IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd October 2016, 12:35 AM   #201
BazBear
Possible Suspect
 
BazBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Stowe VT USA
Posts: 2,930
wogoga, even this dumb butt high school graduate can at least broadly grasp the way the Apollo reentry thermal protection system worked.

Bad math, bad physics, and poor research can and will make anyone look silly, no matter how many BS equations they post.
__________________
I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein
If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill

Last edited by BazBear; 2nd October 2016 at 12:43 AM. Reason: the off chance
BazBear 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
Old 2nd October 2016, 10:10 AM   #202
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Wow, I have looked at this thread fromtime to time but being flummoxed by the personal number notation of woogaga I tended to just blow by it. ;only today did: fnally get it. His notation that is.

Utterly stupid to invent a new notation that adds nothing to the well established and easily understood common existing notation.
jaydeehess 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
Old 2nd October 2016, 10:45 AM   #203
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,738
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Wow, I have looked at this thread fromtime to time but being flummoxed by the personal number notation of woogaga I tended to just blow by it. ;only today did: fnally get it. His notation that is.

Utterly stupid to invent a new notation that adds nothing to the well established and easily understood common existing notation.
I think he created it to camouflage his nonsense.
Hans 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
Old 2nd October 2016, 12:34 PM   #204
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,936
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
I think he created it to camouflage his nonsense.
On his website he said he created it in part to undo the "pollution" the Americans caused in notation. I assume he's referring chiefly to the reversed usage of commas and decimal points. So because of the confusion this has allegedly caused, Wogoga is the unsung genius who has devised an entirely new number system that is impervious to the confusion he blames America for.

Also he appears to consider himself the unsung genius who has exposed the hoax behind America's greatest engineering achievement.

So yeah, a four-alarm delusion of grandeur.
JayUtah 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
Old 2nd October 2016, 03:33 PM   #205
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
The problem is that the figure ... snip...or do I miss something?
The real problem is that you missed that an ignorant conspiracy theory web site is lying, wogoga.

It is a lie that Figure 4.1.7-25 of Returning from Space: Re-entry (PDF) has any entry speeds !
It is a lie that anything in that section of the document "implies an entry speed of only 2100 m/s". Figure 4.1.7-24 explicitly has the Space Shuttle with a speed of 7300 m/s at 80 km.
It is mispleading to cite a document that mentions the successful Apollo missions in a thread about the crazy idea that the Apollo missions could not happen.

A post made up of ignorance does not make the reentry of Apollo modules impossible !

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd October 2016 at 03:39 PM.
Reality Check 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
Old 2nd October 2016, 06:29 PM   #206
Dabop
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 967
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
On his website he said he created it in part to undo the "pollution" the Americans caused in notation. I assume he's referring chiefly to the reversed usage of commas and decimal points. So because of the confusion this has allegedly caused, Wogoga is the unsung genius who has devised an entirely new number system that is impervious to the confusion he blames America for.

Also he appears to consider himself the unsung genius who has exposed the hoax behind America's greatest engineering achievement.

So yeah, a four-alarm delusion of grandeur.
I suspect that he has somewhere seen a notation system that has been used in electronics ever since I first started playing with it back in the eighties
His usage is not standard however

I have seen the use of the multiplier as a replacement for a decimal point in electronics numbers, it's original usage was to make photocopied circuits less prone to errors by missing or added decimal points so as an example instead of writing 4.7megaohms, you would write 4M7

It was actually quite good in that respect as I often made photocopies of circuits that had almost unreadable numbers on

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/text...tric-notation/

So even his numerical notation is pinched but used incorrectly lol

Last edited by Dabop; 2nd October 2016 at 06:30 PM.
Dabop 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
Old 2nd October 2016, 08:04 PM   #207
Nowhere Man
Critical Thinker
 
Nowhere Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 273
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
170 gram = 9n17 kg
200 kg = 2p2 kg
333 m/s2 = 2p333 m/s per sec
I'm only on page 2 of this thread, but can anyone say where this oddball notation comes from? I mean, I can suss it out, sort of, but it's something I've never seen before and it only distracts from the discussion.

