The Red String Calculations

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally written by Randi in the March 11 Commentary:

(referring to the "Lost Cubit", which is supposedly the Earth's polar and equatorial circumferences, in inches, divided into the speed of light -- according to the Berg family, "...It therefore relates to Earth natural harmonics in a special way....")

So what's "lost" about this measure? Okay, let's apply our talents to re-discovering this cubit. We'll indulge these nut-cases for a bit, and see if we can arrive at an answer. Let's see.... The sum of those Earth circumferences — using 24,902.4 and 24,860.2 miles as equatorial and polar circumferences, respectively — comes to 3,152,958,336 inches — though how we can seriously use a measurement accurate to one inch when measuring such a rough almost-sphere, I cannot imagine. Note that English units are used, because as we all know, they're closer to Biblical measurements....!

The speed of light — we'll assume it to be in vacuo, though they wouldn't know of that distinction — comes to 11,802,829,071 inches per second! I use inches here because any sensible person would use the same units in both conversions, and "per second" because otherwise the numbers are so huge I could not write them here on the page. Performing the calculation the spooky folks specified, in spite of the absurdity of it all, we get .374... (why bother with more digits?) But what unit is that? Inches? A fraction of a cubit? A cubit — until these idiots came along — was thought to be something like 20.62 inches — that value having been derived from examination of recovered ancient artifacts.

A decimal point got dropped som'ers, I do believe...I get 3.743 (and change) inches divided by inches per second...

As I recall, when dividing, invert and multiply...the inches cancel out...so you get an answer of 3.743(etc) seconds...which means...what? The answer isn't even a length, it's a period of time! Isn't/wasn't a cubit a unit of length?

?????

(Of course, if I've gotten the math wrong, I know I'll never hear the end of this...)

 

[T'ai Chi]

Using Google, I get

(24,902.4 and 24,860.2)miles = 49,762.6miles

49,762.6miles = 3,152,958,336 inches

c, the speed of light, = 299,792,458 meters/sec =

1.18028527 × 10^10 inches/sec

(3,152,958,336 inches)/(1.18028527 × 10^10 inches/sec) =

.267135277898sec

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

"...the Earth's polar and equatorial circumferences, in inches, divided into the speed of light..."

Methinks thou hast it backwards, what's going into what...flip 'em and try it again.

Divided into, not divided by.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"...the Earth's polar and equatorial circumferences, in inches, divided into the speed of light..."

Methinks thou hast it backwards, what's going into what...flip 'em and try it again.

Divided into, not divided by.

haha! Yup! Whoops! Thanks for catching my error.

So 1/.267135277898sec = 3.74342, which you got.

 

[CFLarsen]

haha! Yup! Whoops! Thanks for catching my error.

So 1/.267135277898sec = 3.74342, which you got.

A rookie error.

 

[T'ai Chi]

A rookie error.

Yes, it was an error, as I admitted and corrected. Do you have anything new or relevant to add?

And whatever you do, don't mention Randi's error. You wouldn't dare point out his error, right?

Don't you have some 250+ errors to correct?

 

[Zep]

Yes, it was an error, as I admitted and corrected. Do you have anything new or relevant to add?

And whatever you do, don't mention Randi's error. You wouldn't dare point out his error, right?

Don't you have some 250+ errors to correct?

The irony of this is obviously lost on the poster...

 

[T'ai Chi]

The irony of this is obviously lost on the poster...

Zep, why do you believe Claus would focus on my error and not on Randi's?

Claus, care to comment?

 

[Zep]

I divided the sum of the distances by the speed, to come up with 0.271-ish. Which is the number of seconds for light to complete the sum of the journeys.

Whatever the heck THAT means to a cubit!!


Maybe they should check their air-conditioning - I think it's leaking fumes...

 

[Zep]

Zep, why do you believe Claus would focus on my error and not on Randi's?

Claus, care to comment?

Let's see...that's a REAL TOUGH one.


[thinks carefully]



OK, after some careful thinking, here's how it pans out, as I see it: Claus focused on YOUR error because YOU made it.



Claus, no doubt, will make a comment on Randi's arithmetic. Or not. Meanwhile, I'd suggest you quit wasting bandwidth, and build a bridge and get over it already. WE certainly have.

 

[T'ai Chi]

OK, after some careful thinking, here's how it pans out, as I see it: Claus focused on YOUR error because YOU made it.

