Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

DGM · May 8, 2011

Major_Tom said:
Yes. Your analysis was on that level. That was about the only thing R Mackey got right.

So how has your "research" improved the understanding (and society benefited) of the events?

femr2 · May 8, 2011

It seems LashL is tracking through the thread changing images to links due to either repetition or oversize.

I have to object. These images are sized to fit on the screen fine (they do not even result in expansion of the natural frame sizing), need to be big enough to see what is going on, and are repeated directly as part of the ongoing technical discussion.

Removal really detracts from the usefulness of the thread, as the inline images are regularly referenced. Having to jump over to an alternat browser tab is frustrating.

They are all small in size, being compressed PNG.

I can understand repetative images being an issue in other types of thread, but this one is rather technical and the graphs are an integral part of the discussion.

It seems also that the removal is indiscriminate, with images being changed to links that have been posted maybe twice.

May I suggest other members who agree that the images should stay in place contact LashL ?

NoahFence · May 8, 2011

Major_Tom said:
Yes. Your analysis was on that level. That was about the only thing R Mackey got right.

The moral of the story is that real measurements can be useful. Maybe you don't know why until you make them.

I understand that many JREF posters do not see any benefit in real data as is demonstrated by the R Mackey post. It is just a difference in style. I am kind of boring in that way.

So you're not trying to prove anything, and it is simply a hobby / curiosity.

Got it. I'm not against what you guys are doing, I'm simply trying to understand why you're so obsessed with minute details.

NoahFence · May 8, 2011

femr2 said:
May I suggest other members who agree that the images should stay in place contact LashL ?

I don't quite get why they were removed, either. Seems a bit much seeing as though they're important in the thread.

alienentity · May 8, 2011

I think there are too many images. Better to link back to an original post IMO, unless you have a new image to present.

femr2 · May 8, 2011

NoahFence said:
I don't quite get why they were removed, either. Seems a bit much seeing as though they're important in the thread.

I don't think the decision will change. I PM'd LashL and it seems a rigid stance.

I can post (pretty useless) smaller images no problem (with a link to a useful larger version), but not quite sure what to do about repetition.

Ho hum.

W.D.Clinger · May 8, 2011

femr2 said:
Sorted. See edit above.

I appreciate your effort, but something's wrong with the coefficients in your table. Using the polynomial P described by those coefficients,

P(12s) = -18675.343712 ft
P(13s) = -37200.003097 ft
P(14s) = -70464.021068 ft
P(15s) = -127748.495825 ft
P(16s) = -222920.623168 ft
P(17s) = -376179.828497 ft

Furthermore, the coefficients in your table describe a polynomial of degree 8, not 10. By the time it's been differentiated twice to create a model for acceleration, the degree will be 6, just 1 more than the 5-degree polynomial I obtained by reverse-engineering your Poly(10) acceleration graph. At this point, it appears to me that my reverse-engineered version of your model is considerably more accurate than the quantitative model you have provided.

femr2 said:
It seems LashL is tracking through the thread changing images to links due to either repetition or oversize.

I have to object. These images are sized to fit on the screen fine (they do not even result in expansion of the natural frame sizing), need to be big enough to see what is going on, and are repeated directly as part of the ongoing technical discussion.

...snip...

May I suggest other members who agree that the images should stay in place contact LashL ?

As the person who may have spent more time than anyone else on study of your graphs, I must say I applaud LashL's edits.

Your images may be sized to fit fine on your screen, but I normally use two half-width windows placed side-by-side on a 1920x1200 pixel display. Your graphs are too wide for such a window, so I must either expand the window size or use the horizontal scroll bar to read your posts. It's quite irritating.

My graphs are small enough not to create that problem.

Instead of relying on large graphs to describe your models, I suggest you get the numbers right and post them instead.

femr2 · May 8, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
I appreciate your effort, but something's wrong with the coefficients in your table. Using the polynomial P described by those coefficients,

P(12s) = -18675.343712 ft
P(13s) = -37200.003097 ft
P(14s) = -70464.021068 ft
P(15s) = -127748.495825 ft
P(16s) = -222920.623168 ft
P(17s) = -376179.828497 ft

I've used the coefficients to replicate the curve fine.

I imagine you've got the order backwards.

X^0, X^1, X^2, X^3, ...

In case you missed an edit...

femr2 said:
Coefficients (first row) are in increasing exponent order b, m₁, m₂...

Other values are as-per standard Excel Linest function.

R² = 0.999994204

Raw data pre-smoothed with 9 sample symmetric difference - max - min.

The coefficients are in reverse order to those spat out by Linest, to ensure, for example, that X^4 is always in the same place even if you change the degree.

P(12) = -0.9079
P(13) = -8.3916
...

Furthermore, the coefficients in your table describe a polynomial of degree 8, not 10.

Last one/two are zero.

At this point, it appears to me that my reverse-engineered version of your model is considerably more accurate than the quantitative model you have provided.

See above.

My graphs are small enough not to create that problem.

