Author Topic: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?  (Read 588563 times)

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #540 on: January 02, 2013, 01:30:18 PM »
I've posted this before, I think:


"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline ipearse

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • There is no such thing as a stupid question
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #541 on: January 02, 2013, 01:31:11 PM »
Thanks for your intelligent commet. What are you trying to say?

He's summarizing what we've been saying for 30 pages:  You don't know what you're talking about, and you're not fooling anyone into thinking you do.

Thanks, Jay, you saved me the effort. I'm starting to find this whole thng somewhat tedious,  but the informed replies from you folks are worth the effort. The whole cosmos of rockety seems to have been encapsulated in this one thread.
"The Earth is the cradle of the mind, but we cannot live in the cradle forever" - Konstantin Tsiolkovski

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #542 on: January 02, 2013, 01:32:05 PM »
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

You miss the point (again). Whether or not discussion proceeds is entirely dependent on your behaviour. I will allow your posts if they are acceptable. The one you made previous to the one I'm quoting was not acceptable.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #543 on: January 02, 2013, 01:36:09 PM »
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

That's up to you, isn't it?
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #544 on: January 02, 2013, 01:39:49 PM »
Here's a fun one:

I reckon that Sputnik 1 was fake. I reckon that there must have been some other secret payload along for the ride. Why? Because Sputnik was, supposedly, a tiny satellite with a mass of less than 90 kg. If you calculate the kinetic energy of such a satellite moving at 17,500 mph in orbit and you subtract the kinetic energy of the rocket on the launch pad, which is evidently zero because it's not moving, you find that the energy provided by the burning of the fuel load on the rocket was massively in excess of that needed to give that tiny satellite the kinetic energy it evidently had when in orbit. What else was that energy being used for?

;)
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #545 on: January 02, 2013, 01:40:40 PM »
Don't even joke about that.  Heiwa (and other HBs) clearly have no concept of satire!
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline Bob B.

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Bob the Excel Guruâ„¢
    • Rocket & Space Technology
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #546 on: January 02, 2013, 01:41:28 PM »
You failed to account for this both in a momentum-conservation formation and in an energy-conservation formulation.  Not only did you fail to account for it, you admitted it was a significant factor that you intentionally omitted from your model.  The excuse you gave for the omission was the factually-incorrect accusation that NASA had failed to provide you with appropriate values.  ...

Why do you think that directly compares?
Thanks for your comment. Try to be on topic. 

That "comment" ended with a question.  Why didn't you answer it?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #547 on: January 02, 2013, 01:42:16 PM »
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

Dear lord, is there anything at any level this man can't fail to grasp, no matter how simple?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3716
    • Clavius
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #548 on: January 02, 2013, 01:44:30 PM »
That was me.  If Heiwanders ignores the total system and focuses only on the spacecraft, it has indeed LOST kinetic energy.  He tries to make up for this by arbitrarily changing the sign of the equation.  He lies to himself about his own equation.

This is more evidence of ham-fisted fumbling rather than knowledgeable study.  In orbital mechanics we commonly formulate specific energies such that they often come out negative, based on how we set up the frames of reference.  It's no big deal to have a negative number.  Because we know qualitatively how they relate to the geometry of the reference frame, we know algebraically what the numbers should look like, even if they happen to be negative.

People trying to fumble their way through a physics problem by "mathematizing" intuitively-derived concepts and properties often freak out when a number they associate with a real-world property comes out to be negative.  "How can I have negative energy?  I can't have negative energy; I must have done something wrong."  And so they arbitrarily change the arithmetic signs in their equation to make the values come out "right," showing that they really don't understand the formulation either way.

One of the things you learn very early as a professional engineer is to trust the numbers.  Which is to say, understand why the equations you use come up with the kinds of numbers they do.  That means understanding the finer nature of the relationship between measured values and their reference frames, but also "letting go" and trusting the abstract nature of some of what you do.

That leads to the second major point of his fumble-around method, which we've belabored.  The "system" as it applies to a momentum or energy computation -- anything where conservation is an expected property -- is an abstract concept.  Anders consistently fails to do the problem right because he has an intuitive, concrete idea of what his "system" is:  the physical, geometric boundaries of the spacecraft.  That prevents him from considering that the expended propellants, now many kilometers away from the spacecraft, are still part of the system he defined at the outset.

People who use these formulations correctly, and are facile with them as part of their jobs, have no problem with such abstract, counter-intuitive definition.  They have no problem considering the system as composed of the spacecraft dry mass separately from its propellant, and to properly account for them as coupled mass initially, but then physically distinct mass (or energy) later on.  (In the real world, propellant slosh within the spacecraft is actually part of the energy-balance.  That's how fine-grained some of these analyses can get.)

That's the facility that fakers and charlatans can't match.  Not only do they fail to achieve appropriate abstraction in their own work, they cannot recognize it when it is presented to them.  They are forever stuck in the layman's feeble practice of shoehorning their intuitive misconceptions into the formalisms.  Smart students realize that it doesn't fit, and gradually adjust their thinking to embrace the formalism and the abstraction it expresses.  Conspiracy theorists just blame someone else.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3716
    • Clavius
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #549 on: January 02, 2013, 01:46:47 PM »
Pls send me an e-mail when you allow the discussion to proceed.

The discussion is proceeding.  The only difference is that you will no longer be allowed to insult other members or try to control who can talk about what.  You are still responsible for answering the questions put to you.  You may still ask us questions, as long as they follow the forum rules.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3716
    • Clavius
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #550 on: January 02, 2013, 01:48:25 PM »
Dear lord, is there anything at any level this man can't fail to grasp, no matter how simple?

Well the jury is still out worldwide over whether he really is this obtuse or whether he's just trolling.  This type and degree of obfuscation is sadly typical of him either way.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #551 on: January 02, 2013, 01:49:12 PM »
He's got to be trolling.  No-one can be that ridiculous.  Surely.

Please?
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Saturn
  • *****
  • Posts: 1022
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #552 on: January 02, 2013, 01:50:39 PM »
If he's trolling then being under moderation will take the fun out of it and he'll just leave. If he's seriously interested in the discussion then the desire to be taken off moderation (which can add a significant delay if I'm not at my computer) will encourage him to behave.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Glom

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1067
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #553 on: January 02, 2013, 01:56:27 PM »
He's got to be trolling.  No-one can be that ridiculous.  Surely.

Please?

I don't think he's trolling.  He's put far too much effort in for that.  Just because he's completely incompetent at Physics and incapable of recognising it, it doesn't mean he isn't trying to prove something.  It's quite sad really.

Offline Inanimate Carbon Rod

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
    • evilscience
Re: So, who wants to win 1 million Euro?
« Reply #554 on: January 02, 2013, 01:56:51 PM »
Formerly Supermeerkat. Like you care.