Isn't it interesting though, that Randi made his error first, yet Claus commented on mine first?

Meanwhile, I'd suggest you quit wasting bandwidth, and build a bridge and get over it already. WE certainly have.

Zep, me posting is wasting bandwidth, but yours is not? Please, as long as you are getting over things, get over yourself.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, it was an error, as I admitted and corrected. Do you have anything new or relevant to add?

And whatever you do, don't mention Randi's error. You wouldn't dare point out his error, right?

It isn't about "daring". Other skeptics have told Randi about this, and he has acknowledged his mistake, so why should I bother him again? I'm not like you, Justin.

The issue is: Is Randi claiming particular mathematical knowledge? No.

Are you? Yes. You should not have made such a mistake. It's far from the first basic mistake you make, so I suspect it is a pattern.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Other skeptics have told Randi about this, and he has acknowledged his mistake, so why should I bother him again?

We're talking about this specific error, Claus.

Are you? Yes. You should not have made such a mistake.

I'm not claiming that I am above human errors, as you embarrisingly implicitly assume, however.

 

[Gr8wight]

You know, I find jzs to be remarkably tedious and inane, and I generally ignore threads he posts in because they tend to go on forever about nothing at all. However, in this thread, he was being completely reasonable, and was baited by CFLarsen for no other reason than Claus dislikes him. That's not cool either.

 

[T'ai Chi]

However, in this thread, he was being completely reasonable, and was baited by CFLarsen for no other reason than Claus dislikes him. That's not cool either.

Yup, now you can appreciate why many people have a hard time taking him seriously around here.

 

[CFLarsen]

You know, I find jzs to be remarkably tedious and inane, and I generally ignore threads he posts in because they tend to go on forever about nothing at all. However, in this thread, he was being completely reasonable, and was baited by CFLarsen for no other reason than Claus dislikes him. That's not cool either.

Oh, no. You are wrong.

Justin has bragged about his mathematical and statistical skills, and criticized others for lacking in the same department.

Unfortunately, he has often made some remarkable basic errors, which I personally find very....odd.

However, he should not criticize other people's math, when he makes such a blunder himself.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Justin has bragged about his mathematical and statistical skills,

Claus, as usual, you are invited to show the thread the exact quote(s) of mine where I supposedly "bragged". As usual, it will probably be me stating a related fact, and you interpreting it as something else to suit one of your many embarassing personal vendettas.

Unfortunately, he has often made some remarkable basic errors, which I personally find very....odd.

Is this anything like you "bragging" about having 20 or so years of computer experience... but you were abolsutley convinced the letter was fake when it was real? Or that you are an editor, but didn't edit out over 250 errors?

Yes, we are all human, Claus. We all often make stupid errors.

It seems like you are focusing on the misses and forgetting the hits. Don't mention the times I was correct with math and statistics and helped people out on the board. That would tend to demolish your agenda.

 

[DrMatt]

Using the speed of light, 3.7~ seconds "is a distance". But it's further than the moon.

 

[Gr8wight]

Oh, no. You are wrong.

Justin has bragged about his mathematical and statistical skills, and criticized others for lacking in the same department.

Unfortunately, he has often made some remarkable basic errors, which I personally find very....odd.

However, he should not criticize other people's math, when he makes such a blunder himself.

Come on, Claus. I just came from a thread about Randi repeating an old wives tale (that turns out to be wrong) as scientific fact, and everyone over there is saying to give him a break, he's only human, everybody makes mistakes.

As mathematical mistakes go, this one was pretty simple to make, and as soon as it was pointed out to him, not only did jzs admit to making the mistake, he reworked his figures and confirmed someone else's earlier result. And then you get all righteous on his butt. You obviously have a personal problem with justin that you are unable to let go of. Why don't you go and look up some personal information about him and make cryptic references to it here. that'll show him.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

Using the speed of light, 3.7~ seconds "is a distance". But it's further than the moon.

~3.7 seconds is a period of time. ~3.7 light-seconds is a distance -- but the problem doesn't come out with an answer in light-seconds! It comes out with an answer in time -- check the math, the 'inches' part cancels itself out, which leaves 'seconds', which is time.

And even if the answer came out in light-seconds, WHAT THE BLOODY BLUE BLAZES DOES IT MEAN???