ETA: Oh, FFS. Never mind.

Fred
__________________
Hey, you! "It's" with an apostrophe means "it is" or "it has." "Its" without an apostrophe means "belongs to it."

"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Last edited by Nowhere Man; 2nd October 2016 at 08:05 PM.
Nowhere Man 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
Old 3rd October 2016, 06:28 AM   #208
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
I suspect that he has somewhere seen a notation system that has been used in electronics ever since I first started playing with it back in the eighties
His usage is not standard however

I have seen the use of the multiplier as a replacement for a decimal point in electronics numbers, it's original usage was to make photocopied circuits less prone to errors by missing or added decimal points so as an example instead of writing 4.7megaohms, you would write 4M7

It was actually quite good in that respect as I often made photocopies of circuits that had almost unreadable numbers on

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/text...tric-notation/

So even his numerical notation is pinched but used incorrectly lol
That particular notation is only used in electronics and is possible partially because only two sig digits need be expressed in most ccts.

wogoga made his up solely because he is a rabid anti-American. Just what we needed political math.

BTW, the superscript method of exponents was invented by Rene Decartes, most definitely not an American.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 3rd October 2016 at 06:42 AM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 3rd October 2016, 06:51 AM   #209
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: 32,935
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
I have seen the use of the multiplier as a replacement for a decimal point in electronics numbers, it's original usage was to make photocopied circuits less prone to errors by missing or added decimal points so as an example instead of writing 4.7megaohms, you would write 4M7
Yes, but that's not what he's doing. What he's actually doing is starting from a number - say, 333ms-2 - then converting it to scientific notation - 3.33x102. He's then replacing the 102 part with a number-letter combination, where the number is the modulus of the power of ten and the letter p or n to represent its sign, placing this before the 3.33, and dropping the decimal point by assuming that the first digit precedes it. Thus 333 becomes 2p333, 200 becomes 2p2, and 170g becomes 0.17kG becomes 1n17. The ease of use of the system can best be assessed by the fact that wogoga himself screwed it up and rendered that last one as 9n17.

As for where it comes from, ask wogoga's proctologist.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
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
Old 3rd October 2016, 06:58 AM   #210
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
That particular notation is only used in electronics and is possible partially because only two sig digits need be expressed in most ccts.

wogoga made his up solely because he is a rabid anti-American. Just what we needed political math.

BTW, the superscript method of exponents was invented by Rene Decartes, most definitely not an American.
I've seen something conceptually similar to wogoga's notation used for values printed on capacitors. It's used for indicating numerical values ranging from 1 full Farad to nano and picofarads, which, as you say, only need a couple of digits of significance.
Jrrarglblarg 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
Old 3rd October 2016, 11:33 AM   #211
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Wow, I have looked at this thread fromtime to time but being flummoxed by the personal number notation of woogaga I tended to just blow by it. ;only today did: fnally get it. His notation that is.

Utterly stupid to invent a new notation that adds nothing to the well established and easily understood common existing notation.
Me too!

Now sing it with me


"I got an H ...

to the P ....

To the power of GTO!..."
Elagabalus 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
Old 5th October 2016, 03:31 AM   #212
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers in #209 View Post
Yes, but that's not what he's doing. What he's actually doing is starting from a number say, 333 m s-2 then converting it to scientific notation 3.33x102. He's then replacing the 102 part with a number-letter combination, where the number is the modulus of the power of ten and the letter p or n to represent its sign, placing this before the 3.33, and dropping the decimal point by assuming that the first digit precedes it. Thus 333 becomes 2p333, 200 becomes 2p2, and 170 g becomes 0.17 kg becomes 1n17. The ease of use of the system can best be assessed by the fact that wogoga himself screwed it up and rendered that last one as 9n17.

