1,422 Forum Posts by "JerkClock"
At 1/22/08 09:32 PM, poxpower wrote:
How is it not proven if it`s been used for decades by thousands of people and has never failed?
Prove it has never failed, popular usage doesn't prove it, and consistency isn't the same as accuracy.
And the margin of error is very small, probably around 5%.
If it says something is 4 000 000 years old, that 5% won`t suddenly bring it down to 6000.
Prove the margin of error is that small and don't just say it.
Why would you say that? What point would it prove?
There is as much chance for dating methods to be accurate as for the sun to rise each day. Sure it`s not DEFINITIVE, but I`d bet my right arm on it against yours.
Prove it then.
Mummies, for instance. They date old food, old skeletons etc. and based on the readings they match it with a documented period. They can do the opposite too, i.e. take a documented thing and date it and it would check out if the tes is done properly.
It`s not as easy as mixing some baking soda and vinegar, it`s possibly to make mistakes, that`s why they test a LOT of things a LOT and why there is an error margin.
But nothing to even make it possible for them to be wrong about general ideas like continental drift or evolution.
But dating objects mere thousands of years old isn't the same as dating objects millions of years old, it's way different. Tkae the 1 millionth example, over 1000 years it would make it only slightly innaccurate, not enough to matter. but over millions and billions of years it builds on itself enough to be completely unreliable.
It is accurate, because atoms are accurate, because they are atoms.
Which doesn't prove decay is constant.
If you say it`s not accurate, you need a reason, obviously. Temperature changes on earth are not one
Your own link disproved that.
So lightning struck all the millions of fossils?
Over millions or billions of years, yes that's quite likely.
Damn. And ice doesn`t even come close to being able to change the rate of decay.
Prove it instead of saying it. Your own link said temperature effects decay.
Now that`s just stupid talk.
How ironic coming from someone who thinks magic numbers are how science works.
YOu`re saying that it could have been affected somehow by something we still haven`t seen ever?
No I'm saying it could be affected by stuff we aren't aware affects it, not stuff we don't know exists. Although the latter isn't impossible that's not what I was saying.
but they don`t expand at the same speed anyways because the moon has a smaler gravity and the whole point is that the speed of the expansion is what is generating the gravity. So there.
Right but the point you missed is that you were miscalculating what would happen.
the moon. And every planet in this system.
The moon's gravity is consistant with what it would need to expand out at to keep its size ratio with the earth. The gas giants, admittedly are not, but you have to ask yourself how we'd measure size ratio changes and if we'd be able to do it in our lifetime.
At 1/21/08 08:13 PM, Elfer wrote:
Are you fucking kidding? The guy point-blank says that temperature and pressure affect activity in the electron cloud, not the nucleus. You're just lying about what he's saying.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum.
He says what I said he did right at the start. I dunno how I could be "lying" about that. What he meant by "temperatures we are capable of making" I dunno, but it's clear from his first statement it was hyperbole anyway.
If you're doing it in terms of half-lives rather than the decay constant, why are you having the error propagate annually, rather than per half-life period?
Well because it's not exactly, it's just very hard to put it into words correctly. The numbers do refer to a half lives ratio, but as effected by the rate of molecular particle loss. Because molecular particle loss is non-linear.
Ok, so if the radioactive isotope in K-Ar dating is supposed to have one half life in 1.26 billion years, then skewing that rate by a millionth would produce an error of less than a millionth over a period of a billion years.
Not exactly, as explained below.
You did the calculations as though the error were accumulating
It does accumulate. I'm not saying it effects the half life itself by 1 millionth, but the molecular particle loss. Because the molecular particle loss is non-linear, it does indeed accumulate.
However, the more dice you roll, the closer the average value is going to be to 3.5
No not quite. It makes deviation from the top of the bell curve less likely however deviation on the top are just as likely.
No, the only thin my statement assumes is that the laws of physics are constant, which happens to be true everywhere it is observed.
Circular argument, if you're going to say the laws of physics define the state of living, prove it.
This statement assumes a magical life-force that can't be observed.
Exactly it can't be, if you want to allege it can, prove it.
It's not that we don't yet have a physical distinction between the two, it's that we don't have a physical distinction between "living" and "dead" anymore. The concepts were thought up at a time when our surroundings were very poorly understood, compared to what we know today.
Which is irrelevant as this doesn't explain what makes things alive or not.
However, it would fail to explain any of the things that don't benefit us on Earth, and in that failing,
Many of which have been found to benefit us after all in unforseen ways(such as supernovas light years away). They can take every cosmic event and measure them all to see the benefits, there's too many, but they are finding that much of what they are already examining does.
it also therefore fails to adequately explain the things that do benefit us.