I find them very difficult to read. Perhaps some use of colour rather than line-stipple ?

Instead of relying on large graphs to describe your models, I suggest you get the numbers right and post them instead.

The numbers are correct.

W.D.Clinger · May 8, 2011

femr2 said:
I've used the coefficients to replicate the curve fine.

I imagine you've got the order backwards.

X^0, X^1, X^2, X^3, ...

In case you missed an edit...

The coefficients are in reverse order to those spat out by Linest, to ensure, for example, that X^4 is always in the same place even if you change the degree.

P(12) = -0.9079
P(13) = -8.3916
...

10 coefficients, last one is zero.

FYI: I am not using Linest or Excel. I am using mathematics.

Here's the first row of your table, which allegedly contains your coefficients:

femr2 said:
161995.792 | -50786.77046 | 5434.711807 | -162.2158 | -7.5523 | 0.2763 | 0.0168 | 0.0002 | -0.0001 | 0

femr2 said:
Coefficients (first row) are in increasing exponent order b, m₁, m₂...

In standard mathematical notation, you're saying your polynomial is

P(t) = 161995.792 - 50786.77046 t + 5434.711807 t^2 - 162.2158 t^3 - 7.5523 t^4 + 0.2763 t^5 + 0.0168 t^6 + 0.0002 t^7 - 0.0001 t^8

Which means you're telling us that P(0s)= 161995.792 ft.

femr2 said:
The numbers are correct.

femr2 · May 8, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
FYI: I am not using Linest or Excel. I am using mathematics.

Fine. I gave you the Linest function help page so you'd know what the other parameters were...

Here's the first row of your table, which allegedly contains your coefficients

Spot on.

In standard mathematical notation, you're saying your polynomial is

P(tx) = 161995.792 - 50786.77046 x + 5434.711807 x^2 - 162.2158 x^3 - 7.5523 x^4 + 0.2763 x^5 + 0.0168 x^6 + 0.0002 x^7 - 0.0001 x^8

Yep.

Which means you're telling us that P(0s)= 161995.792 ft.

161,995.7920, Absolutely.

Careful with those laughing dogs now W.D.Clinger.

You forgot that you have a T₀ of 11.8785s

Also, as I said, upper end of valid range is 17.1839s

At least you have the coefficients the right way around now.

W.D.Clinger · May 8, 2011

femr2 said:
In standard mathematical notation, you're saying your polynomial is

P(tx) = 161995.792 - 50786.77046 x + 5434.711807 x^2 - 162.2158 x^3 - 7.5523 x^4 + 0.2763 x^5 + 0.0168 x^6 + 0.0002 x^7 - 0.0001 x^8

Click to expand...

Yep.

Which means you're telling us that P(0s)= 161995.792 ft.

Click to expand...

161,995.7920, Absolutely.

Click to expand...

Careful with those laughing dogs now W.D.Clinger.

You forgot that you have a T₀ of 11.8785s

At least you have the coefficients the right way around now.

I forgot nothing, and I've had the coefficients the right way around from the first.

You agreed above that

P(t) = 161995.792 - 50786.77046 t + 5434.711807 t^2 - 162.2158 t^3 - 7.5523 t^4 + 0.2763 t^5 + 0.0168 t^6 + 0.0002 t^7 - 0.0001 t^8

so (using IEEE double precision)

P(11.8785)
= 161995.792
- 50786.77046 * 11.8785
+ 5434.711807 * 11.8785^2
- 162.2158 * 11.8785^3
- 7.5523 * 11.8785^4
+ 0.2763 * 11.8785^5
+ 0.0168 * 11.8785^6
+ 0.0002 * 11.8785^7
- 0.0001 * 11.8785^8

= 161995.792
- 50786.77046 * 11.8785
+ 5434.711807 * 141.09876225000002
- 162.2158 * 1676.0416473866253
- 7.5523 * 19908.860708482032
+ 0.2763 * 236487.40192570383
+ 0.0168 * 2809115.6037744726
+ 0.0002 * 33368079.699435074
- 0.0001 * 396362734.7097397

= 161995.792
- 603270.6529091101
+ 766831.1091531609
- 271880.4366641393
- 150357.68872866884
+ 65341.469152071964
+ 47193.14214341114
+ 6673.615939887015
- 39636.27347097397

= -17109.923384361173

Looks like my laughing dog was too small.

femr2 · May 8, 2011

w.d.clinger said:
i forgot nothing, and i've had the coefficients the right way around from the first.