Why not invest a few minutes: A simplified and less confusing notation for numbers

The purpose of this number notation:
  • transparency of order of magnitude in calculations
  • ease of writing
Fundamental principle of notation:
0p = 00p = 000p = 0000p = = 100 = 1
0n = 90n = 990n = 9990n = = 10-10 = 100 pico
00n = 900n = 9900n = 99900n = = 10-100
The sequence from kilo to milli (always division by 10): three.po, two.po, one.po, zero.po, nine.ne, eight.ne, seven.ne

A few examples:
00p375 ∙ 00p2 = 00p75
03p375 ∙ 06p2 = 09p75
23p375 ∙ 16p2 = 39p75
99n375 ∙ 06p2 = 05p75
99n375 ∙ 00p2 = 99n75
99n375 ∙ 99n2 = 98n75
83n375 ∙ 17p2 = 00p75
83n375 ∙ 16p2 = 99n75
83n375 ∙ 90n2 = 73n75
Cheers, Wolfgang
The Apollo Space Program A gigantic conspiracy?
wogoga 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
Old 5th October 2016, 03:45 AM   #213
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: 32,935
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
My apologies, I appear to have got it wrong. Your system is less simple and more confusing than I thought, and is clearly a lot harder to master than scientific notation despite giving no advantages over it.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
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
Old 5th October 2016, 04:33 AM   #214
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Why not invest a few minutes:
Because there's nothing wrong with the methods in actual use?
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak 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
Old 5th October 2016, 05:04 AM   #215
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 22,841
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Why not invest a few minutes: A simplified and less confusing notation for numbers

The purpose of this number notation:
  • transparency of order of magnitude in calculations
  • ease of writing
Fundamental principle of notation:
0p = 00p = 000p = 0000p = = 100 = 1
0n = 90n = 990n = 9990n = = 10-10 = 100 pico
00n = 900n = 9900n = 99900n = = 10-100
The sequence from kilo to milli (always division by 10): three.po, two.po, one.po, zero.po, nine.ne, eight.ne, seven.ne

A few examples:
00p375 ∙ 00p2 = 00p75
03p375 ∙ 06p2 = 09p75
23p375 ∙ 16p2 = 39p75
99n375 ∙ 06p2 = 05p75
99n375 ∙ 00p2 = 99n75
99n375 ∙ 99n2 = 98n75
83n375 ∙ 17p2 = 00p75
83n375 ∙ 16p2 = 99n75
83n375 ∙ 90n2 = 73n75
Cheers, Wolfgang
The Apollo Space Program A gigantic conspiracy?
Why? Because your "simplified and less confusing notation" is so bad that even you fail to use it correctly yourself as we can see from the corrections we have had to make to your "calculations" in this very thread.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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
Old 5th October 2016, 05:06 AM   #216
rambaldi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Your inability to understand and your confusion
Sometimes I wonder how much research it takes to be THAT wrong... I mean if he was simply clueless he might be right by accident...
rambaldi 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
Old 5th October 2016, 05:19 AM   #217
threadworm
Graduate Poster
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,740
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Why not invest a few minutes: ...

[...snippety snip...]
No.

Why don't you get to grips with the notation that the entire rest of the planet gets by with perfectly well, rather than expect everyone else to submit to your made up nonsense?

Why not spend some time answering the comments you've been given rather than obfuscate and hide behind your impenetrable maths?
__________________
Facts are simple and facts are straight, facts are lazy and facts are late, facts don't come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to.

**************************

Apollo Hoax Debunked
threadworm 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
Old 5th October 2016, 05:20 AM   #218
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: 32,935
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Why? Because your "simplified and less confusing notation" is so bad that even you fail to use it correctly yourself as we can see from the corrections we have had to make to your "calculations" in this very thread.
It seems that, to Wolfgang, it's complicated and difficult to say:

3x10-6 x 2x102 = (3x2)x10(2-6) = 6x10-4

because, well, I don't actually know what's so difficult about it; but easier to say,

3n4 x 3p2 = ((now let me see, no leading nines so it must be -10, so) -10+4+2)(now let me see, that's going to come out negative, so there must be an n here)n(oh, and I'd better not forget to drop the leading minus sign)3x2 = (now I know there was an n here so I have to start from -4, which has one digit, so I add 10 to get -6 and drop the minus sign)6n6

which, since it requires the same calculations exactly plus another two subtractions of ten, plus a couple of checks on a sign and one on an order of magnitude. Five additional operations to achieve the same result; clearly much simpler, right?