Flat out denial with no explanation, how does it not explain them adequetly?
If God is all-powerful, the distinction is negligible. Also, there's pretty easy explanations for why Gods were invented by man whether or not they actually existed. Specifically, a god or gods is a simple explanation that's easy to understand for phenomena that we don't know the cause of. It also allows the opportunity for worship, which is a venue for humans to pretend they have some control over things far beyond their powers.
Irrelevant red herring, the fact that bits and pieces can have other explanations has no effect on the truth of the explanation given.
Again, doesn't explain detrimental things, such as asteroids hurling through the galaxy that could wipe out the life on Earth in one fell swoop, which has happened before.
Argumentum Ad Nauseum, you said this before, and I explained it. Those things are proven to have unforseen benefits, and they have never wiped out human beings.
So you find the idea of the spontaneous formation of a sentient energy being that had intelligence and the power to control matter more likely than the spontaneous formation of a naturalistic universe?
Do you have any reason at all for calling this "more likely"?
Yes, because there are way too many cosmic things benefitting earth, or existing at all for such a vast formation to be more likely than such a localized, smaller formation.
Dunno, I like Pico day the way it is with Pico themed characters alone.
At 1/22/08 11:21 PM, Gustavos wrote: Oh, well shows how much I know. Still it's not a complete ripoff.
There wasn't really much to rip off, just a dumb interchangable flash submitted over and over.
Respectable meaning it's a title I earned where I'm from. Gustavos has been my nickname ever since I was five. It's not a common name, but I like it. How it sounds when I say it. And I always beleived it was a lucky name. Idiota basically defines me in my meaning of it (idiota means idiot in both Spanish, italian, and several other forms of spanish like languages found in South America). However, in my meaning...well I can't explain because my definition wouldn't make sense on the internet.
Is playing semantics while simultaneously changing your story really necessary?
This topic has basically been nonstop arguments for a large number of pages. Why not follow along with this tradition?
Nice dodging of the point there, how ironic considering you dodged the point, in response to being told you were dodging the point.
You're pretty damn persistent with that question,
And you're pretty damn persistent with not answering it.
which was already answered before if anybody remembers.
No it wasn't, you're making it up.
Alright, surely in your time at Newgrounds, you've noticed there are a lot of people who are hungry for Hentia. When they see something with Hentai in the name of a submssion under judgement, click click click click click. As their eyes start to grow wide with excitement of what's to come next...what's this? Constant flashing lights and a couple pictures of random things flying across the screen? That very person feels cheated out of his promised porn. Which really sucks...come on we all have lonely nights at NG where you just want some traditional hentai.
No, YOU have lonely nights where you need to see hentai. I prefer to look at real women myself. Besides which that is something that you subject yourself to by viewing under judgment Flash instead of what is linked on the front page or in the collections. What is stopping you from going there instead when it'll gaurentee you won't have to see that shit?
Also, they created the monster known as the L7C. If spammers never got to those foolish kids, they'd probably be an actually good group. Alas, they will do what complete strangers tell them to and spam. I actually hate the L7C at this moments due to there more recent actions that are just a plain kick to the face in my eyes. I'd rather not go into further detail because I can only say so many reasons why the L7C is horrible. And that would be too off topic.
And how does that inconvenience you?
As for physical inconvenience, those flashing lights can give seizures to somebody with sensitive eyes. Although that's very rare, it can still damage your eyes very rare for anyone.
Again, don't watch under judgment Flash, problem solved.
And how they abuse the power of alt accounts. A lot of you have probably been to this thread:
That's against the rules and they get punished for it, we're talking about spam, not rule breaking.
Uhh...what?
You made the dumbass accusation, prove it, otherwise it looks like you're lying.
Oh, well...I...wait...didn't I...ooohhhhh, you're trying to trick me, I get it.
Not really.
Alright, alright. It's not that funny.
It's not meant to be funny.
At 1/22/08 09:44 AM, NEVR wrote: I suppose one slight solace is that your voting power bonus went up 7% when you ranked up to Commander. I can't wait to get to the last 2 ranks, but it's gonna take me a while. The 5,000 gap must be killer though, I can only imagine.
And the fact that Sup. Commander carries 1% increase for every 900 points, instead of 1% per thousand like the late officer and general ranks did. It just takes longer for it to be implemented.
