Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Pages: (919) < ... 502 503 504 505 506 [507] 508 509 510 511 512 ... >

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:34    anyway how can 'the winds' just radiate straight into space when we don't know if the molecules are all pointed 'the right way'?

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:35    Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:31)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:30)   Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:27)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:24)       Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:01)           Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:16)           Quote Energy still doesn't have a temperature and yet             Quote LESS ENERGY LOST = RAISES THE TEMPERATURE The irony of it all... both the statements you quoted are true. Go find any person who ever passed a basic thermodynamics class and they'll confirm it. Joke still doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature even though it's been explained to him several times.  I really think he's just too stupid to ever get it. Already covered, dipshit. There is a direct correlation between heat and temperature. And as a matter of fact there isn't any heat transfer if the temperature is the same. Correlation still doesn't mean they're the same thing dumbass.  You really are too stupid to understand the most basic of concepts. It's another wavelength = frequency moment for sure.   I never said they were the same thing, asshole. Then give us the Joemodynamic explanation of how energy has temperature. What is the temperature of the microwaves inside your microwave oven? Major league dumbass. -------------- "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.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:35    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:33) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:29)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:29)   Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:02)       Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,16:00) This is my favorite:         Quote The CO2 also vibrates and contacts other molecules, losing some of its thermal energy potential. Losing it to where?  What happens to those molecules then?  No one knows!!!!!! No, they get that small amount of energy, start vibrating and lose it. The point is the CO2's absorbed energy is spread around as opposed to just be re-emitted towards earth or anywhere, in full force. Lose it to where Joke?  Where does that energy get "spread around" to? Space, as the diagram shows, moron. The diagram shows the energy being emitted in all directions including back towards Earth moron. Yes, it does. Very little as CO2 is miniscule and only absorbs 8% of what the earth radiates. CO2 is not a blanket. And what is re-emitted back to the earth gets swept up by winds and convection currents before it reaches it -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:36    Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:33) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,17:29) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:29)   Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:02)       Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,16:00) This is my favorite:         Quote The CO2 also vibrates and contacts other molecules, losing some of its thermal energy potential. Losing it to where?  What happens to those molecules then?  No one knows!!!!!! No, they get that small amount of energy, start vibrating and lose it. The point is the CO2's absorbed energy is spread around as opposed to just be re-emitted towards earth or anywhere, in full force. Lose it to where Joke?  Where does that energy get "spread around" to? Space, as the diagram shows, moron. Maybe Joe thinks "the winds" are some kinda gas that gets above the CO2? Nope. It just moves it and its radiation around and keeps it from reach the surface -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:37    Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:35) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:31)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:30)     Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:27)       Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:24)       Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:01)           Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:16)             Quote Energy still doesn't have a temperature and yet             Quote LESS ENERGY LOST = RAISES THE TEMPERATURE The irony of it all... both the statements you quoted are true. Go find any person who ever passed a basic thermodynamics class and they'll confirm it. Joke still doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature even though it's been explained to him several times.  I really think he's just too stupid to ever get it. Already covered, dipshit. There is a direct correlation between heat and temperature. And as a matter of fact there isn't any heat transfer if the temperature is the same. Correlation still doesn't mean they're the same thing dumbass.  You really are too stupid to understand the most basic of concepts. It's another wavelength = frequency moment for sure.   :D I never said they were the same thing, asshole. Then give us the Joemodynamic explanation of how energy has temperature. What is the temperature of the microwaves inside your microwave oven? Major league dumbass. Fuck you. Clearly you are just a pathetic asshole. -------------- "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

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:38    The original dumbass claim was that CO2 is like a blanket. That claim is clearly total bullshit. Anything and everything else is just a desperate attempt to distract from that. -------------- "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