And the sole piece of evidence offered to support this notation is that English-speaking and non-English speaking Europe have opposite sets of definitions of commas and stops. Wouldn't it be simpler just to keep the existing, universal, simple system of scientific notation and just standardize on commas and stops, rather than chucking out the baby with the bathwater?

But then again, that wouldn't make Wolfgang feel as special.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 5th October 2016 at 05:28 AM. Reason: Wolfgang's system is so difficult I got it wrong first time.
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
Old 5th October 2016, 05:27 AM   #219
rambaldi
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 276
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Why don't you get to grips with the notation that the entire rest of the planet gets by
That would require some actually honest interest in the subject... and quite frankly it has been some time since the last Hoaxer who appeared to be more interested in the truth than silly ramblings.
rambaldi 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
Old 5th October 2016, 06:14 AM   #220
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Why not invest a few minutes: A simplified and less confusing notation for numbers

[b]The purpose of this number notation:
  • transparency of order of magnitude in calculations
  • ease of writing
I find your notation neither easy to write, is actually less transparent in understanding order of magnitude, and most certainly NOT "simplified and less confusing.

I find it extremely easy to understand
5.1 X 102
rather than the confusion of
1p51


What is one of the MOST common complaints students have when it comes to math, algebra to be specific?
"Why are there letters in there?"

Now you wish to confuse matters even more. We have V=IR. Some students have trouble with that. How can there be nothing but letters in a math equation. We explain that the letters represent variables and that if you know all but one you can figure out what the other is. In your system the letters NEVER disappear with instead of an equation in which variables are known and I=0.1 amps and R=4700 ohms
V=10-1 X (4.7X103)
you want it to be
V=1n1 X 2p1.2

Yeah having new letters suddenly appear in an equation will in no ways be confusing

Perhaps you missed it as well, but the notation of xy is NOT an American invention unless you know something special about where Rene Decartes was born.
The micro/milli/centi/kilo/mega/tera, etc. convention is also,,,,,,iirc,,,, FRENCH in origin, Wolfgang.

Are you masking your anti-Francaphone sentiment by claiming an anti-American slant instead?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th October 2016 at 06:23 AM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 5th October 2016, 06:44 AM   #221
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,936
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Why not invest a few minutes...
I already had, and found it a complete waste of time. Conversely I spend many years becoming an engineer, in the process learning the standard notations used the world over -- contrary to your impression that Americans have messed everything up. Your system is unnecessary, obfuscated, and shows no advantage.

I'm sure you invented it as part of a ploy to show the world you're a genius, but it's not working. Instead of reinventing a perfectly good wheel, you could have spent an equivalent amount of time learning how heat shields actually reject heat, and then you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself so badly here.
JayUtah 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
Old 5th October 2016, 07:29 AM   #222
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
3n4 x 3p2 = ((now let me see, no leading nines so it must be -10, so) -10+4+2)(now let me see, that's going to come out negative, so there must be an n here)n(oh, and I'd better not forget to drop the leading minus sign)3x2 = (now I know there was an n here so I have to start from -4, which has one digit, so I add 10 to get -6 and drop the minus sign)6n6
I get 8.
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak 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
Old 5th October 2016, 08:12 AM   #223
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Why not invest a few minutes:

83n375 ∙ 90n2 = 73n75
And here it looks like you're multiplying two numbers less than one, and the solution is larger than either.
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak 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
Old 5th October 2016, 08:23 AM   #224
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
And here it looks like you're multiplying two numbers less than one, and the solution is larger than either.
Nice catch!

He missed one digit in his multiplier completely and managed to miss moving a decimal place to make 750 into 75.

So much easier.........