At 1/21/08 05:22 PM, Gustavos wrote:
Well, I don't even know who that Afro guy is. That Adolf Hitler series is actually cool because it was an original idea at the start, and he's going to go all the way to the 496th Pokemon. And more when the next set of 150 or so screwed up creatures come around. The first one I saw was when he caught Weedle. Now, he's already at Feraligator I think.
Original idea? Bullshit, it's based on sevenstar's around the world hitler Flash. So no, it's not even original. It's retarded is what it is.
I don't know about the others, but I'm a respectable idiota where I'm from.
It's dumb to call yourself respectable when you're sitting here bitching about shit you have no reason to bitch about.
Hang on, what does UJ mean?
Under Judgment.
I know you think that were just kids with low levels who don't understand the first thing about anything. Which to a regular person, makes no sense. But nobody can show you any kind of logic in the fact that we're all different humans with different brains, thoughts, and instincts. Just because we don't agree with you, does NOT mean we're retarded.
Newsflash, it's not your level. The fact that you are using Argumentum Ad Nauseum and dodging our points makes you retarded.
What we call "making a point", you call playing crusade. What we call showing our love for the best site ever, you call being an immature kid with no friends.
Your "points" are just you saying, "but, spam exists", which does not, at all, explain how it inconveniences you.
Also, weren't Jerkclock and NEVR the ones who were going to sit back and laugh at our failure? Well, they certainly can show they stick to their word. Nice job hypocrites.
Show us saying we were sitting back and laughing at you and stop maming that asinine and erroneous accusation.
I'm starting to realize some things about this spamming situation. At first I thought the KK were the bad guys, but now I realise that there are individual people who just want to ruin people's time on Newgrounds.
Irrelevant, you still haven't shown how spam inconveniences you.
It only seems that's what the KK want, but they just want to be known by people and are willing to fight to be a great crew on Newgrounds. Better than the Clock Crew even. Or at least that's what some KK members want.
Irrelevant, you still haven't shown how spam inconveniences you.
The supreme commander gap sucks. If I hadn't already gotten 4500 several times over by now, I'd really hate it.
At 1/20/08 08:33 PM, Elfer wrote:
That's a lie. He said that it "may" be affected "measurably" in the core of a nuclear reactor, but he doubted it.
Is it?:
Question - Does the decay rate of U238 vary with temperature and pressure?
----------------------------------------
Not significantly. U238 decays by emitting an alpha particle (a helium
nucleus). The decay rate is determined almost entirely by the environment
in the nucleus. Temperature and pressure changes that we are capable of
making affect the electron cloud and do not affect the nucleus.
Maybe the sorts of temperatures and pressures you could get in a fusion
reactor would measurably affect the decay rate, but I doubt it.
Tim Mooney
The actual mechanics of what's going on do not support your theory.
But according to the above they do.
You did these calculations wrong. These numbers only work out if you assume that the object is supposed to decay completely in a year.
As I said, it's a calculation of how many half lifes adjusted for for nonlinearity(if it takes .9 years for 99% of a half-life, than another .1 for the other 1%, we assume .9 half lives is 99% of one for instance), so yes it does work.
The half-life for the radioactive isotopes in K-Ar dating is 1.26 billion years. Skewing those numbers by "a millionth" in the way you put it is actually accelerating the decay rate many-fold.
No because it's a calculation of how many half lives it's supposed to have, as opposed to how many it does.
For instance, if it is supposed to have .001 half lives in one million years, then a result of 1 means that it has exactly that much at that time. A result of 2 would mean it is 2 times closer to completing that half life(time wise, not molecularly, as the actual partical loss is non-linear). So the formula still applies no matter what the half life is, simply because it is a time wise comparison, not an assumption that the substance has a half-life of 1 year.
That's not probable at all. The larger your sample size (in this case, the sample population is all bodies in the observable universe that produce cosmic ray activity), the less likely deviation from the mean becomes. On top of that, when you start talking about this occurring in time periods long enough for it to have an appreciable effect on radioactive decay, it becomes even less likely.
Not necessarily. Larger populations have a lesser chance of all going one way, but much lesser scatterings are just as likely. Again, the dice thing. Rolling 18 dice is less likely to result in all 6's than 8, but just as likely to produce a higher percentage of even numbers than odd.
Yes. It is logically impossible for two identical states to behave differently because of the path taken to arrive at them.
The problem with your statement is you assume to know what makes something live, and that is something we do not know at all. We've been trying to figure it out as long as we have existed, but we never have. We can copy a body in a certain state and hope for the best, but that doesn't mean it will be alive like the original. Two indentical states of "matter" behave the same, but life isn't exactly matter, so you can copy all the matter and energy over, but that's not the same as copying the life within it.