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:39    Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:35) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:33)   Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:29)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:29)     Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:02)         Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,16:00) This is my favorite:           Quote The CO2 also vibrates and contacts other molecules, losing some of its thermal energy potential. Losing it to where?  What happens to those molecules then?  No one knows!!!!!! No, they get that small amount of energy, start vibrating and lose it. The point is the CO2's absorbed energy is spread around as opposed to just be re-emitted towards earth or anywhere, in full force. Lose it to where Joke?  Where does that energy get "spread around" to? Space, as the diagram shows, moron. The diagram shows the energy being emitted in all directions including back towards Earth moron. Yes, it does. Very little as CO2 is miniscule and only absorbs 8% of what the earth radiates. CO2 is not a blanket. And what is re-emitted back to the earth gets swept up by winds and convection currents before it reaches it This is the point we always reach where Joke realizes he's made an ass of himself again so just starts regurgitating the same stupid arguments without comment over and over.  Soon Joke's latest stupidity will appear in BOLD ALL CAPS to make it more truthier.   -------------- "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.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:40    Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:37) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:35) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:31)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:30)     Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:27)       Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:24)         Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:01)             Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:16)             Quote Energy still doesn't have a temperature and yet               Quote LESS ENERGY LOST = RAISES THE TEMPERATURE The irony of it all... both the statements you quoted are true. Go find any person who ever passed a basic thermodynamics class and they'll confirm it. Joke still doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature even though it's been explained to him several times.  I really think he's just too stupid to ever get it. Already covered, dipshit. There is a direct correlation between heat and temperature. And as a matter of fact there isn't any heat transfer if the temperature is the same. Correlation still doesn't mean they're the same thing dumbass.  You really are too stupid to understand the most basic of concepts. It's another wavelength = frequency moment for sure.   I never said they were the same thing, asshole. Then give us the Joemodynamic explanation of how energy has temperature. What is the temperature of the microwaves inside your microwave oven? Major league dumbass. Fuck you. Clearly you are just a pathetic asshole. Joke admits defeat.           -------------- "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.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:47    Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:36) Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:33) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,17:29)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:29)   Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:02)       Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,16:00) This is my favorite:         Quote The CO2 also vibrates and contacts other molecules, losing some of its thermal energy potential. Losing it to where?  What happens to those molecules then?  No one knows!!!!!! No, they get that small amount of energy, start vibrating and lose it. The point is the CO2's absorbed energy is spread around as opposed to just be re-emitted towards earth or anywhere, in full force. Lose it to where Joke?  Where does that energy get "spread around" to? Space, as the diagram shows, moron. Maybe Joe thinks "the winds" are some kinda gas that gets above the CO2? Nope. It just moves it and its radiation around and keeps it from reach the surface Good thing the air temperature has no affect on the surface then. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,16:53    Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,17:47) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:36) Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:33)   Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,17:29)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:29)     Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:02)         Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,16:00) This is my favorite:           Quote The CO2 also vibrates and contacts other molecules, losing some of its thermal energy potential. Losing it to where?  What happens to those molecules then?  No one knows!!!!!! No, they get that small amount of energy, start vibrating and lose it. The point is the CO2's absorbed energy is spread around as opposed to just be re-emitted towards earth or anywhere, in full force. Lose it to where Joke?  Where does that energy get "spread around" to? Space, as the diagram shows, moron. Maybe Joe thinks "the winds" are some kinda gas that gets above the CO2? Nope. It just moves it and its radiation around and keeps it from reach the surface Good thing the air temperature has no affect on the surface then. so now we know Joe's never had advanced calculus because he doesn't understand the concept of Boundary Conditions. Heat Equation

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,17:02    Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:38) The original dumbass claim was that CO2 is like a blanket. That claim is clearly total bullshit. Anything and everything else is just a desperate attempt to distract from that. Yeah, what do all those dumb scientists know compared to a self proclaimed genius toaster repairman?       Quote Along with other gases like methane and nitrous oxide, CO2 acts like a blanket, absorbing infrared radiation and preventing it from leaving the atmosphere. The net effect causes the gradual heating of Earth's atmosphere and surface. This is called the "greenhouse effect" because a similar process occurs in a greenhouse: Relatively high-energy UV and visible radiation penetrate the glass walls and roof of a greenhouse, but weaker IR can't pass through the glass. The trapped infrared keeps the greenhouse warm, even in the coldest winter weather. LiveScience:  Causes of Global Warming -------------- "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.

