I've just realised how stunning a piece of hypocrisy and inconsistency this is from Tony.
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
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.