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th October 2016 at 08:25 AM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 5th October 2016, 08:45 AM   #225
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
And here it looks like you're multiplying two numbers less than one, and the solution is larger than either.
Now I could be wrong but given that 2X375=750
By my calc he got every single example wrong.
He chooses to eliminate extraneous zeros so 750 becomes 1p75 but that "1p" gets ignored/forgotten in his final calc.

The mistake you noticed was his addition of 83 and 90 and forgetting the "1" in 173.
It is 173n750 and taking off the extra zero it should be 172n75


Now in every other example he puts down notice how the change from 750 to 75 was forgotten when calc'ing his multiplier.

If he gets confused then how is this supposedly "less confusing"?

JU thinks wogoga created this to show his genius. It certainly demonstrates where on the IQ scale he might fall.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th October 2016 at 08:51 AM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 5th October 2016, 08:50 AM   #226
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,936
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
By my calc he got every single example wrong.
And according to those who plodded through some of his previous posts attempting to do energy balance models on spacecraft re-enetry, he made arithmetical errors there too. I'm used to all these self-proclaimed physics Wunderkinder claiming they've shown Apollo engineering was bogus, but this is a new low. Rarely do you also get someone who invents his own number system to be wrong in.
JayUtah 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
Old 5th October 2016, 08:55 AM   #227
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 22,841
Exactly my point. Wogoga has so obfuscated the entire thing that even he can't operate it himself.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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
Old 5th October 2016, 09:00 AM   #228
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And according to those who plodded through some of his previous posts attempting to do energy balance models on spacecraft re-enetry, he made arithmetical errors there too. I'm used to all these self-proclaimed physics Wunderkinder claiming they've shown Apollo engineering was bogus, but this is a new low. Rarely do you also get someone who invents his own number system to be wrong in.
I certainly make arithmetic mistakes myself. Hate it when that happens.

Then again I am not trying to demonstrate that my newly minted numeric notation is less confusing than the long established convention, and thus less prone to leading to arithmetic mistakes.

IMHO wogoga should slink away, embarrassed at his errors on this point and reinvestigate his claims about heat of re-entry.


But I predict that won't happen
jaydeehess 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
Old 5th October 2016, 09:09 AM   #229
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Exactly my point. Wogoga has so obfuscated the entire thing that even he can't operate it himself.
Moving the order of magnitude in front of the sig digits is odd and counter intuitive.
The introduction of letters into a number is simply inviting greater confusion in students learning algebra

His claim of American making things messy in regards the common notation, is plainly wrong( it's more French than any other particular nationality)

Given his utter ball'sd up mess in this regard, I see no impetus to believe he can prove NASA fudged re-entry thermodynamics.
jaydeehess 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
Old 5th October 2016, 09:21 AM   #230
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,767
Hell, wogoga, you don't even use the equals sign right. Your post indicates that numbers which are not equal to each other are equal to each other. Your lack of comprehension of how spacecraft work, and your gaping ignorance of the Apollo record, are aways off from being your worst problems.
sts60 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
Old 5th October 2016, 09:42 AM   #231
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: 32,935
Originally Posted by John Nowak View Post
I get 8.
Yeah, I think I meant 4n3. Or something else. Wogoga's notation is so opaque it's impossible to tell.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
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
Old 5th October 2016, 09:42 AM   #232
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,936
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I certainly make arithmetic mistakes myself.
Anyone who works with numbers has made an arithmetic error, and engineers sometimes make arithmetic errors that result in values being off by orders of magnitude. It's the nature of the trade, which is why a universal notation is important -- and hence why there is one. If we all agree to notate quantities and formulas conventionally, it's easier to spot errors because more eyes will be on them and they will have a familiar appearance.

As you work in various fields and problem spaces, you get used to the magnitudes involved. If someone quotes me an orbital speed in meters per second, expressed in common notation, I have an intuition for whether that's the right number. Ditto miles per hour (because I'm American), or km/s or whatever. The units and rough magnitudes are appropriate. Change that notation and I'd be more apt not to notice an error.

