results." Rodin doesn't know anything about photogrammetry, so he's ripe to make the same mistake Jack White did. He didn't know anything about jitter in spatial and temporal quantization, so he already got burned with that one. The Patriot missile analysis springs to mind. Critics of the system used commercial television footage to try to undermine estimates of its success. They failed to consider that events in an ABM-intercept scenario happen too quickly to be captured accurately by such sampling. Video "analysts" often forget that a video frame is not a coherent instant in time, but rather a spatially-distributed "slice" of time in which events depicted at the bottom of a frame do not necessarily correlate with top-of-frame elements, to a precision of a small fraction of a frame interval. Piddly? Niggling? Normally inconsequential? Yes, indeed. But it takes a trained, experienced, and well-informed analyst to determine when such effects are significant and when they are not. You have to know how the quantity you're measuring relates to the phenomenon predicted in your model, or to the value you're interested in. The gas gauge transducer in the typical car purports to measure the fuel quantity, but actually measures the liquid level at one point in the tank. (Hint: what if the tank were tilted?) The valve position sensor on many valves actually measures the position of the actuator arm, not the position of the valve body. (Hint: what if the actuator linkage failed?) Determining the influence of these and similar effects is what occupies a lot of the time spent by real-world investigators. Perhaps photogrammetric rectification does not produce a significant error in this case. But you have to compute it in order to make that determination. This is why "momentum" is not what real investigations cherish. Sure, if Rodin wants to omit all the rigor in his analysis and fall back to a "common sense" handwaving argument, then he is welcome to do so. But having done so -- having flagrantly ignored potential reasons why his observation doesn't fit his model -- he cannot then rationally attribute discrepancy to some farfetched bogey man. If he notes that the model fails to explain the observation, but he has not considered why, then all he has proven is his inability to do science right. If Rodin fails to see it, then I, as a practicing physicist, cannot take his claims seriously.It's pretty obvious that he doesn't take qualified practitioners seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 19, 2010 2:42:59 GMT -4
How would a Grandfather Clock perform in orbit for example? [...] The problem with all of this is, in space where theres none of that silly stuff we have on earth..GRAVITY.... it wont work. Technical flag on the play. In space there is indeed gravity, but in the proposed scenario, a "Grandfather Clock ... in orbit," the entire assembly is in perpetual freefall, therefore there is no differential in force between the typically "fixed" works, and the typically "falling" weights and pendulum. But yes, in such a case, the mechanism will not function. Now, if a pendulum clock could be suspended (in the correct orientation) at an "orbital altitude" without actually being in orbit, say on a rocket at vertical stationkeeping or on top of a ludicrously-tall pedistal, it would in fact run slower, not due to relativity effects (special or general), but simply because the period of the pendulum swing would be longer under less gravity. This, however, assumes the pendulum length is not re-calibrated for the lesser gravity. And the effect may not be as pronounced as one might think, as the force of gravity at an altitude of 200km is still 94% that of Earth's surface.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Oct 19, 2010 5:12:36 GMT -4
You have to know how the quantity you're measuring relates to the phenomenon predicted in your model, or to the value you're interested in. I think this bit is worth repeating and repeating. It's essentially the same problem as those who argue that Explorer 1 discovered massive amounts of radiation in orbit based on the fact that the geiger counters maxed out. They assume 'maxed out' means 'incredibly high levels', but utterly fail to consider what the maximum range of the instrument actually was. You have to understand not only what you are trying to measure but what the limitations of your measuring method are. As a real example I come across every day, I am working on developing a machine that tells you how much of a particular substance is present in a blood sample. It does it by various measurement and data processing techniques. However, those techniques yield a very high result if a control measurement fails or even if you don't put any blood in at all. Clearly you can't have an inordinately high drug or hormone level in a non-existent sample, but that is what my instrument says you have, because it was not designed to output meaningful data under those circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Oct 19, 2010 7:13:58 GMT -4
You have to know how the quantity you're measuring relates to the phenomenon predicted in your model, or to the value you're interested in. I think this bit is worth repeating and repeating. It's essentially the same problem as those who argue that Explorer 1 discovered massive amounts of radiation in orbit based on the fact that the geiger counters maxed out. They assume 'maxed out' means 'incredibly high levels', but utterly fail to consider what the maximum range of the instrument actually was. You have to understand not only what you are trying to measure but what the limitations of your measuring method are. As a real example I come across every day, I am working on developing a machine that tells you how much of a particular substance is present in a blood sample. It does it by various measurement and data processing techniques. However, those techniques yield a very high result if a control measurement fails or even if you don't put any blood in at all. Clearly you can't have an inordinately high drug or hormone level in a non-existent sample, but that is what my instrument says you have, because it was not designed to output meaningful data under those circumstances. A well known example which might appeal more to the layman could be the medical thermometer. Trying to measure the ambient temperature these days where I live, would render it out of range.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Oct 19, 2010 9:54:09 GMT -4
Have you seen rodins space rake thery. He has posted some orbital compilations and said the joins in the photos are proof a rake was used.
Even for rodin this is a classic. His powers of observation are indeed "unique".
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Oct 19, 2010 20:56:55 GMT -4
You have to know how the quantity you're measuring relates to the phenomenon predicted in your model, or to the value you're interested in. I think this bit is worth repeating and repeating. It's essentially the same problem as those who argue that Explorer 1 discovered massive amounts of radiation in orbit based on the fact that the Geiger counters maxed out. They assume 'maxed out' means 'incredibly high levels', but utterly fail to consider what the maximum range of the instrument actually was. The Geiger counter is another good example of where the theorists create their model according to their own interpretation of how a Geiger counter works and what can be interpreted from such readings. I think it was Ralph Rene who in interview gave an 'impression' of a Geiger counter going 'up and up' and never coming back down, and his protege has given the same impression on radio too. Firstly, the 'impression' illustrates they simply do not possess the language of science, which makes me suspect their claims for a start. But more importantly, a Geiger counter can become saturated and take time to relax. So, in essence, a counter can continue to report radiation where there is none. If it moves to a new point of radiation before fully relaxed, then it would appear that the space in between first detection and final detection is also occupied by radiation. Then there are all the other niceties that the theorists ignore, such as the type of radiation the Geiger counter is responding to. I could have a Geiger counter in the next room, clicking away happily next to a pure alpha source, and feel quite safe sat here.
|
|