RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling

RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/28/2010 7:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Since I would understand where it was coming from, and I no longer have a very high opinion of you, I would not consider it an actual insult, simply an attempt on your part to derail and deflect. I'm not trying to deflect, I am trying to point out a big issue you have that often prevents you from engaging in an honest discussion. I'll give you that I am derailing you but then again if you consider the topic to be the mocking of disingenuous positions then I'm right on topic [:D] and by the way yes it was an insult, it's truth value in no way changes that. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And besides, I know it wouldn't be true. You've claimed that you're not insulting DomKen when you have blatantly been doing so, so yes you're full of shit. You're inability to admit when you're wrong even on the littlest things that no one actually cares about and change you're argument accordingly is at least part of why you just keep going around in circles in these discussions. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Like I said, "I'd consider the source, and simply ignore it." You've gone with that fallacy a few times now, the thing is you're opinion of me in no way changes the accuracy of my statement.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/28/2010 7:28:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Since I would understand where it was coming from, and I no longer have a very high opinion of you, I would not consider it an actual insult, simply an attempt on your part to derail and deflect. I'm not trying to deflect, I am trying to point out a big issue you have that often prevents you from engaging in an honest discussion. I'll give you that I am derailing you but then again if you consider the topic to be the mocking of disingenuous positions then I'm right on topic [:D] and by the way yes it was an insult, it's truth value in no way changes that. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And besides, I know it wouldn't be true. You've claimed that you're not insulting DomKen when you have blatantly been doing so, so yes you're full of shit. You're inability to admit when you're wrong even on the littlest things that no one actually cares about and change you're argument accordingly is at least part of why you just keep going around in circles in these discussions. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Like I said, "I'd consider the source, and simply ignore it." You've gone with that fallacy a few times now, the thing is you're opinion of me in no way changes the accuracy of my statement. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You're the pedant. You get all twisted out of shape over sloppy use of language. I'm simply pointing out that you exagerated the effect by 32 fold. You also make an unwarranted leap ... Glad to see that you and DK are such good buddies. However, if you consider this thread about mocking "disingenuous positions", then why are you addressing me, and not DK? What do you think about the subject at hand? Can you add up 250 miles 31 times and get 240,000? Or do you also wish to add 2 plus 2 and get 324? Firm