This question unfortunately became a lot harder once urea was synthesized in the lab. To be honest, the concept of something being "alive" and the words associated with it came about in a time when we knew a lot less about the nature of the universe. It's like trying to teach someone neurobiology in phrenology terms.
See that's sort of the point. Words can't even (non-circularly) define what "life" is even though we know it. We still haven't found an official physical difference between the living and the dead.
Well, if that's true, then we still don't have God in the conventional sense,
This is true, however that's not a bad thing.
and we still have questions as to the origins of the universe,
We always will. I mean even if God created it, what created the energy that formed into God? No matter what the origin of the universe ends up with getting something from nothing.
and our questions are really no better answered than they were before. From a scientific view, it's not a great theory because there's no evidence, but it presumes quite a bit and explains nothing.
It would explain why so many things throughout the universe end up benefitting us on Earth. It would also explain why people did think they talked to God if he in fact did exist. As for explanations of why no one has heard from him in forever, that's rather simple. In less populace times, talking to the population wouldn't be so bothersome, but who'd wanna talk to 6 billion people?
As it is human being do related stuff. Remember when the only person to delete abusive reviews was Wade? By now it's too bothersome to do it all himself so he has mods doing it for him.
1) This topic was about particular religions being more valid than pastafarianism in observable terms
Well I may be independant of churches, but that doesn't make me non-religious.
2) What evidence do you have for the existence of some sort of god in general?
What I've already said about the events throughout the cosmos benefitting us here on earth. I just find the formation of a being of pure energy more likely than the idea such a vast universe could form that way, all by coincidence. Does it prove things beyond a doubt? No, but I'm not saying it does.
At 1/21/08 02:24 PM, SoulMaster71 wrote:
For once I find myself agreeing with you, at least that some of the crappy submissions can, under certain circumstances, be humorous, after a fashion. It only gets to annoy us when there's too much of it, and it claims to be something it's not. That's one of the reasons people like me begin to dislike the Kitty Krew, and other spam groups.
But your argument still begits the problem that you have to watch them to be annoyed by them. They won't be a problem if you just watch what's on the front page or in the collections. And if it annoys you because you watch UJ Flash, well that's just tough shit. Filtering UJ is there for a reason, but it's not for the faint of heart, there's going to be problems. And sometimes stuff will make it through that you don't feel should, it happens. Besides which, some of it is funny because it annoys people. Like those seizure animations.
I don't really care for them, but AfroUnderscoreStud at least always puts them to good music, and really doesn't claim that they're anything that they're not. So they may be a kind of spam, but not the kind that those of us here are pissed off about.
They should be, they're the same fucking animation over and over again, slightly rehashed.
The only real problem (at least, the one we see, which you obviously do not) is that so much crap passes that many people who love Newgrounds and good Flash wouldn't give a 2 to if their NG membership depended on it. An occasional bad flash here and there isn't terrible, but when
shitty flash after shitty flash gets submitted by the same damn person under so many alts (all those 2008 submissions were in the last 3 days for example), and gets passed, people like me, OkamiZaku, Gustavos, and most of the rest here who are or were anti-KK or anti-spam, people who care deeply about the quality of Flash in the Portal, we get mad, and we make anti-KK news posts, and anti-KK threads like this.
That still doesn't answer my point about how it hurts you.
At 1/21/08 01:39 PM, HypaShadow wrote: 300 posts and dont even tell me it doesnt count!
Saying "dont even tell me it doesnt count!" doesn't invalidate the fact that it, in fact, does not count.
At 1/21/08 09:20 AM, LordZeebmork wrote:
Because they want every portal submission to be on par with, say, Brackenwood or Tankmen. Not entertaining at all, but the same rehashed plotline and jokes every time.
I dunno I like brackenwood myself, to say all entries have to be good is just silly. Even among the "good" ones you can't like all of them. And some of the "crap" for that matter is actually funny, albiet not always in a good way.
And besides, how completely fucking horrifying is it to get free protect and review-whistle points? I love how most of the people who bitch about spam are total statwhores.
Lol I know right? Take the adolf hitler pokemon Flash, I think those are spam and I don't like them, but I also think they're an excellent source of protection points.
At 1/17/08 08:16 PM, yoshi77777 wrote:
But SBC's account is currently locked and has been since 2004. It was hacked by our friend Bedn.
