Moronium Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) GIGO was initially phrased for the computer industry. So by your logic, that industry collapsed decades ago. Go ahead and believe your placards, you have no ability to articulate or comprehend. Hahahahaha. Great "logic" there Ralf, but don't impute it to me Just for your information, GIGO has been known to all for millennia. In computer science, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) describes the concept that flawed, or nonsense input data produces nonsense output or "garbage". The principle also applies more generally to all analysis and logic, in that arguments are unsound if their premises are flawed. GIGO is commonly used to describe failures in human decision-making due to faulty, incomplete, or imprecise data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 Yeah those cavemen who tried to make spear points out of their own turds just never learned. The turd spear industry never made it.
Moronium Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) Wiki sho nuff got your number in that article I just cited, Ralf: It is a sardonic comment on the tendency to put excessive trust in "computerised" data, and on the propensity for individuals to blindly accept what the computer says. Since the data entered into the computer is then processed by the computer, people who do not understand the processes in question, tend to believe the data they see and take it just as seriously as if the data were Gospels. Yours, and that of every other SR disciple, I should add. Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) Wiki is peddling turd spears to those who can't read with comprehension. Edited March 27, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) It doesn't take you long to revert to the M.O. of your buddies, Amp and Awol, eh, Ralf? Contentless insults and completely unsubstantiated assertions which they think somehow "proves" they are right. This thread started with Awol assuming that "distant observers" influence the behavior of the objects which they are observing. He believed that this assumption provided him with an "air tight" argument. The notion is absurd, yet Awol never questions it. He has no evidence or rational argument to support it, so he just says that anyone who doesn't accept such nonsense is "stupid." . Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) Naw, that's not it, you just can't understand what the statement means then assign your own meaning to it and refute that. My "buddies" do exactly the same thing. Edited March 27, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 you just can't understand what the statement means Learn me, Ralf. Show me how and why his statement is "true," why doncha?
ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 Sure, I can explain it to ya but I can't understand it for ya. Now where was the original? I just want to get the original context.
OceanBreeze Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 So, no object can ever reach the event horizon and fall into a black hole? Damn! Somebody needs to tell Prof. Pounds and his collaborators that they are all off their rockers. From the link: Prof. Pounds, from the University of Leicester's Department of Physics and Astronomy, said: "The galaxy we were observing with XMM-Newton has a 40 million solar mass black hole which is very bright and evidently well fed. Indeed some 15 years ago we detected a powerful wind indicating the hole was being over-fed. While such winds are now found in many active galaxies, PG1211+143 has now yielded another 'first', with the detection of matter plunging directly into the hole itself."He continues: "We were able to follow an Earth-sized clump of matter for about a day, as it was pulled towards the black hole, accelerating to a third of the velocity of light before being swallowed up by the hole." I suppose none of this really happened, because it is "airtight" impossible?
ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) Did Moronium go A-Wal on me too? Anyway Popeye, I'm gonna explain next on my thread how the event horizon is the same as Alice choosing a velocity change, at a distance from Bob, at +c away from Bob. There are no infinities anywhere in the explanation. Spoiler alert: the answer is Alice will age faster than Bob by two yrs per light year distance from Bob. So if the event horizon is 3 ly from where her and Bob started, once she reaches the event horizon, she will age a total of 6 yrs more than Bob over the next 3 yrs sitting on the event horizon. The tricky part is working out the average time dilation from the time they separate until the time Alice reaches the event horizon. Say Alice's average speed to get there is .6c, then she will be 4 and from Bob's perspective he will be 5 and he will end up 8 in 3 yrs and Alice will end up 10 in that time. So after 3 yrs on the surface, Alice will end up 2 yrs older than Bob forever as she spends the rest of her life farming a little plot of land on the surface of the black hole. Maybe set up a little stand and call it Hole Foods. PS. If relativity is so good, it should also be able to come up with a hard number like the one I came up with using its own math for this idealized scenario. Edited March 27, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 Sure, I can explain it to ya You can't explain sheeit, Ralf.
ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) Wow I thought maybe you were being wilfully ignorant but I just can't abide by wilfull dishonesty. Show me A-Wal's quote you want me to explain to you because I'm pretty sure you're asking me to explain your interpretation of the quote. Compulsive liar. Edited March 27, 2019 by ralfcis
Moronium Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) Wow I thought maybe you were being wilfully ignorant but I just can't abide by wilfull dishonesty. Show me A-Wal's quote you want me to explain to you because I'm pretty sure you're asking me to explain your interpretation of the quote. Compulsive liar. What the hell are you even talking about? I was, and am, talking about the tacit assumptions he made. Do you know what "tacit" means? My first comment in this thread started out with this: The whole tacit assumption here, i.e., that the "perspective" of a distant observer can have ANY effect on an object light years away, is ludicrous. Where did this belief in subjective magic even come from? Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium
ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 Stop your squirming. Just show me the quote. I don't care how you tacitly interpret it because that's where all your problems stem from. So show some courage and just show me his quote, not yours.
Moronium Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 Stop your squirming. Just show me the quote. I don't care how you tacitly interpret it because that's where all your problems stem from. So show some courage and just show me his quote, not yours. You're not satisified with playing the fool, eh, Ralf? Noooooooo. You insist on being a fool. Just explain how that is possible, like you claimed you could.
ralfcis Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 Compulsive liar. I call into question your ability to interpret things properly and you've only proved my point. Why would I take the tacit understanding of a person I think hs no ability to understand. Here's your statement:This thread started with Awol assuming that "distant observers" influence the behavior of the objects which they are observing. You're probably lying. End of explanation.
Moronium Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 (edited) You're probably lying. End of explanation. Yeah, that's about what I thought your "explanation" would be, Ralf. As you continuously demonstrate, Ralf, and as I have noted before, you lack even the most rudimentary understanding of even the most basic fundamentals of logic. Rational communication with a person with those handicaps is impossible. Edited March 27, 2019 by Moronium
Recommended Posts