|
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. |
25th December 2022, 03:56 AM | #41 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
25th December 2022, 06:59 AM | #42 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,834
|
|
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" |
|
25th December 2022, 08:22 AM | #43 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
|
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams ‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig. |
|
25th December 2022, 08:36 AM | #44 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V
Correct. When primes were used to indicate a time duration, the hour was given by the letter ‘h’ just as when primes are used for degree subdivision the degree is given by the superscript circle, °. A single prime is minutes; double prime is seconds—in all cases. It doesn’t change arbitrarily according to “context.” This is how we know 4′ 33″ doesn’t indicate four hours and thirty-three minutes, which is not impossible for a musical composition.
|
__________________
‣“Facts are stubborn things.” —John Adams ‣IANAL, but I do have a white wig. |
|
25th December 2022, 11:41 AM | #45 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,638
|
|
25th December 2022, 11:48 AM | #46 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,638
|
No, Vixen. There's no "OR, alternatively...". This has been explained to you several times already. If you choose - for reasons only known to yourself, because literally nobody discussing science/engineering concepts uses it - to use the prime system to notate time units, then the unit for minutes of time is - AND IS ONLY - the single prime ('). The double prime ('') is not, and has never ever been in the entire history of human communication, used (correctly) to notate minutes of time. This whole fiasco is truly a microcosm of your analysis in this thread. You repeatedly continue to insist that black is white, long after it's been explained in detail that white is white and black is black. It makes reasonable debate next to impossible. |
25th December 2022, 03:43 PM | #47 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
25th December 2022, 03:57 PM | #48 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
|
|
25th December 2022, 04:12 PM | #49 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
|
What poster were you quoting when you said that the Estonia sank in 35 minutes without a trace?
No-one has claimed it sank without a trace. That's a frankly bizarre accusation to make. Much like your accusation that people made callous jokes about the victims of the Estonia disaster. |
25th December 2022, 04:19 PM | #50 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
|
How does writing 35 minutes as 0.35" put anything into context to make anything understandable?
Does 0.35" mean 0.35 seconds? 0.35 minutes? If you're still using " as a notation for minutes (which it isn't) then 0.35" would be 21 seconds. Do you even know what you're rambling about? |
25th December 2022, 04:21 PM | #51 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
|
|
25th December 2022, 04:22 PM | #52 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
|
|
25th December 2022, 11:16 PM | #53 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
27th December 2022, 01:08 AM | #54 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hyderabad, India
Posts: 3,377
|
|
__________________
I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon |
|
27th December 2022, 10:48 AM | #55 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
There very much is not. In fact, the whole value of the primes-as-cuts system is lost if you can arbitrarily redefine which is the first cut, second cut, and so forth. For angles and time, the symbol ″ (double-prime) meaning "second cut" (i.e., of an hour or of a degree) is baked into both the notation and the accompanying nomenclature. 35″ is "thirty-five seconds," or more completely, "thirty-five second-cuts from a degree" or "thirty-five second-cuts from an hour." For time and angles, double-prime is never anything but a second, because it is never anything but the second cut from the corresponding base unit. That's literally why the notation is two primes.
Yes, we all learned about the Babylonian sexagesimal number system in high school. That's old news. The fact that it's neither a base-10 (fingers and toes) or a base-2 (binary subdivisions) illustrates the problem the primes-as-cuts notation is meant to solve. Most modern science and engineering is done in decimal multiples and divisions for good reasons. But back when there was a plethora of units and derived quantities in common and long-historical usage, we needed a more carefully regulated notation. The primes-as-cuts system starts with a base unit. The base unit is always symbolized by a properly identifying abbreviation, never by a prime. The commonly-employed subdivisions of each were notated according to the "first cut," or first subdivision, using a single prime ′. That unit is further subdivided--the "second cut"--and notated with the double prime ″. You can have a third cut, a fourth cut; indeed as many cuts as are helpful. The notation simply expands ad nauseam by adding more primes. The notation is elegant enough. The underlying systems are the problem because the divisions are not uniform. Traditional English units often come from binary subdivisions of a base unit. But we don't use all the intermediate cuts. A gallon divides into four quarts, which divides further into two pints. So you can say "3 gal 2′ 1″" to mean "three gallons, two quarts, and 1 pint." Note how the abbreviation "gal" indicates gallons of volume--the base unit--and sets up the customary sequence of divisors for the cuts. Binary subdivisions are easy to obtain using a simple balance scale or two identical vessels for holding liquids. But why isn't the first cut of a gallon equal to half a gallon? You can have 16 ounces in a pound (mass). That's obviously derived by binary subdivision. But why don't we have names for the intermediate divisions of half-, quarter-, and eighth-pound? Probably just lost to history. But the point is that for each particular base unit, you need to know the traditional cuts. And that sequence of cuts is established by properly notating the base unit with its unambiguous symbol: 'h' for hours, 'º' for degrees, 'gal' for gallons, and so forth. For time and angles we start with the Babylonian sextagesimal subdivisions because they have too much history behind them to let go. The base unit for time is the hour ('h'). The first cut is minutes (of time) and the second cut is--literally--seconds (of time). For angles, the base unit is a degree ('º'). The first cut is arcminutes. We properly use the prefix "arc" to distinguish from time measurement, but we have to concede it's often omitted when the context is unmistakably angle measurement. The second cut (double-prime) is arcseconds. But at this point we depart from the Babylonians, at least as far as angles are concerned. The third cut of a degree is not a further 1/60 sexagesimal division. 2‴ is not 2/60 of an arcsecond. It's 2/3 of an arcsecond, because the divisor for the third cut of a degree is not 60, it's 3. Similarly the fourth cut of a degree is 1/4 of a "third of arc." We don't use these finer cuts anymore. Even when we use the DMS notation for angles, we just decimalize the seconds. But they exist and have definitions in the primes-as-cuts system. Time cuts follow the DMS divisors from the base unit of hours ('h'). But that lasts only as long as the first two cuts. After that, there are no more traditional primes-as-cuts divisors for time. Scholars indeed stroke their beards over what geometric factors might lay beneath the correspondence between hours and degrees. But for our purposes it's just an accident. Vixen alludes to "context," but she has the wrong idea about what that context controls. Context tells us what extent we're measuring, and therefore which base unit applies and what sequence of divisors to use to resolve the primes. Context can never redefine what the base unit is for some particular extent. Otherwise the system collapses. Context properly established, we sometimes omit the base unit if its value is zero and we don't therefore need the abbreviation to further expand the context. We don't need to properly title our musical composition 0h 4′ 33″, because we establish by other means that the context is time duration. What is meant thereafter by the primes is unassailably unambiguous. Science has found a way to be even less ambiguous when measuring time, but that doesn't mean the older notation is imprecise or open to arbitrary reinterpretation. Vixen wants to argue that 35″ can mean "thirty-five minutes (of time)" in context--the context presumably being that of a ship sinking, which we would naturally reckon in minutes and just therefore "know" what the symbol was meant to convey from case to case. That is simply as wrong as it can be. Once we've established that the context is a time extent, the base unit is hours ('h') and the second-cut figures are 1/3600 of the base unit. This is immutable. Vixen is simply making stuff up in order to avoid having to admit an error. She's trying to say there's enough wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey in the notation to allow for her errant usage. There isn't. She is wrong, full stop. Before we close, it's valuable to understand why we notate feet and inches as first and second cuts. Isn't the base unit of distance the foot in the English system? No, it's the yard. When the extent is distance, the base unit is the yard ('yd'). The first cut, ′, is feet (1/3 yd) and the second cut, ″, is inches (1/12 foot). And if you've read the Wikipedia page, you know there's a third cut of a yard, the ligne, or 1/12 of an inch (for certain values of "inch"). In modernish usage, American engineers forced to work in legacy designs simply decimalize the inch. American carpenters stick with the traditional binary subdivisions of an inch, expressed as fractions. In America the foot has supplanted the yard as the practical base unit of distance measurement, and has its own abbreviation ('ft'). American surveying is done in decimal feet, and surveyors' tapes are so marked. But we don't change the primes-as-cuts notation, nor do we normalize to yards for long distances in feet. I own a piece of property whose legal description gives it as 75.4′ wide. We retain yards primarily for our inaptly-named football and for naval engagements. The whole primes-as-cuts system was meant to encompass feet, gallons, degrees, hours, noggins, firkins, and so forth, with all the baggage of their historical derivations and compositions. It's higgledy-piggledy enough without trying to say that a second-cut may mean a "cask" in one case and a "hogshead" in another. That never happened. But as usual we have to address the prospect of debating with someone who (a) is plainly underinformed and (b) will never admit even the tiniest error. Such a proponent can never arrive at the truth, and their motives are properly suspect. The intentions here are far from good; the proponent's evident intent is to pretend to be someone they are not and berate others for not gratifying that desire even when the facts disagree. |
29th December 2022, 05:02 AM | #56 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
I have never claimed that port and starboard are perpendicular to each other. Why the need to make unmerited claims? Even a four-year-old knows they are opposite sides of the vessel.
As for the claim 35", 'might mean depth of water' this is quite misconceived. Feet and inches primes operate on on a base-12 notation, just as geolocations and time assumes a base-60 one. Therefore thirty-five inches translates as 2'11". It is technically incorrect for the second primes to go above 11. So, when you see 35" and the context is duration of time, then do assume they refer to minutes as a unit of time. Anything over 59" would then convert to 1' x". Where x = time in minutes.* *As seconds are also base-60 in respect of minutes, it is also quite correct for John Cage to call his short piece of 'music' 4'33" meaning four minutes thirty-three seconds. It is all to do with context. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 05:07 AM | #57 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
"Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Vixen has also had the HOFE listing at more than 90 seconds:" If you look up this reference, this was a direct cut and paste from a published paper, which transposed degrees into pirmes. Not sure why Mojo is so keen to tarnish me. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 05:14 AM | #58 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
This has become a convention, thanks to everything being copied and pasted from site ot site on the internet, that now we are all governed by largely US standards and conventions. One American poster elsewhere demands vehemently that I should use grammar as prescribed by Grammarly. (As some might know, Grammarly is designed for students of English as a second language, and thus seeks to iron out the numerous irregularities to be found in English, in the belief that instead of a vocabulary of the estimated 27,000 words Shakespeare uses, one only needs about 3,000. That is super and a great idea for people for whom English is not their first language and who couldn't careless about Keats, Chaucer or Shakespeare. I will continue to apply my knowledge as I have been taught. [English is not even my mother tongue]). |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 05:24 AM | #59 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Steve was puzzled as to the difference between " in feet and inches" and " in terms of time. He believes it only means height and depth. I added the 0 in front of the 35" to give him an idea that the first prime was in hours (hence to base-60). As it was under one hour, it didn't need to be stated. (As in when one writes 6" for six inches but no feet.) Alas, it was all in vain and seemed to cause even greater confusion and I must apologise as what I see as perfect logic others will have had a completely different education and see nowt but confusion and chaos. There is no shame in this. I sometimes had to ask for maths help from my more mathematical family in obtaining my professional qualifications.
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 05:26 AM | #60 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 05:31 AM | #61 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 05:34 AM | #62 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Captain Essa Makela of the on-scene commander ship did indeed express surprise there was no trace of the Estonia when his vessel arrived at the location where it had sunk. So maybe it is only bizarre to you because of your own lack of knowledge. Perhaps consider that as a possibility before hurling abuse.
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 06:11 AM | #63 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
The phrase "sank without a trace" has a meaning that goes far beyond what the rescuers found, which was that the ship itself had sunk (however surprising they found that). We can spend ten pages or more debating what precisely "sunk without a trace" means if everyone's keen.
|
29th December 2022, 06:14 AM | #64 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
Of course, when writing up a technical report or an exam paper, you do make clear what exactly what units your figures or notations represent; for example, US$, GBP, EUR, feet, inches, metres. Once done you can then drop the explanatory notation as in a spreadsheet. The issue of base-10 whilst a subset of base-60 nonetheless IMV is an inferior one in terms of elegance, because when you come to express it in quarters (as with time, £.s.d [e.g. 17/6 being exactly 3/4 of a pound]) you would have to imagine the quarter mark at 2.5 or 7.5 and thus introduces additional decimal points, mixing up notations.
Quote:
Nota Bene: when using the notation for feet and inches, the feet immediate become first prime. There is no need to state, say, 6ft, 2' ⅛ ". It is just 6'2 ⅛".
Quote:
Likewise location we just say, Lat 60° 27' 16.2360'' N Long: 22° 15' 53.3664'' E. This is so much more elegant IMV than Latitude: 60.454510 Longitude: 22.264824, the 'decimalised' version and no doubt people will be telling me off for using the former. In the former, you don't even need to state it is lat. or long. because the N and the E tells you where it is in respect of Greenwich Mean Time. (To its north and to its east.)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I see nothing wrong with yards, feet, inches and miles. I doubt I could get used to Fahrenheit or acres again (although easy enough to convert in one's head). The square foot to measure prroperties annoys me as we have everything in square metres here, so when I see the US press talking about 44,000sq feet, I get very cross indeed. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 07:14 AM | #65 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
29th December 2022, 07:27 AM | #66 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
29th December 2022, 08:36 AM | #67 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
The port and starboard sides may not be rigidly perpendicular to the deck of a ship (the sides extending outwards as they usually do in a ship) but I see nothing wrong in this statement. Nowhere have I said that port was perpendicular to starboard as you falsely claimed in your attempt to raise a laugh.
If you are going to mock at least make an attempt to be accurate. |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 08:38 AM | #68 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 09:29 AM | #69 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
|
|
29th December 2022, 09:35 AM | #70 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
|
Originally Posted by JesseCuster
The reasonable way to read 0.35" (assuming for the sake of argument that you're using " as a notation for minutes) is zero point three five minutes, or 21 seconds as I said. Who ever uses 0.35" to indicate zero hours and 35 minutes? Are you claiming that when you wrote 0.35", you were attempting to write "zero hours and 35 minutes" in some sort of notation that would be understood? You're really piling the wrongness up here. |
29th December 2022, 09:36 AM | #71 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Most of your post is irrelevant pontification. Stop trying to be the teacher. I, on the other and, am the teacher. I have taught engineering at the college level, including the history and practice of measurement. Little of my post was irrelevant; it was intended to establish the historical basis for why you could not arbitrarily reinterpret the primes notation as you attempted to do. No, you may not simply decide for yourself that the base unit for some extent is something else.
Quote:
|
29th December 2022, 09:53 AM | #72 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Straw man. You're interested only in the conspiracy theories and whether you can claim some sort of intellectual or moral high ground for advocating them.
Quote:
You, however, are using conspiracy theories in order to pretend you are technically competent to question the JAIC. You are not, and neither are your conspiracy-mongering sources. You're using ongoing interest in the sinking to promote the conspiracy theories that have been around since the ship sank, with no effort made toward reconciling them into a better explanation for why it sank. Further, you're using your pretext at knowledge to further pretend to be morally superior because of some greater devotion to the victims and survivors. You use conspiracy theories as a fairly flimsy ploy to boost your own ego. That's why you can't admit even the slightest, most insignificant error. You're not interested in being right. You're interested only in appearing to be right, no matter what you have to make up in order to achieve that illusion. |
29th December 2022, 10:44 AM | #73 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
29th December 2022, 10:53 AM | #74 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
I don't believe you. If you knew the primes notation, you would know how to use it to properly express the base unit and the previous cuts to correct any ambiguity. But you don't know the notation, probably never did, and still don't. Further, you refuse to be educated. You're just throwing random symbology around, apparently hoping someone will think you know what you're talking about. And when your betters correct you, you pile fanciful story upon story trying to make people think you somehow "knew it all along."
All your arguments are rooted in you pretending to be something you're not and then to wax indignant when no one buys it.
Quote:
There's no "perfect logic" in misusing one notation to correct your ignorant misuse of another. The better conclusion is that you don't know what you're doing and you're desperate to convince people otherwise. Your latest story is that you've cobbled up a new homegrown notation to "clarify" your original meaning. How on earth is anyone supposed to understand a notation you just made up on the spot and didn't explain until now? Especially when it's identical to a notation that already exists. You have literally no reason to think that anyone would interpret 0.35″ as anything other that 32/100 of a second. And no, you can't chalk your compounded ignorance up to differences in education. The problem is not that you were educated differently than your critics. The problem is that whatever education you may have been offered on the subject of the physical world and how to measure it seems not to have availed much--you're scientifically illiterate.
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th December 2022, 11:03 AM | #75 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,638
|
Nope, that's not what I said. Perhaps you'd benefit from going back to read what I actually did say before ascribing quotes to me?
Quote:
I most certainly know enough about a) prime notation and how it's used, and b) internationally-universal preferred notation for units of time, to consider myself confidently proficient in those matters, yes. And compared to your woeful (and continuing) ignorance, I'd definitely qualify myself as relatively expert. |
29th December 2022, 11:06 AM | #76 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,638
|
|
29th December 2022, 11:20 AM | #77 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
|
Re: The highlighted nonsense:
6ft = 6 feet 2' = 2 feet ⅛" = 1 eighth of an inch So 6ft, 2' ⅛ " is 6 feet, 2 feet and an eighth of an inch. Which is a rather bizarre way to communicate a length or distance. It's definitely not a correct or coherent way of stating 6 feet, 2⅛ inches. Not only is there no need to state it, it shouldn't be stated at all because it's incoherent nonsense. |
29th December 2022, 11:22 AM | #78 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 11:25 AM | #79 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
29th December 2022, 11:26 AM | #80 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|