Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • This site is hidden because TalkRational is on your ignore list.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Brother Daniel

Philosophy / Re: Math question:
As in, why would there be multiple true equations ( in this case having some empirical corollary) that together produce inconsistent results?
Measurement error?  When approximate constraints are treated as exact, they can be inconsistent.
Now everyone is obliged to say kind things about Krauthammer for a few days.
What if I don't want to?
Eta: can't believe i screwed up this solemn moment by posting in the wrong forum. Can a mod move to politics?
Philosophy / Re: Math question:
The analogy was to the known factors that contribute to the direction our institution is taking.
So these "known factors" are like equations, in the analogy?

Sounds like the sort of analogy I might use if I were describing a set of constraints with the property that they are impossible to obey all at the same time.
I haven't been paying enough attention.  What's the latest on the tape?
Politics and Current Events / Re: Canada legalizes?
The Chr├ętien government was moving toward legalization back in '01 or '02 or thereabouts, but he got a cease-and-desist phone call from Dubya's guys.
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I would be willing to accept a consensus of opinion expressed in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
No, you wouldn't.  You'd simply make up another excuse.
Quote from: HH
I have looked into this and what I discovered is the AAPT had nothing to do with this claim at all. As far as I can determine, a question about ddwfttw only appeared on a single physics Olympiad test that was hosted and sponsored by the Technical University of Denmark (DTU); the very same DTU which had several advocates of ddwfttw on staff at the time. The AAPT only reproduced the DTU test paper after it had been administered by DTU.
Ohnoze!  The question came from Denmark.  And we all know that we can't trust anything from Denmark.  :rolleyes:
Quote from: HH
The crackpot, spork, had plenty of opportunity to test his cart against popcorn, or balloons but he must have realized such a test would reveal what a farce this is.
Or, more likely, he thought that a test involving modern instrumentation (to measure the relevant speeds precisely) would provide more and better information than a mere popcorn test.
Quote from: HH
The treadmill has nothing at all to do with a wind-powered cart, as it is powered by a motorized belt that turns the wheels. The crackpots admit their "Galilean transform" isn't really a Galilean transform, but still insist it is good enough for them!
You still don't understand a word of what anyone has been saying about the GT, do you?
Quote from: HH
Use your own judgement, Arpie.
I like how the "use your own judgement" is sandwiched by exhortations to reach the Heinzian conclusion.  Typical tactic of alternative-reality enthusiasts.
Quote from: HH
You are dealing with a Cargo Cult here.
You don't have any idea what point Feynman was making when he coined that term.
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Heinz, I'd still like an indication as to whether you accept or reject my analysis in post 2498, and if you reject it, your own analysis.
Heinz is too much of a coward to address this.
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
Of course that pales in comparison to the all time favorite from the hilarious train wreck that is our hyev in which he proved that the cart must work. If you haven't seen it give it a careful read it is worth it:
yeah that is hilarious.  Which incarnation was he in at the time?  Was that Harold?  yevgheni?
more and more people
It's Dave's "increasingly" schtick again.

Beware of metaphors based on momentum.
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
I was just browsing back through some of the older posts in this thread.

Take this post as a starting point.  I took a bunch of numbers that Heinz provided (for the thrust from a certain propeller at a certain RPM, and for the power requirement for that same propeller, as well as his suggested transmission efficiency) and found a braking force that was less than the thrust.  So the cart should advance on the treadmill, steady state, no need for any of the vibrational stuff from Heinz's fantasyland (which wouldn't work anyway, but that's another story).

You can see in this response that Heinz has a total tantrum/meltdown over it.  Putting aside all the rabid frothing, there are really two vaguely substantial aspects to his critique of my post.

First:  He had worked out (incorrectly, but let's pretend otherwise) the rotational energy in the prop, in Joules.  Then he magically changed the units to Watts.  Then he asserted (with no basis) that this number (or some magical fraction thereof) represented an additional amount of power required just to keep the prop turning!  The actual power requirement had already appeared in one of the other variables, but he took this additional term from his hindquarters and added it on, just to try to force the numbers to work out the way he wants them to.

The change of units alone is enough to see that this tactic of his was complete nonsense.  But in the meltdown post (linked above) he doubled down on it!  Nevertheless, I think he realized eventually that this term was nonsensical, so he dropped that line of argument.  (Of course he wouldn't acknowledge explicitly that he had made an error; he doesn't have enough integrity to do that.)

Second:  He goes berserk over the fact that the difference between the thrust and the braking force is only 0.04 N (given the set of numbers used as input), and claims that I haven't considered all the possible losses.  But of course, those "other losses" were the whole point of the less-than-perfect "transmission" coefficient that he suggested (and I accepted), so his critique misses the mark, as usual.

The really funny thing here is that he didn't even realize how close he had come to admitting that there's no problem with the cart advancing up the treadmill in steady state.  Having dropped his first objection, his remaining objection (focusing on "other losses") doesn't imply anything against the cart in principle.

If there's a problem with the cart in principle (as he usually tries to argue, such as with his completely idiotic misuse of P = F v), then his objection involving "other losses", and involving the small magnitude of the force difference I found, would be irrelevant.  Instead, he should have been able to find an error in my math.  But of course he couldn't.  He never has.
He read past the title.

He at least read it until he found a quote that he thought supported him.
Much like Trump did with that IG report.
Can Trump even read?
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
The wind was well over 25 mph
You know this how?
Quote from: HH
You personally witnessed fuck all.
You know this how?
Quote from: HH
In fact, none of you are scientists
You know this how?
Quote from: HH
and this claim has zero scientific support
Other than the fact that it accords perfectly well with long-established physics (which you know nothing about).
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
listening to these fucktards, you might think the balloon test was a great success when in fact it was an abject failure.
Nobody said or even hinted that it was a "great success".  You seem to have a difficult time making a response without lying.
Science / Re: Direct Down Wind Faster Than The Wind
But but but there's a big conspiracy, involving you, spork, and everyone in NALSA, to commit a big fraud, even though there's no personal gain in it. [/HH]
I thought Americans were supposed to be unimpressed by such things as being a "king".
Who said that I am impressed?
It's a natural inference from the way you brought it up.
Well apparently there has been some uncertainty about that.
Nope.  Philip has no say in the matter.
But now it appears that the uncertainty has been resolved.
Again, you're merely demonstrating your own inability to comprehend anything you read, no matter how simple it is.
I thought Americans were supposed to be unimpressed by such things as being a "king".
Did you lie about reporting a post?
Nah, he really did report it*, but I dismissed it.

[* At least he reported something.  I can't be arsed to check whether the post he actually reported is the post he claimed to have reported.  I'll assume it was. ]
Hey Alfonso ... I reported your post as off topic, disruptive trolling.

Stay on topic or get the fuck out of my thread.
1. Starting a thread doesn't give you ownership over what can be deemed on topic or who can post in it.
2. You yourself veer way off topic (by any reasonable measure) quite frequently, so your demand is just another instance of your flaming hypocrisy.
3. Your frivolous "reporting" of posts could be considered harassment of the mods.
All math is beautiful, whether big or small.
but I keep my math private, thank you.
Aww, that's no fun.  Everyone's math(s) should be allowed to flop around freely.
party of "sanctity of the family"
but in that case, did its content have any resemblance to what the Dotard was trying to say?
...this would illicit no response whatsoever.
* elicit

(Sorry, can't help it, I have OCD.)
One of the (many) things I admire about Pingu is her tendency toward clarity.  If you pay attention to her arguments, then either you end up agreeing with her or else you end up with a clearer idea of why you disagree with her.  Both outcomes are good.