Yeah you know what? I'm sick of seeing people bitch about Bedn too. He's grown up and stopped acting childishly, too bad the same can't be said for you
Ferrous Cranuses attacking the kitty krew Ad Nauseum. You've all still failed to explain how posting Flash that you aren't forced to watch effects you in a bad way, but that's probably because you can't.
At 1/20/08 04:49 AM, Coop83 wrote:
And it looks like you're anotehr one that's beaten me to 2,000 Saves :(
You still don't have 2000 saves yet? ;p
At 1/20/08 10:58 PM, ttstrangler wrote:
And JerkClock, my friend, whom of which is looking at this topic,
Erroneous pretence of a friend who doesn't exist looking at the topic.
told me what you said after I started to ignore you... no, I haven't lost, you're a fag who doesn't stop repeating yourself,
Presumptious, unsubstantiated, and erroneous claim, laced with Ad Nauseum, how ironic, coming from someone falsely accusing me of repeating myself.
so I am simply ignoring you for now on.
Yeah I heard that one from you before, but yet here you are not ignoring me, how ironic.
You know, I've heard that usernames vary based on personality, but in this case, the first word in your username IS your personality.
Why thank you, I do try.
Hmmm, I think I will leave this topic because you guys are getting entirely in-your-face.
No we're getting in your face, and your feelings are hurt over it.
At 1/20/08 10:46 PM, Absolutelynothing wrote:
Lol, me too
I saw the Jem video a few days ago, ignored NG yesterday, and came back today :D
Hey you know what? That sig image reminds me of the topic starter in a way.............
At 1/20/08 10:36 PM, ttstrangler wrote: *sigh* I'd much rather spend my time somewhere else than repeat the same argument with you.
Erroneous personal attack, laced with Ad Nauseum, are you going to say anything else?
All I'm saying is that there will be too many JEM submissions...
I know that, but that's not a reason to be upset about it. You haven't shown how there being too many effects you negatively. All you did was bitch about having to see them while filtering UJ Flash. But if that's the case it's your own fucking fault for subjecting yourself to it. It's not like it keeps you from watching quality, because it doesn't. You have not proven it doesn't, you just whined.
Ignoring your posts in this topic for now on.
i.e. You have been proven wrong and are now turning tail and fleeing.
At 1/20/08 10:12 PM, ttstrangler wrote:
...said the person who has never submitted anything.
What I have or haven't submitted is irrelevant.
I watch under judgment animations so I can give advice to the people who are new to Flash.
Then you should know damn well that spam fads happen, if you don't want to put up with them, you just shouldn't watch UJ Flash. I'm not saying it's pleasant, but iUJ Flash is extremely unpredictable, you have to deal with a lot of shit, and if you're not willing to, you shouldn't do it, period.
I bet this is a surprise to you, but I'm actually nice when I give them advice. So, do you see the problem here?
Yeah I see the problem, you're a whiney little bitch. NG isn't exclusively about the things YOU like.
And, are you going to reply to this post, continuing to say the exact same thing to me,
Erroneous personal attack.
or are you just going to face the fact that this is bad for Newgrounds.
The fact that you dislike them does not make them bad for Newgrounds.
To you, it's not bad, because you only watch collections and front page.
Please, did you EVEN look at my profile? I'm commander rank for fuck's sake, you don't get that from not watching UJ Flash.
But, to others (and guests!), it's a bad thing.
No, to YOU it is a bad thing. It isn't to everyone.
And I'd much rather do something else than to see you spam the same thing over and over in various ways.
Erroneous personal attack, laced with Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
At 1/20/08 09:53 PM, ttstrangler wrote:
*sigh* I should of explained that a little bit more. I meant that we'll see more of the JEM videos than decent animations...
Doesn't matter, the decent ones will still be there, and you still won't have to watch the JEM ones. Either way it does not effect you negatively.
how often do you see a decent animation in the Flash Portal under new submissions? Not very often... and if noobs take on the JEM legacy, then the portal will be flooded with JEM videos.
So don't watch under judgment Flash, watch what's posted on the front page and in the collections. Yes, amazingly enough, the front page and collection pages, are in fact, there so you don't have to watch the poor quality Flash you're bitching about.
At 1/20/08 09:40 PM, ttstrangler wrote:
What I mean to say is that JEM is becoming a nuisance on NG. I've seen too many of these videos and the more people post of these videos, the more there will be. (e.g. more likely a noob will see it and copy the idea)
And how does that effect you negatively?
I'm just saying that yes, there is a reason to be upset at the videos, because in a short matter of time, these videos will be dominating Newgrounds... *sigh* this is like the Numa Numa but more noobish.
