View Single Post
Old 25th January 2010, 08:58 AM   #1213
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,065
I've just realised how stunning a piece of hypocrisy and inconsistency this is from Tony.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Although Figure 5 above claims to present "actual measured velocity", that is a lie. Here are the actual measured velocities, as computed directly from their unsmoothed data in the table on pages 6-7:

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Mus...ure5honest.jpg

As can be seen from the unsmoothed data in my graph, there appear to have been three mild jolts around 1.00, 1.33, and 1.67 seconds. Tony's expected delta-V of 13.13 ft/sec is shown in the dashed line, followed by the subsequent 1g acceleration implied by their model (instead of the incorrect reduced acceleration shown in their Figures 5 and 6, which was also incorrectly labelled as "reduced velocity"). If you compare the solid and dashed lines at 2 seconds, you will see that the sum of the three (or more) mild jolts was equal to Tony's expected jolt to within quantization error.
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Your graph is based on the error being in favor of your position all the time, which is statisically improbable. Additionally, the error would not be an entire pixel or 0.88 feet but half of that.

This is a bogus use of the data you are showing here.

We also did not conclude there was no jolt simply because it wasn't obvious on the graph but because there was no velocity loss commensurate with the energy dissipation that would have occurred. Your bogus distortion of the data in an attempt to show some sort of step still can't eliminate that anomaly.
Let's go back over that one again, shall we? Tony has said all along that there is no jolt visible in the data, and that the final velocity is different from that which would be expected even had the jolt been smeared out between multiple impacts. W.D.Clinger then presents a graph of Tony's data, showing that multiple impacts are visible in the data (and, incidentally, that the final velocity is in close agreement with what Tony predicted).

Tony's response is to deny the validity of his own data.

He's claiming that the jolts visible in his data cannot be taken as evidence of real jolts, because the noise level on the data is too high. Therefore, he's claiming that the jolt he claims not to see cannot possibly be seen, because his data is not good enough. That's what we've been telling him all along. And he claims that the overall reduction in final velocity is not seen; well, I've looked at WDC's graph, and it's not just visible, but obvious.

This is classic conspiracy theorist cognitive dissonance. Tony has been looking for something he was determined not to see, and when it's shown to him in his own data, he refuses to see it.

There's no bogus distortion there, Tony. It's your own data, pure and unadulterated. I plotted it out myself and it looked the same. Your jolt is there, split into a series of smaller jolts, just like everyone's been telling you. End of story.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top