DomKen -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/28/2010 7:43:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Why do you insist on using a popular science article from 2008 when I pointed you to a journal article on the subject from 2010? As a matter of fact the popsci article you link to quotes the authors of the newer journal article I pojnted you to. You're quite welcome to write the authors and tell them they're off by a factor of 32 but you're unlikely to make much headway with just a popsci article. Although perhaps you greatly misunderstand acceleration. It is a cumulative matter. At the end of each year the probe is 400km closer to the sun than its start of the year velocity would predict. Over 31 years it would be 1/2 ((8.0 * 10^-10) * (31 * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60)^2 = 382,293,217m which works out to 382,293km at 1.6 km to the mile roughly 240,000 miles. So annually the probes travel 400km less than expected but cumulatively it works out to 240,000 miles. Note that if you want to talk about annual decceleration, which is what you said to start with, then it is 400km. Being both clueless and a blowhard must really be wearing on you. Firm The fact that you were wrong doesn't seem to be able to penetrate your skull. you said that annually the probes traveled 8000 miles less than expected. That was only true for one year, about 1987. It is always true (assuming the accuracy of the acceleration figure) that the probes travel 400km less per year than expected by their start of year velocity. It must be hard being you and being unable to do basic math but feeling empowered to insult others on it. Let's walk through this a bit, shall we? 1. You state that it covers 400 kilometers less per year than expected. Or, converted to miles, about 250 miles less. (400 kilometers = 248.5 miles, according to Google). 2. You state that the total distance between the expected location, and the actual location is on the order of 240,000 miles (which is about what I said). 3. You agree that the travel time under discussion is 31 years. Basic math gives you a problem here. If the craft only "loses" 250 miles per year, over 31 years, that is 7,750 miles total "loss". Yet the actual difference is 240,000 miles, as you agree. 240,000 divided by 31 years gives an average of about 8k miles per year (approximately, anyway). This math is immaterial of any deceleration effect. So you really don't understand acceleration quote: But let's look at your assertion that it does, as well: 1. Now, if you are saying that the amount of deceleration was reduced each year and 2. That 1987 was the highest year, and 3. It has been smaller ever since, and 4. Currently (well, in 2003) the difference was only 250 miles .. Actually it has been "faster" ever since 1987. quote: .. you still have a problem, because you still need a yearly average of 8,000 miles a year to equal 240,000 miles. And there is no way you can go from a high year of 8,000 miles down to 250 miles and come up with 240,000 miles without the craft accelerating during that time frame. Perhaps you know something about the little grey men in their saucers helping out here? [sm=banana.gif][sm=dancer.gif] Go fish. Firm The problem is as I guessed that you do not understand constant acceleration. For the purposes of this I'll discuss it as if it was at a standing start (it wasn't but the math is the same) The the acceleration towards the sun is a constant 8 * 10^-10 meters/second^2 So in the first second it has traveled 4 * 10^-10 meters ( a trivial solution of the constant acceleration to distance traveled formula 1/2(a * t^2) but it has a velocity of 8* 10^-10 meters/second. In the next second it has traveled 16 * 10^-10 meters (another trivial solution) and a velocity of 16 * 10^-10 m/s. After a minute it has moved 1.44 * 10 -6 meters (1/2(a * 60^2)) its velocity is now 4.8 * 10^-8 m/s. its avergae velocity for the first minute is half of the current velocity (should be obvious). This continues on and on and on. Each year the object travels 400km more than would be expected if it had no acceleration applied at all. However the acceleration continues to add up so the velocity continues to increase by 8 * 10^-10 meters every second.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/28/2010 11:47:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Being both clueless and a blowhard must really be wearing on you. Insults in place of an argument against his point is actually just exposing your emotional weakness and intellectual inferiority. [;)] It was sympathy for an obvious truth, not an insult. He is math and logic challenged, but doesn't let that get in the way of his ego. Lots of "wanna", not much "can", yanno. Stating the obvious should never be considered insulting. We are all on a search for truth, aren't we? [8D][:)] Firm If I'm so math challenged then why can't you point out an error in my math? It's my guess that he doesn't understand the difference between velocity (the 1st derivative) and acceleration (the 2nd derivative). He doesn't grasp that acceleration is not unidirectional. I can think of several reasons why this "anomaly" occurs, and I'm fairly certain that they have occured to people much smarter than I. Any calculation of absolute position requires an absolutely stable, fixed reference point. If distance measurements are relative the the position of the sun, then the movement of the sun must be taken into account. The sun does not have a fixed position relative to the galactic core, but rather is moving, and not only is it moving linearly with respect to the galactic core, but is also moving in an oscillation from above to below the plane of the galactic ecliptic. That's only one factor that need be considered. Another is the photonic activity created by the sun during solar flare cycles. That's the same phenomenon that produces movement of a piece of gold foil enclosed by an evacuated glass bulb. Increased photonic activity (the "solar wind") would tend to counteract gravitic attraction, resulting in positive acceleration. A decrease in photonic activity would tend to allow gravitic force to be the dominant force acting on the body in question, resulting in negative acceleration. As has been theorized, heat from the spacecraft could influence acceleration. So could collisions with dust and debris. The expansion of the universe undoubtedly has an effect, however miniscule it might be (for an example of how an expanding universe changes the absilute position of two separate points in space, take a magic marker and put two dots on the balloon. Then blow it up). There are logical, rational explanations for everything. The introduction of a "Deus ex Machina" is the copout of the limited intellect.