And how will that effect you negatively? You do not have to watch them.
If what my predictions are correct, then we probably won't see a decent animation as often for a couple of days... or at least noobs resubmitting it over and over and over just because their previous one didn't make judgment.
That is not true, the decent animators will keep submitting decent animations. These videos will not effect that.
At 1/20/08 09:16 PM, ttstrangler wrote:
I've blammed like 5 JEM fan videos already on Newgrounds.
What you've blammed is irrelevant. How does that address my point that there is no reason to be upset about the videos?
At 1/20/08 09:11 PM, ttstrangler wrote: *cough*
*looks at above post*
So? How do you know viewtiful chris didn't lurk for a while before signing up also. My original account signed up in 03, and I was lurking since 02, so you're not the only one. I don't particularly like the JEMs either, but really, who the fuck cares? How is their presence hurting you?
At 1/20/08 08:58 PM, KemCab wrote:
Viewtiful-Chris' sign-Up date: 11/25/06
Your sign up date: 07/24/07
ZING!!! That's gotta hurt.
Commander and 20000 saves.
At 1/18/08 10:49 AM, poxpower wrote:
The only way you would know a reading is not accurate is if you have something else to measure something accurately.
That is true, I didn't say it wasn't.
So tell me, in the case of radiometric dating, if you claim it is not accurate, then what do you base yourself on to date things and declare that it`s not possible that it is X million years old?
But I'm not saying it isn't possible just that it isn't proven. Sure it's possible but the margin of error is wide.
Based on what `right ` reading?
But see i'm not saying they're right or wrong, just that they aren't definitive.
Test like dating historically dated objects and matching the date perfectly thousands of times?
I`d say that`s a pretty fucking good test.
What objects did they date historically?
But not related to `temperature`(as you see it anyways ) and certainly not related to any temperature that was ever on earth, after living organism appeared on it, which was your entire argument to explain the falsification of the datings.
Well my whole point is that the process of dating these things is inaccurate, not the reason why.
Like what?
Name one.
Well energy fluctuations(lightning strikes are a good example of this) or major temperature changes like ice ages and such. Or any number of things we don't currently know about that could effect it.
If the moon is SMALLER it needs to expand FASTER to match the earth`s expansion, duh.
And I was explaining to you how if they both grew at the same speed, the moon would vanish within the day, which is what you just repeated up there even though last time you tried to say it wasn`t so.
Huh? Anyway I'm not sure what you mean by the moon needing to expand faster to match earth's expansion. If you're saying it would need to expand faster to maintain its proportionality to earth, that's actually not true. And actually almost the opposite would happen if they both expanded at the same speed.
Think about it, let's use NG experience points as an example. I know XP =/= slightly oblate space spheriods but I think the analogy will suffice. Imagine it was 2004 again and humantarget was level 30, and the levels were scaled. Now image you're at 1/6th his experience. You gain experience at the same rate he does, but with time, the proportionality of your XP to his grows, even if you never reach it. To maintain your proportionality you would have needed to deposit once every 6 days.
Think about that with respect to the earth and moon's expansion. It would mean that if the moon(you) had the same expansion/gravity(XP deposit rate) as earth(humantarget), it(you) would grow(gain a bigger XP ratio) with respect to earth's(humantarget's) size(XP). Meaning that like above, the moon(you), needs to expand(deposit XP) at 1/6th the rate of earth(humantarget) to maintain size(XP) proportionality.
That's about as best I can explain it.
Why do you keep repeating ''as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument''??
What is logical about saying numbers don't work until they reach a certain point? RL doesn't work digitally like a video game.
So, wait, you think it works? Except that it's `crazy`?
Well it does, it's just the idea of matter continually expanding seems much less probable than gravity.
You don't actually see any of the flaws?
Every "flaw" has an explanation though.
Like the fact that when you're free-falling, you accelerate?
This one is actually very complicated. In order for expanding matter to work, the space between objects must also expand, keeping them apart. However, the space between objects could be said to start expanding slower when they approach other expanding objects. This also explains why gravity is less at farther distances.
Or the fact that wind resistance gives objects a maximal falling speed?
Air resistance is a separate property from gravity. This can easily be explained as the atmosphere pushing the object while the earth expands, causing it to float away(but no fast enough that it doesn't still fall).
Or that stellar objects with different gravities somehow should expand at the same rate?
Which stellar objects? Could you be more specific?
At 1/16/08 10:09 PM, Elfer wrote:
No, WHY it affects things is important, because you're applying it to something that is doesn't affect, because you don't know why temperature effects molecular speeds.