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,17:08    Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:31) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:30) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:27)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:24)     Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:01)         Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:16)         Quote Energy still doesn't have a temperature and yet           Quote LESS ENERGY LOST = RAISES THE TEMPERATURE The irony of it all... both the statements you quoted are true. Go find any person who ever passed a basic thermodynamics class and they'll confirm it. Joke still doesn't understand the difference between heat and temperature even though it's been explained to him several times.  I really think he's just too stupid to ever get it. Already covered, dipshit. There is a direct correlation between heat and temperature. And as a matter of fact there isn't any heat transfer if the temperature is the same. Correlation still doesn't mean they're the same thing dumbass.  You really are too stupid to understand the most basic of concepts. It's another wavelength = frequency moment for sure.   :D I never said they were the same thing, asshole. Yah. You did. You didn’t bring up the “context” nonsense until over a year of trying to defend your stupid claim. Do you need help with those goalposts?

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,17:17    Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,14:53) Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,17:47) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:36)   Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:33)   Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,17:29)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:29)     Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:02)         Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,16:00) This is my favorite:           Quote The CO2 also vibrates and contacts other molecules, losing some of its thermal energy potential. Losing it to where?  What happens to those molecules then?  No one knows!!!!!! No, they get that small amount of energy, start vibrating and lose it. The point is the CO2's absorbed energy is spread around as opposed to just be re-emitted towards earth or anywhere, in full force. Lose it to where Joke?  Where does that energy get "spread around" to? Space, as the diagram shows, moron. Maybe Joe thinks "the winds" are some kinda gas that gets above the CO2? Nope. It just moves it and its radiation around and keeps it from reach the surface Good thing the air temperature has no affect on the surface then. so now we know Joe's never had advanced calculus because he doesn't understand the concept of Boundary Conditions. Heat Equation Advanced calculus?  Joe?  I'm not convinced he's had advanced playing in the sandbox. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,17:29    Quote (JohnW @ May 04 2018,18:17) Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,14:53) Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,17:47)   Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:36)   Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,16:33)     Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,17:29)     Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,16:29)       Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,16:02)           Quote (Texas Teach @ May 04 2018,16:00) This is my favorite:             Quote The CO2 also vibrates and contacts other molecules, losing some of its thermal energy potential. Losing it to where?  What happens to those molecules then?  No one knows!!!!!! No, they get that small amount of energy, start vibrating and lose it. The point is the CO2's absorbed energy is spread around as opposed to just be re-emitted towards earth or anywhere, in full force. Lose it to where Joke?  Where does that energy get "spread around" to? Space, as the diagram shows, moron. Maybe Joe thinks "the winds" are some kinda gas that gets above the CO2? Nope. It just moves it and its radiation around and keeps it from reach the surface Good thing the air temperature has no affect on the surface then. so now we know Joe's never had advanced calculus because he doesn't understand the concept of Boundary Conditions. Heat Equation Advanced calculus?  Joe?  I'm not convinced he's had advanced playing in the sandbox. It's like Joe's got an aggressive learning disorder. He doesn't understand, and he refuses to understand.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,18:38    Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,14:05) Radio waves are energy. Do the AM and FM transmitters, transmitting energy, raise the temperature? Hmm. If only there was an empirical test for this, like standing in front of a 100kW transmitter. (eta: I just wanted to see him try it) -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 04 2018,18:40    Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,11:35) Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,13:32) Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,14:21)  It doesn't have to ALL "point in the same direction" to warm the planet more than if the greenhouse gases weren't present. How can you be such a dumbfuck and not even read the words in your own picture??   :D In fact, if you can do simple geometry you can see that because most of the atmosphere is within ~10 mi of the surface, and the radius of the earth is ~4k mi, a reradiated ray of IR will be directed back to earth ~50% of the time. Is that in peer-review? Reference please Oh, come one, Joe, you remember SOH CAH TOA, don't you? -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,09:41    Quote (fnxtr @ May 04 2018,19:40) Quote (Joe G @ May 04 2018,11:35) Quote (stevestory @ May 04 2018,13:32)   Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 04 2018,14:21)  It doesn't have to ALL "point in the same direction" to warm the planet more than if the greenhouse gases weren't present. How can you be such a dumbfuck and not even read the words in your own picture??   In fact, if you can do simple geometry you can see that because most of the atmosphere is within ~10 mi of the surface, and the radius of the earth is ~4k mi, a reradiated ray of IR will be directed back to earth ~50% of the time. Is that in peer-review? Reference please Oh, come one, Joe, you remember SOH CAH TOA, don't you? Joe requiring a reference for something that anyone with basic geometry/trig can figure out by looking at it is hilarious

