RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (919) < ... 247 248 249 250 251 [252] 253 254 255 256 257 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,10:56   

New Joe claim:

"And without the inertia from all the mass there wouldn't be any expansion."

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:00   



Edited by Richardthughes on Aug. 08 2014,11:01

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:04   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,11:56)
New Joe claim:

"And without the inertia from all the mass there wouldn't be any expansion."

My bachelor's is in physics and I don't have the slightest clue what this is supposed to mean.

ps Linky?

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:08   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 08 2014,11:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,11:56)
New Joe claim:

"And without the inertia from all the mass there wouldn't be any expansion."

My bachelor's is in physics and I don't have the slightest clue what this is supposed to mean.

ps Linky?

I think he's implying that the mass from all the galaxies way far away are pulling spacetime.

Which is both wrong and makes no sense. Comon Joe, throw in a "it's Obama's fault" to hit the trifecta!

I think it was someone here that we were having a big bang discussion with and they never could get that the BB wasn't something actually exploding. Was it Joe?  I kept asking them "What exploded?" and they wouldn't answer.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:10   

Drink deeply from the well of Tard:

https://www.blogger.com/comment....0167416

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:19   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 08 2014,11:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,11:56)
New Joe claim:

"And without the inertia from all the mass there wouldn't be any expansion."

My bachelor's is in physics and I don't have the slightest clue what this is supposed to mean.

ps Linky?

Joe is a Spinster of Twaddle and holds a Doctorate of Spin and the sort of BS that you get from keeping a herd of cattle.

You can't reasonably expect it to mean anything.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:26   

I see Amazon are now deleting Joe's rude posts. Too funny.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:30   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 08 2014,16:08)
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 08 2014,11:04)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,11:56)
New Joe claim:

"And without the inertia from all the mass there wouldn't be any expansion."

My bachelor's is in physics and I don't have the slightest clue what this is supposed to mean.

ps Linky?

I think he's implying that the mass from all the galaxies way far away are pulling spacetime.

Where does dark energy fit into this model? I hope Joe turns up to clarify.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:33   

Has "Your position can't explain expansion" made its inevitable appearance yet?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:37   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,11:10)
Drink deeply from the well of Tard:

https://www.blogger.com/comment....0167416

Did you read the linked articles?

Joe is saying the exact opposite thing that is in the first one.

Could it be that he's the ultimate Poe? Really, can anyone be this stupid and function?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:39   

And isn't it amazing that stars are the mass in the expansion... considering that majority of expansion happened before stars existed....

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:46   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 08 2014,09:39)
And isn't it amazing that stars are the mass in the expansion... considering that majority of expansion happened before stars existed....

Not to mention that they're only a small fraction of the mass of the universe.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:48   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 08 2014,11:37)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,11:10)
Drink deeply from the well of Tard:

https://www.blogger.com/comment....0167416

Did you read the linked articles?

Joe is saying the exact opposite thing that is in the first one.

Could it be that he's the ultimate Poe? Really, can anyone be this stupid and function?

We'll add cosmology to the long list of topics JoeTard has made a fool of himself in.   :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,11:52   

The title of his blog....paging Drs. Dunning and Kruger....

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,12:07   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 08 2014,11:52)
The title of his blog....paging Drs. Dunning and Kruger....

More like a doctor with access to strong tranquilizers and straight jackets.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,14:53   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,10:56)
New Joe claim:

"And without the inertia from all the mass there wouldn't be any expansion."

That's utterly wrong. Massive matter tends to slow down the expansion of the Universe. Gravitational attraction of matter pulls the Universe inward, not pushes outward. That's why Einstein needed to add the cosmological term, to balance the inward pull of gravity.

At any rate, all of this is irrelevant on the scale of a solar system, where cosmological effects are minute.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,15:59   

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 08 2014,19:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,10:56)
New Joe claim:

"And without the inertia from all the mass there wouldn't be any expansion."