But the link even stated it is effected. It said "not significantly", but that's different than denying it entirely.
Let's say a temperature effects it by 1 millionth of what it's supposed to decay per year. Sure that's not significant. But decay isn't linear. On that point let's also establish for clarity percentages are based on how many half lives it's supposed to decay. So 2 times whould be 2 half lives for instance instead of 1.
It wouldn't be 1.000001 from where it's supposed to be the first year then 1.000002 the second. But rather 1.000002000001. Yes still not significant, but what about 1 million years? Well it would be 2.71828 times more decayed than it's supposed to be. Over 1 billion years, that 1 millionth per year will have built to, well, a number my calculator writes as "1.96909E434" which is a HUGE number.
But claiming that they'd all be higher at the same time for no reason at all is an irrational claim. I don't need to run the calculations because it's self-evident without doing the calculations, much the same way throwing a hundred coins in the air and having them all come up heads and doing the same thing a thousand times in a row is so obviously unlikely that you don't need to do the calculations.
Yes, claiming that they'd all be higher at once is irrational, but claiming that it's possible or that a greater number could be potentially higher or lower enough to make a change isn't. So I'm not saying it all has to change, just that some will, and that's it's possible a higher enough number of them could go one way to have an effect. Like say 30% have negligable changes, 20% go a little higher, and 40% go a little lower, or something.
But we ARE energy beings. Matter is composed of energy. Therefore, energy is organized in such a way that it creates life. You're trying to argue that our current reality is more likely than our current reality.
Not exactly. The theory of matter being composed of energy is interesting, but just a theory. Even assuming that's true, it would still mean we're not pure energy, a substance which is much less tangible than matter. I've heard theories on evolution of the universe about energy converting to matter to explain the origin of matter(although even that means energy came from nothing).
I will say that theory is interesting in that it would mean pure energy is like stem cells, only much more complicated and able to burn itself to propel matter.
Proof? It's a pretty easy concept. If we have an exact replica of the matter and energy making up a human body that's alive, then the replica would be alive. If a given state is attainable through multiple different paths, you can't tell which one it came from just by looking at the present state. Note that this doesn't make catastrophic geology possible.
In theory yes, but the question is would it in practice? The problem is what separates "living" from not? What makes living bodies live?
Right, but that doesn't mean that a being made of energy would be able to alter the laws that control it. We're made of matter, but we can't control the laws that govern matter, or by an extension of that,t he laws that govern energy.
While that's true, it is only a theory as it wouldn't necessarily happen that way, it is at least a believable scenario for how a God can exist and create us on Earth. And yeah, we can't control matter, but the matter in our bodies doesn't have the properties that pure energy does either. So it's quite different.
Either way, even if this was true, all you're doing is reducing everything to a hypothetical scenario in which no evidence can be presented for anything, leaving pastafarianism and the bible at the same level of evidence: zero.
Pastafarianism and the bible maybe, but not pastafarianism and the existence of God at all.
At 1/13/08 05:29 AM, Coop83 wrote:
Look at the regular users who submit regular flash. I've met a guy called Jimtopia. His first 4 or 5 flash were all blammed. He got his ban for it and he stuck with it. I poured my resources in and watched his flash take on greater shape and fluidity over the time he used. He's one of my favourite animators out there and he even got front paged recently Jim & Pals Ep. 4. He's come a long way.
But I never said all users would get discouraged, I said a lot would, and that's true.
Hello pot, this is kettle. You're black.
Avoidance of proof noted.
I've presented my case, take it or GTFO
No you didn't, you randomly claimed they said something they didn't out of thin air then failed to back it up.
'theory'
Actually what "theory" means is something you have some evidence for and sounds plausible, but is anything but definitive. That's not the same as something which is proven.
At 1/12/08 05:44 PM, Elfer wrote:
Give me
Give me a scrap of evidence they wouldn't other than you just saying they wouldn't. See I'm not arguing they did or did not, just that it's possible.
Heat
Oh really?:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q =heat&x=38&y=12
I assume you are referring to definition 6, either way you're still playing semantics instead of addressing the point that decay can be effected.
It said
Which means it moved faster when it started and move and moves slower with time, ie. it is not constant as you claimed.
Actually, he said
Without of course, attempting to measure it.
no evidence
Right, because you say so. There is evidence, the fact that molecular particles are effected by it, but of course you ignore that.
There's only so fast it can go,
True, but the point is the idea that we know how long ago pangea was is effectively erroneous.
impossible
Too bad you can't prove that. In any case it shows your "science" about the age of things is no more valid than you claim god is.