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,09:54    Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,12:30    Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,07:54) Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise. Well, yeah, Steve, but that was math math, not Joemath.  If your axioms include "there's a largest known number" and "probabilities can be not even zero," who knows? -------------- 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

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,12:40    Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,12:30) Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,07:54) Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise. Well, yeah, Steve, but that was math math, not Joemath.  If your axioms include "there's a largest known number" and "probabilities can be not even zero," who knows? Using Joemath we know that 8% more heat cannot warm something because it isn’t all the heat, so only 50% of the heat being returned to earth would make it even colder. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,12:47    Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,13:30) Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,07:54) Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise. Well, yeah, Steve, but that was math math, not Joemath.  If your axioms include "there's a largest known number" and "probabilities can be not even zero," who knows? "not even zero" would be less than zero. So negative probabilities... "there's a largest known number" I virtually never read anything joe wrote until a few months ago, but I heard about this. Did he actually say, and mean that? Edited by stevestory on May 05 2018,13:48

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,16:22    Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,11:47) Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,13:30)   Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,07:54) Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise. Well, yeah, Steve, but that was math math, not Joemath.  If your axioms include "there's a largest known number" and "probabilities can be not even zero," who knows? "not even zero" would be less than zero. So negative probabilities... "there's a largest known number" I virtually never read anything joe wrote until a few months ago, but I heard about this. Did he actually say, and mean that? Was he talking about pure math, or a particular type of computer register?

Acartia_Bogart Posts: 2927 Joined: Sep. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,18:37    https://www.thestar.com/news....rs.html

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,18:57    Quote (Henry J @ May 05 2018,17:22) Was he talking about pure math, or a particular type of computer register? i've never met anyone who understood registers who didn't know trig, and Joe just proved to us he doesn't understand trig, so....

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,19:02    Earlier we saw Joe doesn't know calculus, now we know he doesn't know trig, he earlier showed he doesn't understand probabilities, which is usually like the back half of Algebra, I wonder if he knows any algebra? I mean presumably he could figure out x+4=10, but I wonder if he can do, like, inequalities, or radicals, or things like that?

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,20:05    Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,10:47) Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,13:30)   Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,07:54) Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise. Well, yeah, Steve, but that was math math, not Joemath.  If your axioms include "there's a largest known number" and "probabilities can be not even zero," who knows? "not even zero" would be less than zero. So negative probabilities... "there's a largest known number" I virtually never read anything joe wrote until a few months ago, but I heard about this. Did he actually say, and mean that? No, he insisted he didn't mean "less than zero."  We went around that with him a while ago.  I don't have a link, but it's in this thread somewhere - it was quite some time after the original appearance of "not even 0" which is linked in my sig..  What he meant was if he decides a probability is not worth the bother of estimating, then it's not even zero.  Yes, I know that's fucking stupid. And yes, he did go on about there being a largest known number at one point.  I suspect he failed to understand a story about the largest known prime number.  But this is Joe, so who the hell knows? -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,20:12    Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,21:05) Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,10:47) Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,13:30)   Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,07:54) Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise. Well, yeah, Steve, but that was math math, not Joemath.  If your axioms include "there's a largest known number" and "probabilities can be not even zero," who knows? "not even zero" would be less than zero. So negative probabilities... "there's a largest known number" I virtually never read anything joe wrote until a few months ago, but I heard about this. Did he actually say, and mean that? No, he insisted he didn't mean "less than zero."  We went around that with him a while ago.  I don't have a link, but it's in this thread somewhere - it was quite some time after the original appearance of "not even 0" which is linked in my sig..  What he meant was if he decides a probability is not worth the bother of estimating, then it's not even zero.  Yes, I know that's fucking stupid. And yes, he did go on about there being a largest known number at one point.  I suspect he failed to understand a story about the largest known prime number.  But this is Joe, so who the hell knows? I hope it wasn't the prime thing. I hope he actually thinks there's a largest known number.