Quote:
...embarrassed at his errors on this point and reinvestigate his claims about heat of re-entry.
Most conspiracy theorists of this species are so deeply in denial (cf. Dunning and Kruger) that they feel no embarrassment. I'm sure Wogoga fully believes he is absolutely correct and that anyone who seems to have refuted him is ipso facto wrong. That's sort of how this breed operates.

Quote:
[He] should slink away ... But I predict that won't happen
He'll flounce, but then go to someplace like Cluesforum or ATS where they'll feed his ego.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Given his utter ball'sd up mess in this regard, I see no impetus to believe he can prove NASA fudged re-entry thermodynamics.
Well he simply doesn't understand how the design works. I see this all the time from non-engineers trying to second-guess engineering. Wonky notation aside, the claimant usually dredges up some basic concepts and models the problem accordingly. Then, again relying on basic concepts, tries to show that existing or purported solutions would be insufficient to address the model.

The pitfall is that the claimant's model is usually correct but not optimal. Which is to say, there is almost always an easier way to address the problem. And we pay engineers to think creatively to find those ways. The claimant's reliance on basic principles and his ability to show that his model follows from them blinds him to more sophisticated approaches. Or in some cases less sophisticated.

For an example that's not re-entry, spacecraft guidance could be implemented as a pure Newtonian dynamics model that kept track of the mass of the spacecraft and derived acceleration from modeled rocket thrust divided by mass, then integrated for velocity and position. Such a model would be correct. But you would be right to criticize it for undue complexity. We just measure acceleration directly, and that way we don't care about actual spacecraft mass or actual thrust. Just burn the engine until you've accumulated enough measured acceleration. But you can see how someone who concludes naively that the purely synthetic model is the only way you can implement spacecraft guidance would contend that there's no way it could be practically achieved.

I run afoul sometimes of the moderators here because I raise issues of a claimant's expertise and knowledge. But here it matters. Wogoga's failure is exactly his ignorance of how spacecraft are actually designed, built, and operated. He expects that any errors would have to be in his derivations, and he's sure there aren't any. He doesn't expect that his error lies in his inability to model the problem of re-entry optimally, specifically in terms of physical behavior he's unaware of, but which were actually applied by talented engineers who are aware of them.
JayUtah 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
Old 5th October 2016, 09:49 AM   #233
sts60
Illuminator
 
sts60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,767
You're being awfully generous in calling his reentry notions "suboptimal".

In terms of simply not understanding where energy goes, well, its deeply flawed due to his assumption that he grasps the physics and chemistry involved. Mind you, it's not in the same league as Heiwa just discarding the kinetic energy of the expended propellant from an energy balance. But it's pretty bad.
sts60 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
Old 5th October 2016, 09:54 AM   #234
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
The issue reminds me of a problem in survival training here in the north.
Specifically on the matter of building s snow hut shelter.
I have heard it said that these are warmer than the ambient air temps because snow is frozen water which solidifies at zero C. So the interior can't be colder than that.

No, its warmer because snow is a good insulator and the ground below the hut is warmer than the air above the snow. Heat comes from the earth.

When I hear this I marvel that we can build steel buildings that don't heat people to death. After all steel solidifies at a bit above 1300C and cannot be colder than that.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th October 2016 at 09:56 AM.
jaydeehess 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
Old 5th October 2016, 09:58 AM   #235
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 20,936
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
You're being awfully generous in calling his reentry notions "suboptimal".
Agreed, and probably not very accurate either. The notion I'm poking at is people thinking something has to be done the hard way because they can't think of the easy way. That's inaccurate too. But the proposition that all the kinetic energy of a re-entering spacecraft has to be rejected as heat in a certain specific way is exactly that sort of thinking. Wogoga doesn't grasp the actual principles by which the Apollo heat shield operated. He doesn't grasp the physical processes available for managing heat flow. No, that's not strictly an optimization problem, but it falls into the same trap as failing to optimize because it fails to invoke available processes that would enable a practical solution.
JayUtah 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
Old 5th October 2016, 10:35 AM   #236
ArmillarySphere
Muse
 
ArmillarySphere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 829
So veering into the actual physics/engineering, how much of the heat is taken up by the surrounding air and how much goes into the ablative material's phase transition from solid to plasma?
ArmillarySphere 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
Old 5th October 2016, 12:42 PM   #237
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Why not invest a few minutes:
Because an idiotic notation on a crank web site makes it a waste of any time.
Reality Check 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
Old 5th October 2016, 01:58 PM   #238
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Now I could be wrong but given that 2X375=750
By my calc he got every single example wrong.
I feel kind of guilty about my interest in this, and I apologize for trying the patience of other people less interested in nomenclature than I am.