Kirata -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/28/2010 11:51:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Please explain the Pioneer anomaly, in reference to current theories of gravitation. There's a lot to rule out before we're left with having to modify our understanding of gravity to explain it. Current work is focusing on the telemetric data, and so far the results implicate radiative heat losses. A group of some 50 researchers, including Turyshev, is now trying to match the data to a detailed computer model of the craft's inner workings. The model is designed to mimic the flow of heat and electricity produced by the craft's generators, which harnessed the heat from radioactive plutonium and turned a fraction of it into electricity to power the craft. The remaining heat was lost to space or spread to other parts of the craft such as the antenna, which influenced each probe's overall momentum. So far the model accounts for about 30 percent of the observed anomaly for Pioneer 10 at a single distance of 25 astronomical units (2.3 billion miles, or 3.7 billion kilometers) from the sun, Turyshev reported. The group still has to extend the model to other distances and to Pioneer 11. The full verdict may not be in for some time. "I'm trying to ensure we apply every relevant piece of information," Turyshev says. "It is likely that the thermal explanation will explain part of the anomaly," he says, but exactly how much is up for grabs. Reference: Scientific American, April 2008 At present, I haven't found any later updates on the issue. K.

Rule -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 3:28:43 AM)
I conceptually solved the pioneer anomaly about a dozen years ago. The solution is in my astronomy book of 2000. Unfortunately its only reviewer, a physicist, who read the entire book, is presumably dead. The only other person whom I know read a large part of the book, also is dead. And then there is a person who stole a copy from a library; I do not know that he read it - but he had the decency to put back into the library the previous edition that he had stolen before.

mnottertail -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 6:30:06 AM)
As in Fermats last theorem. I have found a wonderful proof of this, but the margin is to small to contain it. Firm and Ken, That I guess is my point. As computeristsic as this society is, we have forgotten such things as instantaneous doesn't usually mean the sacred definition of the word instantaneous. Oh, we hear, don't worry about that, for all intents and purposes, it's VIRTUALLY instantaneous. Take a computer for example, you get that thing all plasticy new smelling out of the box, and jesus h christ it zips right along, three years later.....(forget the fact that windoze itself is fucked up) it has dustbunnies in the motherboard and dust all over the radiators and fans and it slows.....perceptably? inperceptably?..... As einsteins general theory says, in certain situations (the very large and very small) we cannot use galilean and newtonian mechanics, they do not suffice. We have to pay attention to details to get to be more accurate. The bizarre analogy is this. (first off this is my example and hopefully any of you guys is taking it to heart where I stuck you in this, there is no subtle subterfuge going on here). Firm: I'm a welder, I deal in metal, and 3.14 is good enough for pi, since I can fill it in with weld. Ken: I'm a cabinet maker, I deal in wood, and 3.1416 is necessary to do craftsmanlike work. Ron: I'm an engineer, I deal in natural everyday phenomena, and you need 3.145926536 to get the correct answer. Einstein says, big or little, all these things heat, expansion, the actual fact that the universe is clumpy, even though for the most part we can call it homogenous, friction is important, the decay is important, the fact that its really minkowski space and not euclidian space is important, the yadda yadda yadda is important, the fact that light takes a little time to get there is important, our measurements are somewhat in error (due to rounding, heisenberg and human errors is important, the fact that the siderial year is not 365 days cold and is a moving target is important, the fact that entropy exists is important, the fact that we are dealing with a specific case with specific dents and wrinkles is the absolutely most important........ And so on........ I believe the discrepancy lies here in our humanity, and not anywhere in some new science.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 8:14:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster As has been theorized, heat from the spacecraft could influence acceleration. So could collisions with dust and debris. The expansion of the universe undoubtedly has an effect, however miniscule it might be (for an example of how an expanding universe changes the absilute position of two separate points in space, take a magic marker and put two dots on the balloon. Then blow it up). There are logical, rational explanations for everything. The introduction of a "Deus ex Machina" is the copout of the limited intellect. The reason for the full anomaly is unknown, and people with much better background in the question, much more time to work on the issue, and much more detailed access to the raw data can not - so far - determine the reason for the anomaly. After years of studying the question. They have already eliminated the "simple" explanations, and are working on parsing the data in extreme detail to see if they have still missed anything. Perhaps they have. Perhaps no "Deus ex Machina" is necessary (a literary term, not a scientific one, but I get your drift). But they are not ruling out possible challenges to our current cosmological theories. They would like to, but so far they can't. Perhaps they will. But you, making a preemptive claim that they will find a mundane explanation is no different than if I made a preemptive claim that they won't. I've made no such claim. I've simply presented the fact that there is an anomaly that can't be explained, and doesn't fit our current understanding of cosmology. I did this simply to prove a discussion point that we do not have perfect understanding of the universe, and that people who claim that we do fall into errors of thought that they do not wish to face. Firm