Occam's Aftershave Posts: 5287 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,20:49    Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,20:12) Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,21:05)   Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,10:47)   Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,13:30)     Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,07:54) Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise. Well, yeah, Steve, but that was math math, not Joemath.  If your axioms include "there's a largest known number" and "probabilities can be not even zero," who knows? "not even zero" would be less than zero. So negative probabilities... "there's a largest known number" I virtually never read anything joe wrote until a few months ago, but I heard about this. Did he actually say, and mean that? No, he insisted he didn't mean "less than zero."  We went around that with him a while ago.  I don't have a link, but it's in this thread somewhere - it was quite some time after the original appearance of "not even 0" which is linked in my sig..  What he meant was if he decides a probability is not worth the bother of estimating, then it's not even zero.  Yes, I know that's fucking stupid. And yes, he did go on about there being a largest known number at one point.  I suspect he failed to understand a story about the largest known prime number.  But this is Joe, so who the hell knows? I hope it wasn't the prime thing. I hope he actually thinks there's a largest known number.  :p  :p  :p It was over at his shithole blog around 5 years ago (June 2013).  Joke was banging on about the search for the Largest Known Number Quote Joke:  "LKN= Largest Known Number It was my impression that there was a computer keeping track of such a thing. Perhaps not." linky -------------- "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.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: May 05 2018,21:31    Didn't Elsevier have a periodical devoted to padding mathematicians' publications lists, THE JOURNAL OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST NUMBER, PLUS ONE?  (Always good for a quick 'n easy publication when coming up for promotion!) If memory serves, I wanted to subscribe, but it was a long series that threatened to take up too much shelf space and I couldn't justify the expense. Seriously, thanks for that link, that was funny.

Joe G Posts: 12011 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: May 07 2018,09:11    Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,20:05) Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,10:47) Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2018,13:30)   Quote (stevestory @ May 05 2018,07:54) Just for fun I did the math. If you're 5 miles up, and radiate in every direction, 174.4º points toward the earth and 185.6º points toward space. So that would be 51.56% toward space and 48.44% toward earth. Because of the exponentially decreasing concentration of the atmosphere, most of the CO2 is <5 miles up, so the real numbers are both closer to 50% in reality, but it was an amusing exercise. Well, yeah, Steve, but that was math math, not Joemath.  If your axioms include "there's a largest known number" and "probabilities can be not even zero," who knows? "not even zero" would be less than zero. So negative probabilities... "there's a largest known number" I virtually never read anything joe wrote until a few months ago, but I heard about this. Did he actually say, and mean that? No, he insisted he didn't mean "less than zero."  We went around that with him a while ago.  I don't have a link, but it's in this thread somewhere - it was quite some time after the original appearance of "not even 0" which is linked in my sig..  What he meant was if he decides a probability is not worth the bother of estimating, then it's not even zero.  Yes, I know that's fucking stupid. And yes, he did go on about there being a largest known number at one point.  I suspect he failed to understand a story about the largest known prime number.  But this is Joe, so who the hell knows? The question was fucking stupid. No one but an imbecile asks what the probability is there is a specific letter in some sentence. -------------- "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

Pages: (919) < ... 502 503 504 505 506 [507] 508 509 510 511 512 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard