Richard Gage Blueprint for Truth Rebuttals on YouTube by Chris Mohr

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
I rarely expect you and you and you to get anything. The difference is that I know things. I know that an experienced programmer in that type field, given the correct parameters, could easily perform that task of determining all the variations that could take place when the egg landed.

Whereas you all know that the egg would break.
Click to expand...

ARE you an experienced programmer in that type of field?
 
Clayton Moore said:
I rarely expect you and you and you to get anything. The difference is that I know things. I know that an experienced programmer in that type field, given the correct parameters, could easily perform that task of determining all the variations that could take place when the egg landed.

Whereas you all know that the egg would break.
Click to expand...

Even if the correct parameters were agreed upon, complete, detailed, and sufficient, that would still be an enormous task. Using finite difference equations to figure out the temperature at various points of a simple and well understood heat exchanger (if you're working from scratch and only working in two dimensional modeling) takes hundreds of lines of code (pure logic code, not html sputtering vb). And it would affected by stochastic processes, so if the goal is like a video game's needs, it only needs to look cool. If it has to be accurate, then a monte carlo simulation run thousands of times would only provide probabilities of things happening a certain way.

Either way, why do you demand that figments of your imagination or random thought experiments unrelated to the actual topic be debunked?
 
Clayton Moore said:
I rarely expect you and you and you to get anything. The difference is that I know things. I know that an experienced programmer in that type field, given the correct parameters, could easily perform that task of determining all the variations that could take place when the egg landed.

Whereas you all know that the egg would break.
Click to expand...

Clayton you don't know anything. You are an insignificant ideologue posting on a relatively obscure internet forum in support of a tiny, irrelevant cult.

You can't be reminded of that enough.
 
Amelius Brown said:
Even if the correct parameters were agreed upon, complete, detailed, and sufficient, that would still be an enormous task. Using finite difference equations to figure out the temperature at various points of a simple and well understood heat exchanger (if you're working from scratch and only working in two dimensional modeling) takes hundreds of lines of code (pure logic code, not html sputtering vb). And it would affected by stochastic processes, so if the goal is like a video game's needs, it only needs to look cool. If it has to be accurate, then a monte carlo simulation run thousands of times would only provide probabilities of things happening a certain way.

Either way, why do you demand that figments of your imagination or random thought experiments unrelated to the actual topic be debunked?
Click to expand...

No figments. Just basic common sense. I'm sure today's architects have an accurate simulation of the buildings they build that can be subjected to negative stresses/situations such as hurricanes, fire, earthquakes, electrical failures, elevator problems, air conditioning, partial structural failure,etc. The programming task is no great shakes. It's a business as usual, been there done that, humdrum task.

Certainly the same could be done with the WTC buildings.
 
Clayton Moore said:
So, by obfuscating the issue you're saying you don't want to commit that the egg would break?
Click to expand...

Asking a relevant question is "obfuscating the issue" to you? Do you normally make a habit of putting words into people's mouths?

And "common sense" isn't so common, considering people appeal to it usually when they have no actual evidence to support their point otherwise. Or at all.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
I know that an experienced programmer in that type field, given the correct parameters, could easily perform that task of determining all the variations that could take place when the egg landed.
Click to expand...

As someone in this field (though not a programmer), I know you are full of ****.
 
Clayton Moore said:
I rarely expect you and you and you to get anything. The difference is that I know things. I know that an experienced programmer in that type field, given the correct parameters, could easily perform that task of determining all the variations that could take place when the egg landed.

Whereas you all know that the egg would break.
Click to expand...

So that's a no?

Typical.
 
Clayton Moore said:
No figments. Just basic common sense. I'm sure today's architects have an accurate simulation of the buildings they build that can be subjected to negative stresses/situations such as hurricanes, fire, earthquakes, electrical failures, elevator problems, air conditioning, partial structural failure,etc. The programming task is no great shakes. It's a business as usual, been there done that, humdrum task.

Certainly the same could be done with the WTC buildings.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, it couldn't. Far too many unknowns involved and far too many variables. No amount of claiming it's common sense on your part is going to change that. In fact, it just shows an appalling ignorance on yet another subject.
 
Last edited:
Chris - your videos are probably fairly dry to people who haven't dealt with Truthers in any substantial way, but they are, so far, logically and factually spot-on, and I appreciate them.

Thanks.
 
LSSBB said:
"Answer the question, Claire". I don't care about the egg. I am interested in how "you KNOW" how long it takes to program simulations per the discussion.
Click to expand...

Pretty much of anything is possible in programming.

As usual a person on this form asks a specific question about something I never said. This can happen for one of two reasons, agenda or weak-mindedness or both.

Saying that a programming task would be a snap is relative. It would be a snap for team of experienced programmers with the necessary software.
 
sylvan8798 said:
Actually, no, it couldn't. Far too many unknowns involved and far too many variables. No amount of claiming it's common sense on your part is going to change that. In fact, it just shows an appalling ignorance on yet another subject.
Click to expand...

Unknowns? How do you think huge skyscrapers are built and maintained?
 
Clayton Moore said:
It's a nonsense question.

I did say pretty much anything, which is not everything.
Click to expand...

So it is not possible to write a program that simulates reasl weather perfectly? If you say that, we all agree.

Can you also explain why it is not possible to simulate the weather perfectly? This explanation should contain the criteria by which you decide which programming tasks are a snap and which aren't, and using these criteria, I should then be able to tell if and why programming a building collapse simulation perfectly is a snap or not.
 
Oystein said:
So it is not possible to write a program that simulates reasl weather perfectly? If you say that, we all agree.

Can you also explain why it is not possible to simulate the weather perfectly? This explanation should contain the criteria by which you decide which programming tasks are a snap and which aren't, and using these criteria, I should then be able to tell if and why programming a building collapse simulation perfectly is a snap or not.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I'm not responding to gibberish and thread disruption by nonsensical query.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom