Twoofers Only: The Mark Roberts Factual Error Thread

[T.A.M.]

dont' make me dig up some pdoh quotes!!!

TAM

 

[Gravy]

I am so glad to have that child on ignore now, but it is annoying that I have to read his spoiled child "I'm gonna get you" rants in other people's quotes.

TAM

Well, that's the state of the "truth" movement. This forum would be chock-full of their threads presenting evidence of the inside job – if they had any.

Instead of trying to make their earth-shattering, career-making, Pulitzer Prize-winning case against the "real" terrorists, they choose to spend their time searching for misstatements by a tour guide. That'll save the world. Well, at least it'll help me improve my debating skills.

 

[JimBenArm]

dont' make me dig up some pdoh quotes!!!

TAM

You wouldn't dare! Would you?

That's like going nuclear!

 

[Gravy]

Isn't the signal-to-noise ratio always positive?

(I realize that it could be zero, but that would require claiming that every post in the thread, including the OP, is all noise and no signal.)

It would be zero if the signal was equal to the noise and negative if the signal was less than the noise.

 

[AZCat]

It would be zero if the signal was equal to the noise and negative if the signal was less than the noise.

No, then it would just be less than one. A ratio of one postitive number to another can never be negative.

 

[Gravy]

I think the main problem with this thread is that it's too broad. There should be one thread per "Mark Roberts Factual Error" or disputed "fact" or whatever we're going to call it. This will force the issue to stay focused.

I'm sorry to remind you that you haven't shown the ability to stay focused. The game would be over quickly and we could all go home if the truthers didn't continually move the goalposts.

 

[R.Mackey]

It would be zero if the signal was equal to the noise and negative if the signal was less than the noise.

Naw, dude, you totally made a mistake. He got you. You lied. OMG Gravy lied, Inside Jerb!!

---

Well, you could treat signal-to-noise in terms of decibels, as we freqently do... 0 dB would be an SNR of 1, i.e. signal basically obscured by the noise, which is about par for the course when dealing with the Truth Movement. Yeah, that must have been what you meant.

Once again, science to the rescue!

 

[Gravy]

Naw, dude, you totally made a mistake. He got you. You lied. OMG Gravy lied, Inside Jerb!!

---

Well, you could treat signal-to-noise in terms of decibels, as we freqently do... 0 dB would be an SNR of 1, i.e. signal basically obscured by the noise, which is about par for the course when dealing with the Truth Movement. Yeah, that must have been what you meant.

Once again, science to the rescue!

Somehow I had it in my head from reading about spread-spectrum communications, that they operate with a negative signal-to-noise ratio, which would be in decibels. Serves me right for being over my head.

 

[AZCat]

Naw, dude, you totally made a mistake. He got you. You lied. OMG Gravy lied, Inside Jerb!!

---

Well, you could treat signal-to-noise in terms of decibels, as we freqently do... 0 dB would be an SNR of 1, i.e. signal basically obscured by the noise, which is about par for the course when dealing with the Truth Movement. Yeah, that must have been what you meant.

Once again, science to the rescue!

Can you have negative decibels?



(Sorry, I'm trying to salvage my attempt to point out a Mark Roberts error. So far, AZCat = 0.5 MREs, Truth Movement = 0.)

 

[Zlaya]

Gravy is obviously missing the point. They were told to wear respirators, so what? The point is that they shouldn't have been working down there at all, respirator or no respirator.

The fact that I have to actually spell this out is disappointing.

He is not missing the point. He is missing the point on purpose, so that he can pretend to know all about debunking the nut case twoofers

 

[R.Mackey]

Can you have negative decibels?



(Sorry, I'm trying to salvage my attempt to point out a Mark Roberts error. So far, AZCat = 0.5 MREs, Truth Movement = 0.)

Of course you can. The expression for signal strength in decibels is simply:

V (dB) = K log₁₀ (S / S₀)​

where S is the signal level, S₀ is the reference signal level, and K is a constant -- if we're talking about amplitude, K is generally 10, if we're talking about power K is typically 20.

If we apply this to an SNR calculation, the "noise" becomes the reference signal, so we take the logarithm of the desired signal level divided by the noise signal level.

When noise and signal are equal, we are taking the logarithm of 1, which is zero. If the signal is actually weaker than the noise, then (S / S₀) is a fraction, and taking the logarithm gives you a negative number.

You also frequently see negative dB ratings for signal losses. Since signal losses are a multiplicative effect (e.g. albedo), we can add dB factors since log (x y) = log (x) + log . For example, spacecraft communications in S-band suffer a 1 dB signal loss in clear atmosphere when above the horizon, or a -1 dB correction. In stormy weather, it's about -6 dB. Bouncing a 10-meter band ham radio signal off the Moon incurs about a -100 dB loss. The effect of distance between us and the Voyager spacecraft is about -168 dB.

