• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Care to Comment

Toke said:
Come on, that is silly, Mothra cannot hold more than 6 light-sabres, and would not need them anyway.
Click to expand...

DISINFO SHILL!!!!!

It was too Mothra... and not your ninja squirrles with lightsabers... they were there to STOP Mothra!!!!
 
TruthersLie said:
and sharks with lasers and MOTHRA!!! with lightsabers!!!!
Click to expand...

You Mothra huggers and your Official Mothra stories. Do you think anyone besides you buys into your ridiculous giant insect tales. No wonder the Rodanites keep on getting stronger and stronger every single day. The Mothra tale doesn't hold a candle to the questions Rodan raises.
 
Toke said:
Well, you obviously managed to confuse yourself, and be off by 1g.
Click to expand...

You are either confused or obfuscating, but either way you are wrong.

The point I made above with the rate of velocity change is correct. F = ma and the deceleration of the impacting object from full gravitational acceleration is the correct value to multiply by its mass to provide the force involved.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Look at post #272, then repeat your assertion that there is no negative slope in the velocity curve. Then I'll be able to call you a liar.

Dave
Click to expand...

The graph in post #272 is not an accurate representation of the data in the Missing Jolt paper. There are no velocity values in the table on page 8 which are less than the one that preceded it in tiime, so there is never a loss in velocity and thus there would be no negative slope in a velocity curve made from that data.

You seem to be either confused or obfuscating also, but either way you are wrong too.

You still never answered my question on whether you have a job other than replying to posts on this forum.
 
TruthersLie said:
DISINFO SHILL!!!!!

It was too Mothra... and not your ninja squirrles with lightsabers... they were there to STOP Mothra!!!!
Click to expand...

Shill yourself!!!!!

The ninja squirrels were small enough to fit above the ceiling tiles and lay waiting next to both the centre and perimeter columns for the signal to cut.

That silly Mothra disinfo would require it to work its way in from the outside.

Besides there are no videos with audible flapping from Mothra's wings.
 
Oh man. I am pissed. My internet keeps going out all weekend. And I just don't feel like calling Pakistan or India or wherever the hell they are. Sorry. Just venting.

Struck a nerve huh? How come? I guess in the debunker world there is no such thing as arson either.

“It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

Can any debunker tell me who said these things? I bet you can. It's one of your apostles. Is he your Iscariot?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
In the table on page 7 of (what I presume to be the 7th revision of) his paper, the roof fall distances in feet at 1.500, 1.667, and 1.834 seconds are listed as:

1.500 25.52
1.667 32.56
1.834 38.72

The following equations are facts of arithmetic:

32.56 - 25.52 = 7.04
38.72 - 32.56 = 6.16

In other words, Tony's raw unsmoothed data show the roof travelling 7.04 feet between 1.5 and 1.67 seconds, but only 6.16 feet between 1.67 and 1.83 seconds. It is a fact of arithmetic that 7.04 > 6.16.

That means the velocity actually drops: the velocity during the 1.67-1.83 interval really is less than it was during the preceding 1.5-1.67 interval.
Click to expand...
This is about as straightforward and clear cut as can be.

Response, Tony? It's right there in the table on page 7 of your paper.
 
D'rok said:
This is about as straightforward and clear cut as can be.

Response, Tony? It's right there in the table on page 7 of your paper.
Click to expand...

I was so gobsmacked by this revelation that I actually took the time to do some arithmetic to confirm that the intervals are the same. And they are, right here on a yellow sticky.

hmmmmmmm ..... self-debunking with logic can be hard to follow. Self-debunking with numbers is kind of hard to deny. Or is it ????? We shall see.
 
Dave Rogers
Look at post #272, then repeat your assertion that there is no negative slope in the velocity curve. Then I'll be able to call you a liar.

Dave
Click to expand...
Tony Szamboti said:
<snip>

You still never answered my question on whether you have a job other than replying to posts on this forum.
Click to expand...
...

Dave Rogers Asleep When Tony Szamboti Replies.
Rogers Fired.
TruthersLie And UNLoVedRebel To Split Szamboti Shift.
Toke And funk de fino On Call.​
...
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
You are either confused or obfuscating, but either way you are wrong.

The point I made above with the rate of velocity change is correct. F = ma and the deceleration of the impacting object from full gravitational acceleration is the correct value to multiply by its mass to provide the force involved.
Click to expand...

I think in this case it is you, Tony, who is confused or obfuscating.
Upthread you stated
It seems there is confusion because I am speaking of deceleration occuring relative to full gravitational acceleration. The static load is being decelerated by 1g to begin with relative to a full gravitational acceleration state.
Click to expand...

Why you have chosen to represent acceleration differently from everyone else is beyond me, but the blame for any confusion falls squarely on your shoulders.
 
D'rok said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...

The Sauret video that the data was taken from is 30 frames per second and if one took data every frame it would be extremely noisy. Even with the measurements taken every 167 milliseconds some noise will still be present.

Symmetric differencing does generate an average about a data point and thus will smooth out noise. Using every data point by simple differencing essentially doubles the noise.

The question one needs to ask is why the average between two data points on either side of the point in question causes a higher velocity than the previous average. How did it get to be greater?

This is the reason for regression analysis and when charting data like this it is the trend which is significant.

I am sure some here will say that the measurement resolution is not sufficient to discern whether or not a jolt took place, but that is a feigned argument for two reasons: First is that the trend is obviously increasing, and secondly the size of the jolt required is much higher than what could be indicated by one data point.

The premise of the Missing Jolt paper is valid for the reasons stated above.

In any case, we will be redoing the measurements with a more sophisticated system called Tracker, which is in the Open Source Physics project and is available on the Internet. I will make the results of the new data set public.

It would probably be good for some of you guys here to do some measurements yourself.
 
Last edited:
AZCat said:
I think in this case it is you, Tony, who is confused or obfuscating.
Upthread you stated


Why you have chosen to represent acceleration differently from everyone else is beyond me, but the blame for any confusion falls squarely on your shoulders.
Click to expand...

You are an obvious obfuscator who never adds to the conversation.

What I said about deceleration and amplification here is correct, yet you insist on making feigned posts about its accuracy.

Take a hike.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I know some will say that the measurement resolution is not sufficient to discern whether or not a jolt took place, but that is a feigned argument for two reasons: One is that the trend is obviously increasing and two the size of the jolt required is much higher than what could be masked by one data point.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

This is incorrect. It is not what is required, but what you claim is required. Not everyone agrees with your arguments.
 
What I said about deceleration and amplification here is correct
Click to expand...

Easy to claim as you are also the only one to claim to be able to make sense of what you are saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom