Re: Ronald Fisher: racist dunce

On Oct 2, 12:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 30, 4:22 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





Ray Martinez wrote:
On Sep 30, 3:05 pm, Ken Rode <kar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote:
On Sep 29, 12:23 pm, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1191090960.697439.62990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
On Sep 28, 10:49 am, Jim Willemin <jim***willemin@hot***mail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
I think the last effort to adduce physical evidence of any kind was
his aboritve attempt to interpret the Great Pyramid. We haven't even
been treated to any Scottian etymology in ever so long. I begin to
wonder if maybe Ray is one of the most successful Loki trolls the
world has ever seen - his frothing at the mouth has become utterly
predictable, yet still he gets tons of responses. Unless there is
some non-textual evidence to the contrary, I submit the hypothesis of
Loki troll cannot be ruled out - the alternative, of course, is that
he is insane. Granted, his personal attacks and libelous statements
seem a little over-the-top for a mere troll, and tend to support the
insanity hypothesis, but as far as I know he took pains to demolish
any credibility long before he started the virulent attacks, so meybe
he's just very, very clever.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Total nonsense seeking attention.
You ran from last GP thread, Jim.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/77d4fd59fbebdd11
Ray
As I recall my primary interest was to establish the dates for which
Thuban would be 3 1/2 degrees from the north celestial pole; one of
these dates occurred during the currently accepted dates for the reign
of Khufu, whose full name Khnum-Khufu means roughly 'Khnum protects me'
(Khnum being the ram-headed god of creation and the Nile flooding as far
as I can tell). Oddly, both of the possible dates are far earlier than
the one you insist on, but far, far later than Scott's estimate. I did
that, pretty conclusively, from first principles (an astronomical
ephemeris and the rate of precession of the equinoxes), and invited you
to check my work, an invitation you seem to have ignored. Having done
what I set out to do, I observed the dictum of Lao Tzu: "Do your job and
move on." Frankly, I have no interest in analysing numerology based on
units invented to bring mystical significance to ancient engineering
works - such an exercise is meaningless. If that to you is 'running',
well, so be it: your 'victory' is as hollow as your arguments are
without merit - that is, completely.
Are you really a Loki?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There is no numerology in the post, there are physical measured
distances - distances agreed upon by two professional surveyors, one
secular and one evangelical, and a scholar who published their
congruent findings.
Sure seems to be some numerology involved, though, Ray. If one googles
for "polar diameter inch", there don't seem to be any authoritative
links for this unit of measurement. It begins to appear that the length
of the "polar diameter inch" was chosen to make certain pyramid
measurements appear significant. Can you demonstrate that I'm wrong?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The polar diameter inch is evidenced and explained here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/77d4fd59fbebdd11

You're referring to one of your own posts as evidence to support
something that you claim to be true? You don't see a problem with this?
All you're doing is repeating something that you said previously. Please
don't use the word "evidence" in this context.

Notice that it is one 500 millionth of the polar diameter of the Earth
as determined by orbiting satellite and NASA.

In other words: polar diameter of the Earth is 3949.9 miles (source:
NASA). Divide this distance into 500 million equal parts = a unit that
is one one-thousandth of a British inch longer than a British inch.

The number "3949.9" has 5 significant digits. Through mathematical
manipulation, you end up with values for the "polar diameter inch" that
have 6 or 7 significant digits. I hate to break this to you, Ray, but
that isn't proper. See:
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/mathrev/mr-sigfg.html
for more information. Have a look in particular at the examples.

False.

What's false, Ray? That 3949.9 has only 5 significant digits? I can
count them, you know. You should be able to do so too.

3949.9 miles is the polar diameter of the Earth as determined by NASA.

You had already indicated that, Ray, and I wasn't disagreeing. You
obviously feel that you made some sort of point, but you're leaving me
guessing as to what that point might be. The value 3949.9 is what I've
seen in several places around the web, so I'm not doubting that that
is the value that NASA came up with. You should note, however, that
the value isn't quoted as 3949.90 which has even more precision, or
3949.900 which has more precision yet. Really, it should be obvious to
you, assuming that you know anything at all about scientific
measurement, that there is always some amount of uncertainty in the
last digit that is provided.

To make your text fall in line with proper mathematical handling of
precision, we would need to make the following adjustments:
a) ... Dividing thie figure by 10,000,000, the result is *25.027*
British inches (corrected to *5 significant digits*)...
b) ... The data says that if the polar diameter of the Earth
(3949.9 x 2) is divided into 500 million equal parts, each part or
increment = *1.0011* British inches.

Measurements like 3949.9 miles are inherently imprecise in their final
digit. You cannot simply and arbitrarily divide them into small units
with better precision.

I note that your "source" (i.e. you) also claims that a surveyor in 1925
measured the sizes of the sides of the base of the pyramid accurate to a
10,000th of an PD inch. How was this amazing feat accomplished by a
surveyor?

You forgot to address this question, Ray. Care to do so now?

Based on these facts we conclude that the polar diameter inch is the
true length of the British inch which apparently lost this minute
distance over the centuries.

Excuse me!?! How did you arrive at this conclusion? The British inch was
larger in the past?

You forgot to address these questions as well.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ronald Fisher: racist dunce
    ... Ray Martinez wrote: ... for "polar diameter inch", there don't seem to be any authoritative ... is one one-thousandth of a British inch longer than a British inch. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ronald Fisher: racist dunce
    ... for "polar diameter inch", there don't seem to be any authoritative ... is one one-thousandth of a British inch longer than a British inch. ... Measurements like 3949.9 miles are inherently imprecise in their final ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ronald Fisher: racist dunce
    ... his aboritve attempt to interpret the Great Pyramid. ... wonder if maybe Ray is one of the most successful Loki trolls the ... for "polar diameter inch", there don't seem to be any authoritative ... as determined by orbiting satellite and NASA. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ronald Fisher: racist dunce
    ... distances - distances agreed upon by two professional surveyors, ... for "polar diameter inch", there don't seem to be any authoritative ... is one one-thousandth of a British inch longer than a British inch. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Psychosis of Relativity
    ... follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of ... The ray is not a quantity. ... Speed of ray relative to observer, as measured in frame K': ... Both observers obtain c for that measurement. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)