That's utterly wrong. Massive matter tends to slow down the expansion of the Universe. Gravitational attraction of matter pulls the Universe inward, not pushes outward. That's why Einstein needed to add the cosmological term, to balance the inward pull of gravity.

At any rate, all of this is irrelevant on the scale of a solar system, where cosmological effects are minute.

I think Joe might be about to take the final step into crackpottery. Cantor was wrong, and now we might be about to find out Einstein was wrong too. And Hubble. And the team who discovered the acceleration of the expansion. I think Joe has already said that the universe will collapse, which is contrary to the current understanding of the prevailing model.

We may be witnessing the birth of a whole new cosmological model. Perhaps he is a little jealous of Mapou.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,16:02   

Quote (Driver @ Aug. 08 2014,15:59)
Quote (olegt @ Aug. 08 2014,19:53)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 08 2014,10:56)
New Joe claim:

"And without the inertia from all the mass there wouldn't be any expansion."

That's utterly wrong. Massive matter tends to slow down the expansion of the Universe. Gravitational attraction of matter pulls the Universe inward, not pushes outward. That's why Einstein needed to add the cosmological term, to balance the inward pull of gravity.

At any rate, all of this is irrelevant on the scale of a solar system, where cosmological effects are minute.

I think Joe might be about to take the final step into crackpottery. Cantor was wrong, and now we might be about to find out Einstein was wrong too. And Hubble. And the team who discovered the acceleration of the expansion. I think Joe has already said that the universe will collapse, which is contrary to the current understanding of the prevailing model.

We may be witnessing the birth of a whole new cosmological model. Perhaps he is a little jealous of Mapou.

Newton, also.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,17:44   

Joe does cosmology:
Quote
And yes I know that gravity slows the expansion. I never said otherwise. However it is the inertia of the matter that kept the expansion going.

That is wrong, again. Joe thinks the expansion of the Universe is related to inertia, the tendency of massive matter to keep going at the same velocity. That is the motion of matter through space.

Expansion of the Universe is a different beast altogether. It is the stretching of space itself. It has nothing whatsoever to do with inertia of matter.

To make a simple analogy, consider ants moving along a rubber band that is being slowly stretched. Inertia prevents an ant from stopping instantaneously relative to the band. The expansion of the Universe in this case is the stretching of the band. For ants who are close by to one another, the stretching of the band has little effect: their relative velocity is equal to the difference of their velocities with respect to the rubber band. For ants who are far apart, the relative velocity is determined mostly by the band stretching.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,17:59   

An explanation for laymen from Astro 801 at Penn State (which has a superb Astronomy and Astrophysics department).
Quote
Does this mean that the Solar System is expanding?  What about the Milky Way? Will Pluto get farther and farther from the Sun as the Universe expands? The answer is no, and it is a bit difficult to understand exactly why. Consider again a stable Main Sequence star. We discussed how in order for a star to avoid collapse, the outward force of the radiation pressure created by the nuclear fusion in the core balanced the inward pull of gravity. We can consider all objects and systems of objects in the universe subject to the same kind of balance of forces. The expansion of the universe can be thought of as a global force that is pulling on all objects. However, it is only strong on very large scales. At the scale of a galaxy, the gravitational force binding a galaxy together is much stronger than the "expansion force," so the galaxy does not expand. At the scale of the Solar System, the imbalance is even larger, so the gravitational binding of the Solar System easily overwhelms the "expansion force," keeping Pluto's orbital separation from the Sun the same over time.

The bottom line: expansion of space is negligible on the scale of a solar system.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,18:30   

Quote (olegt @ Aug. 08 2014,15:59)
An explanation for laymen from Astro 801 at Penn State (which has a superb Astronomy and Astrophysics department).
 