I think that he actually got his examples right, unless one of his numbers is less than 1. I'm not sure if this is because he fails to understand how negative exponents work, of if I haven't sussed out his scheme. I don't see where he translates his numbers into correct nomenclature, and without that we have no Rosetta Stone.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the first number denotes power of ten. "n" means the exponent is negative, and "p" makes the number positive. To the right of the letter is a number between 1 and 10, which is multiplied by 10^x where "x" is the number to the left of "n" or "p."

Thus, 3n126 = 0.00126, (126 x 10^-3) and 3p251 is 10^3 x 2.51 =2510.

I'll give him this: it avoids the use of superscripts and the repetitive "x 10^" that we're presently struck with. You can type it out in Notepad.

But then his examples go completely pear-shaped when an "n" is involved.

83n375 ∙ 17p2 = 00p75

is obviously nonsense. I get 66n75.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
The mistake you noticed was his addition of 83 and 90 and forgetting the "1" in 173.
It is 173n750 and taking off the extra zero it should be 172n75
I get 173n75; taking the last 0 off the 750 shouldn't change that.

83n375 ∙ 90n2 = 73n75

3.75 x 10^-83 x 2 x 10^-90 = 2 x 3.75 x 10^-173 = 7.50 x 10^-173 = 7.5 x 10^-173.

Note that in his examples he is careful to set his mantissas so that they never multiply to a number greater than 10. This is probably because that would add a step. I'll illustrate, but I need to add a decimal to the mantissas.

5n4.0 x 6p5.0 (0.00004 x 5000000)

1p20.0 (10 x 20)

2p2.0, or 2p2.

Unless, of course, I've got it wrong.
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak 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
Old 5th October 2016, 02:11 PM   #239
John Nowak
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,806
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
Hell, wogoga, you don't even use the equals sign right. Your post indicates that numbers which are not equal to each other are equal to each other. Your lack of comprehension of how spacecraft work, and your gaping ignorance of the Apollo record, are aways off from being your worst problems.
I shall rock your world and claim that the first example

0p = 00p = 000p = 0000p = = 100 = 1

is almost correct. 10 ^ 0 = 1, but as you point out, 100 <> 1. Perhaps he meant 10^0, which might be a copy and paste error if the second 0 was originally a superscript.

0n = 90n = 990n = 9990n = = 10-10 = 100 pico
00n = 900n = 9900n = 99900n = = 10-100

These two are nonsense, I agree. Perhaps

10-10 = 100 pico

means

10^-10 = 100 pico = 10^2 x 10^-12

which is actually correct (assuming, again, superscripts he failed to copy correctly), but of course

0n = 90n = 990n = 9990n

is utterly inane.
__________________
>Reason being is that you guys appear to have absolutely no field experience in listening for invisible people in the forest. I do.

-historian
John Nowak 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
Old 5th October 2016, 02:33 PM   #240
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: 32,935
No, I think I see how it works, and why it doesn't. He notates negative exponents from 1 to 9 by subtracting the exponent from 10, from 10 to 99 by subtracting it from 100, from 100 to 990 by subtracting it from 1000, ... The result is that you can multiply by simply adding exponents and then dropping a leading 1; except that sometimes you have to multiply by adding exponents and not dropping the leading 1. There will be a rule determining which you have to do, but that adds an operation that isn't necessary with traditional scientific notation, so at best his notation adds one extra step. This is a result of his idea that, for a negative exponent, any number of leading 9s may be discarded; unfortunately, that idea simply doesn't work infallibly.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.