DomKen -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 9:38:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail As in Fermats last theorem. I have found a wonderful proof of this, but the margin is to small to contain it. If such interests you it was solved back in the 90's. The proof is not for the faint of heart and uses forms of mathematical analysis not available to Fermat. quote: Firm: I'm a welder, I deal in metal, and 3.14 is good enough for pi, since I can fill it in with weld. Ken: I'm a cabinet maker, I deal in wood, and 3.1416 is necessary to do craftsmanlike work. Ron: I'm an engineer, I deal in natural everyday phenomena, and you need 3.145926536 to get the correct answer. I won't quibble over the dropped digit but as a mathematician I avoid the whole mess as much as possible and just use Π

GotSteel -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 9:46:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY However, if you consider this thread about mocking "disingenuous positions", then why are you addressing me, and not DK? Because you started making personal attacks instead of dealing with the issue he raised. I agree with you that the difference in the error that you and DomKen are arguing about really isn't relevant to your point but I also can't disagree with him that it should be pointed out that your numbers wrong. But I'm a bit pedantic myself. That said it's ridiculous that pointing out a math error that should have taken one maybe two posts has turned into this massive derail, but I can't exactly blame that on DomKen. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What do you think about the subject at hand? Can you add up 250 miles 31 times and get 240,000? Or do you also wish to add 2 plus 2 and get 324? Your math is wrong. Which is what DomKen has been trying to explain to you.

GotSteel -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 10:01:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And there is no way you can go from a high year of 8,000 miles down to 250 miles and come up with 240,000 miles without the craft accelerating during that time frame. The craft IS accelerating during that time frame, that's what the term "constant acceleration" in the links you guys have been posting means. The pioneer 10 was constantly accelerating over those 31 years.

mnottertail -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 10:38:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail As in Fermats last theorem. I have found a wonderful proof of this, but the margin is to small to contain it. If such interests you it was solved back in the 90's. The proof is not for the faint of heart and uses forms of mathematical analysis not available to Fermat. I read Andy's book several times. But if you think I am gonna come out here and explain Hecke Ring Algebras to this here crowd, Ken----you can just get yourself a goddamn stuntman!!!!! Ken Ribet

mnottertail -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 10:50:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY And there is no way you can go from a high year of 8,000 miles down to 250 miles and come up with 240,000 miles without the craft accelerating during that time frame. The craft IS accelerating during that time frame, that's what the term "constant acceleration" in the links you guys have been posting means. The pioneer 10 was constantly accelerating over those 31 years. According to Einstein, how could it hep but do? After all, thats what the big conundrum is about, how Newtons diminishing gravitation by distance 'law' should have this little guy putting along a little faster than it seems to be doing, and what sort of things are affecting that classic celestial mechanics theory.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Theory of Intelligent Falling (7/29/2010 12:07:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Intelligent falling is at least as much a valid scientific theory as intelligent design, I'd say more so because the theory of gravity isn't nearly as well proven as evolution. Gravity is not a theory it being one of the natural forces we depend upon to live and evolution through natural selection has been witnessed in laboratories and is not a theory. I differ. Natural Selection is not a theory in the street definition and use of the term. But as a scientific model from which predictions can be made it is very much a Theory. True, it is no longer a hypothesis much in question, but a Theory (Model) it is. Natural selection is defined as anything but predictable in any certainty at all. Yes, some predict that soon...roaches will fly for survival of that strain as those not able...will die off. Don't know why but... The evolutionary process is a roll of the dice. Not quite. The initial emergence of a trait is a result of millions or billions of rolls of the dice, and that is only the initial step. After the initial emergence it is no longer a random process. Big difference, and ID's most glaring misstatement of natural selection.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875