Quote
Does this mean that the Solar System is expanding?  What about the Milky Way? Will Pluto get farther and farther from the Sun as the Universe expands? The answer is no, and it is a bit difficult to understand exactly why. Consider again a stable Main Sequence star. We discussed how in order for a star to avoid collapse, the outward force of the radiation pressure created by the nuclear fusion in the core balanced the inward pull of gravity. We can consider all objects and systems of objects in the universe subject to the same kind of balance of forces. The expansion of the universe can be thought of as a global force that is pulling on all objects. However, it is only strong on very large scales. At the scale of a galaxy, the gravitational force binding a galaxy together is much stronger than the "expansion force," so the galaxy does not expand. At the scale of the Solar System, the imbalance is even larger, so the gravitational binding of the Solar System easily overwhelms the "expansion force," keeping Pluto's orbital separation from the Sun the same over time.

The bottom line: expansion of space is negligible on the scale of a solar system.

This is way, way over Joe's head.  (I know, I know... what are the odds?)  He seems to think the expansion is like debris flying away from an explosion  At least, that's what his comments about inertia sound like.

Stick to ticks, Joe.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2014,18:45   

Wait. If Allah is the most massive, and Allah is outside the universe then...

No. Thought I had it there for a minute.

Please explain, Joe.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2014,12:43   

Joe has surfaced on an Amazon review thread, where Don Prothero reviewed Meyer's latest steaming pile of crap. http://www.amazon.com/review....0TYIPYY

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2014,13:29   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 01 2014,12:43)
Joe has surfaced on an Amazon review thread, where Don Prothero reviewed Meyer's latest steaming pile of crap. http://www.amazon.com/review.....0TYIPYY

Poor Joe, so desperate to be important to someone.

I think I know what it is. He's trying to get some of that sweet DI fellow money by supporting liars at every opportunity.

Shame, Joe, that they don't give a shit about you either. Even the Discovery Institute can do better than whatever it is you are.

Did you know, Joe, that they have people as fellows that don't even have bachelor degrees? And poor Joey isn't one of them. Darn shame that.

Even your peers think you're an idiot.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2014,09:45   

Rich Hughes pointed out commentary by Joe G. on genetic algorithms. It seems obvious that Joe G. is not aware that I answered his objection (#5) back in 1999; he's just shy of being fifteen years late to the party.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2014,10:32   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 02 2014,09:45)
Rich Hughes pointed out commentary by Joe G. on genetic algorithms. It seems obvious that Joe G. is not aware that I answered his objection (#5) back in 1999; he's just shy of being fifteen years late to the party.

The evaluation function = artificial selection, Wesley. And natural selection is a process of elimination not selection.

Natural selection is not a search heuristic and GAs are- GA s actively search for a solution to a problem, all the while guided towards that solution. Natural selection isn't like that at all.

All the information to find the solution is programmed into the GA. GAs would not find solutions if the correct evaluation function was not included in that GA. Therefor evaluation functions are one way of sneaking an intelligent agency into a GA as there isn't any difference between a evaluation function selecting and a human selecting based on the same criteria (except for the speed). The evaluation function is the artificial selection part of the GA. The only part of a GA that could be considered Darwinian or neo-Darwinian, is the mutation process. And even that is debatable.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2014,10:49   

Plus, there's the whole section on evolutionary computation Joe G. overlooks in the paper by Jeff Shallit and me. Joe G. is nowhere close to making a point.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2014,10:54   

And, of course, Joe G. trots out objection #4 that I responded to back in 1999. Still way late to the party.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2014,13:29   

Quote (Joe G @ Sep. 02 2014,10:32)
The evaluation function = artificial selection, Wesley. And natural selection is a process of elimination not selection.

That's silly. Both natural and artificial selection boil down to selecting a fraction of genomes and eliminating others.

It's like saying that in football there are only winners, while in baseball only losers.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2014,14:24   

In GA's, the selection is based on the variable(s) of interest.

In artificial selection, there is an attempt to remove variables that aren't directly of interest.

In "natural" selection, there is no deliberate minimization of variables.

That's the difference.

All of them could be described as "differential reproductive success".

  
  27552 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (919) < ... 247 248 249 250 251 [252] 253 254 255 256 257 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]