You agreed above that

p(t) = 161995.792 - 50786.77046 t + 5434.711807 t^2 - 162.2158 t^3 - 7.5523 t^4 + 0.2763 t^5 + 0.0168 t^6 + 0.0002 t^7 - 0.0001 t^8

so (using ieee double precision)

p(11.8785)
= 161995.792
- 50786.77046 * 11.8785
+ 5434.711807 * 11.8785^2
- 162.2158 * 11.8785^3
- 7.5523 * 11.8785^4
+ 0.2763 * 11.8785^5
+ 0.0168 * 11.8785^6
+ 0.0002 * 11.8785^7
- 0.0001 * 11.8785^8

= 161995.792
- 50786.77046 * 11.8785
+ 5434.711807 * 141.09876225000002
- 162.2158 * 1676.0416473866253
- 7.5523 * 19908.860708482032
+ 0.2763 * 236487.40192570383
+ 0.0168 * 2809115.6037744726
+ 0.0002 * 33368079.699435074
- 0.0001 * 396362734.7097397

= 161995.792
- 603270.6529091101
+ 766831.1091531609
- 271880.4366641393
- 150357.68872866884
+ 65341.469152071964
+ 47193.14214341114
+ 6673.615939887015
- 39636.27347097397

= -17109.923384361173

looks like my laughing dog was too small.

p(11.8785) = -1.0226

Excel truncated the precision...

1.619957920131320E+05
-5.078677045962260E+04
5.434711807298120E+03
-1.622157851146990E+02
-7.552305569894980E+00
2.762930067008900E-01
1.681178574722320E-02
1.590132710700450E-04
-7.670678350398170E-05
1.998393291720780E-06
-3.508303587424120E-09
0.000000000000000E+00
0.000000000000000E+00
0.000000000000000E+00
0.000000000000000E+00
0.000000000000000E+00
0.000000000000000E+00

My apologies, but as I said, careful with the laughing dogs.

W.D.Clinger · May 8, 2011

femr2 said:
p(11.8785) = -1.0226

Does anyone here know how to multiply and add/subtract?

Because femr2 sure doesn't.

femr2 · May 8, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:
Does anyone here know how to multiply and add/subtract?

Because femr2 sure doesn't.

See above.

p(11.8785) = -1.0226
p(0) = 161995.7920

Showing your colours.

W.D.Clinger · May 8, 2011

this kinda sums it up

femr2 said:
See above.

p(11.8785) = -1.0226

Showing your colours.

Code:

% cat Femr2.java
public class Femr2 {

    public static void main (String[] args) {
        System.out.println (p(11.8785));
    }

    public static double p (double t) {
        double result = 0.0;
        result += 161995.792;
        result += -50786.77046 * t;
        result += 5434.711807  * t * t;
        result += -162.2158    * t * t * t;
        result += -7.5523      * t * t * t * t;
        result += 0.2763       * t * t * t * t * t;
        result += 0.0168       * t * t * t * t * t * t;
        result += 0.0002       * t * t * t * t * t * t * t;
        result += - 0.0001     * t * t * t * t * t * t * t * t;
        return result;
    }
}

Code:

% javac Femr2.java
% java Femr2
-17109.923384361115

femr2 · May 8, 2011

W.D.Clinger said:

Code:

% cat Femr2.java
public class Femr2 {

    public static void main (String[] args) {
        System.out.println (p(11.8785));
    }

    public static double p (double t) {
        double result = 0.0;
        result += 161995.792;
        result += -50786.77046 * t;
        result += 5434.711807  * t * t;
        result += -162.2158    * t * t * t;
        result += -7.5523      * t * t * t * t;
        result += 0.2763       * t * t * t * t * t;
        result += 0.0168       * t * t * t * t * t * t;
        result += 0.0002       * t * t * t * t * t * t * t;
        result += - 0.0001     * t * t * t * t * t * t * t * t;
        return result;
    }
}

Code:

% javac Femr2.java
% java Femr2
-17109.923384361115

Still showing your colours.

Note the *see above*.

Be careful with the laughing dogs W.D.Clinger.

R.Mackey · May 8, 2011

oh, wow. That hurts.

This is the ultimate tragedy of Truthers. They have so much to learn, and they even seem interested. But because they hitch themselves to a cause, they distrust anyone who disagrees, and they make it their life's work to "pwn" people. Hence, they never learn.

Here's hoping this one is the exception.

Major_Tom · May 8, 2011

When you consider how poorly JREF and R Mackey did with WTC1, the odd source of relish requires an incredible level of ignorance of your own abilities.

I could drive a truck through all the holes in your WTC1 collapse descriptions, R Mackey.

Why the smell?

femr2 · May 8, 2011

Major_Tom said:
the odd source of relish

It's very insightful about individual position. Showing their colours as I put it.

Some values pasted from Excel lost precision. Oops. Not a big deal. Found and posted updated values about half hour before WDC's latest DL ridden insight into his character and intent.

I think I'll live, and as always I try and remain as pleasant as possible.

I know which end of this discussion I'd rather be on.

R² = 0.999994204

Major_Tom · May 8, 2011

I don't think it will happen, but if WC Clinger adds useful information to your data that is wonderful.

I would think, as human beings, we would all want the best data.

I cannot relate to the football game mentality. Seems a bit....

Merged Discussion of femr's video data analysis

Skeptic not Atheist

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Illuminator

Philosopher

Graduate Poster

Illuminator

Graduate Poster