Respect the noble logarithm.

 

[Zlaya]

This performance leads me to ask the question: did you pick the name "Zlaya" because it means "wicked, evil, cross, ill-tempered, mean, malicious, ferocious" in Russian? (Feminine, singular, nominative, by the way. Masculine singular nominative = "Zloi.")

Definition from Kenneth Katzner "English-Russian Russian-English Dictionary," 1984.

No. Zlaja is a common nickname for a certain type of name, like Bill vs William, Dick vs Richard, Gravy vs. Mark Roberts, etc. etc...

 

[Arus808]

He is not missing the point. He is missing the point on purpose, so that he can pretend to know all about debunking the nut case twoofers

no its very apparent that those missing the point are the ones that wish to remain ignorant on the subject and ignore evidence.

Seeing that you can't even provide an link to an OFFICIAL claim by the EPA that it was "SAFE to breathe the air" ... you have missed it entirely.

 

[Zlaya]

no its very apparent that those missing the point are the ones that wish to remain ignorant on the subject and ignore evidence.

Seeing that you can't even provide an link to an OFFICIAL claim by the EPA that it was "SAFE to breathe the air" ... you have missed it entirely.

Wait, i thought the point was the people are dieing right now because EPA said that air was safe to breathe so that the rich greasy bankers could open the Wall Street ASAP?

 

[Gravy]

no its very apparent that those missing the point are the ones that wish to remain ignorant on the subject and ignore evidence.

Seeing that you can't even provide an link to an OFFICIAL claim by the EPA that it was "SAFE to breathe the air" ... you have missed it entirely.

I think we need to respect the fact the Zlaya had a difficult journey from the future. See, he knows about the documents that disprove my statement "no one said the air was safe to breathe at Ground Zero," but he couldn't carry them with him, for the same reason that he arrived here naked.

 

[AZCat]

Of course you can. The expression for signal strength in decibels is simply:

V (dB) = K log₁₀ (S / S₀)​

where S is the signal level, S₀ is the reference signal level, and K is a constant -- if we're talking about amplitude, K is generally 10, if we're talking about power K is typically 20.

If we apply this to an SNR calculation, the "noise" becomes the reference signal, so we take the logarithm of the desired signal level divided by the noise signal level.

When noise and signal are equal, we are taking the logarithm of 1, which is zero. If the signal is actually weaker than the noise, then (S / S₀) is a fraction, and taking the logarithm gives you a negative number.

You also frequently see negative dB ratings for signal losses. Since signal losses are a multiplicative effect (e.g. albedo), we can add dB factors since log (x y) = log (x) + log . For example, spacecraft communications in S-band suffer a 1 dB signal loss in clear atmosphere when above the horizon, or a -1 dB correction. In stormy weather, it's about -6 dB. Bouncing a 10-meter band ham radio signal off the Moon incurs about a -100 dB loss. The effect of distance between us and the Voyager spacecraft is about -168 dB.

Respect the noble logarithm.

Ahhh, thanks. I can always count on you for elucidation. I revise my score to

AZCat = lim((1-1/n)^n) MREs
Truth Movement = 0 MREs

 

[Arus808]

Wait, i thought the point was the people are dieing right now because EPA said that air was safe to breathe because the rich greasy bankers could open the Wall Street ASAP?

no, this thread is about the factual errors in Gravy's papers; of which no one has done yet.

Yet taking pot-shots and moving the thread off topic is definitely that you enjoy doing.

 

[Gravy]

Wait, i thought the point was the people are dieing right now because EPA said that air was safe to breathe because the rich greasy bankers could open the Wall Street ASAP?

Try to stay focused. The point is that no one told the workers at GZ that the air was safe to breathe. You can easily prove me wrong by presenting the worker testimonies that say officials told them the air there was safe to breathe, and I'll retract the statement. Stop fantasizing about evidence and start gathering it. Okay?

 

[Zlaya]

no, this thread is about the factual errors in Gravy's papers; of which no one has done yet.

Yet taking pot-shots and moving the thread off topic is definitely that you enjoy doing.

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

He claims that, and it's a factual error. So there, back on topic. Sorry!

 

[AZCat]

Isn't 'gravy' the one who's peddling the conspiracy theory that the pentagon just never had any cameras around the perimeter, that would surely capture the impact?

He claims that, and it's a factual error. So there, back on topic. Sorry!

Normally claims like this require actual quotes or evidence in order to be accepted by others. There are exceptions. This is not one of them. Please provide a quote from one of Gravy's papers, and then provide evidence that his quote is incorrect.