You can't actually know anything "definitively."
Especially the age of stuff millions or billions of years old.
zero evidence
Erroneous Ad Lapidem, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
"Semantics" and "Kinetics"
You weren't describing kinetics, you were playing semantics. Argung you're right because of the definitions of words is playing semantics.
Your scientific competence is at sub-moron levels.
Erroneous invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
why temperature affects
Why it does is irrelevant, that it does is all that matters.
screeching halt,
Exactly, and thus your idea we know how long ago pangea was is wrong.
Think about it:
I have, and I know for a fact you have not analyzed every object in the universe and run calculations on them. As such you do not know and can not claim to.
same geologic column
What does that have to do with the age of said column?
No, but if I'm an archaeologist
True but that proves nothing on the age of the Earth.
Well, considering the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary,
Erroneous Ad Nauseum, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
No, a universe that is hospitable to life
Yes, and you may want to listen to your own advice when you tell people "try to keep up" because I was not saying that wasn't the case. In fact, that is exactly my point. Such a vast universe, that huge, completely hospitible to life, seems less likely than the formation of an energy being is my point, not the dumbass shit you were talking about.
Actually, if you created a molecular replica of a human body, yes, it would be alive.
Oh really? Proof? Oh wait, you're just making that up.
That's roughly equivalent
No it isn't.
What you seemed to be trying to suggest at the time was that energy could become conscious and alter the laws of the universe, which doesn't make sense.
It could in theory, because of the properties of energy being an underlying concept of just about every law of physics.
Mr. I'll ban you for disagreeing with me wrote:
QUOTE
Yeah, cus, you know, the character limit so doesn't exist.
If a thermomether
I know what you are saying, but the problem is it still means it's giving an innaccurate reading. In the case of the thermometer, you can figure out its offset and change it. In the case of radiometric dating, how are we to know its offset, especially with decay working in half-lives. Because it works like that, it's unlikely its offset is a flat number, but more likely a number which grows exponentially with time.
If the method was not accurate
That's actually not true, consistently measuring off is still measuring off.
dumbass
Erroneous personal attack, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Believe it or not
If they don't wish to run tests to determine their method's accuracy they should not treat them as accurate, plain and simple.
it would probably be because of the others particles colliding
Which would still be an alteration of the rate of decay BTW.
it utterly destroys
Erroneous Ad Lapidem.
your idiot claim
Erroneous invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
that something
I didn't say a single thing did it, I said over such a long period of time it is likely that many, many things did. And I didn't say accelerate or decelerate for that matter.
I don`t even know what the hell you`re talking about
Add that to the massive list of thing you do not know, such as how RL doesn't work in magic numbers.
So the surface constantly goes
Not exactly, that's like saying you get $500 per year on a $10000 investment with 5% interest. But your interest also generates interest.
See you aren't mathematically inclined and should not be attempting to argue over math stuff. You're getting arrogant as if you know how this would work when you don't.
You have NOOOOOOOOOOOOO idea what I explained
I know exactly what you tried to tell me, you tried to tell me that if the earth and moon expanded by the same raw number, that they would stay the same proportionally and that would only be true in they were the exact same size. Since the moon is significantly smaller than the earth, it would have to expand slower to keep the proportions the same.
So yes, I understand EXACTLY what you said, and it was moronic. It showed you don't know how to work numbers.
If it starts out at the size of a marble and expands its diameter by 9.8 m/s in both directions
But see it wouldn't logically expand at a flat rate, but rather by a percentage of its size, because a flat rate would mean gravity gets perpetually weaker.
I`m curious, Jerkclock, why do YOU think the expanding earth theory is not valid to explain gravity?
Gravity just makes more sense. Objects continually expanding is as rediculus as flying spagetti monsters. It's an interesting theory though, but gravity seems more realistic.
At 1/8/08 08:22 AM, Coop83 wrote:.
I might have know that something like this was behind it all. You've become bitter and twisted about the goings on and how you've been treated by the system.
It was a different system than we are currently discussing, and besides which I know I deserved that shit anyway. On top of being an Ad Hominem fallacy it also bears no relevance because it wasn't the same system we're discussing.
Like I said, you've just become bitter and twisted over this.
Ad Hominem, even if it were true it doesn't make the system correct. In fact, you are deliberately avoiding the point that you have not one single example of people taking this the way they are supposed to.
There are always exceptions that prove the rule, you're it, son.
Oh really? Got any proof that I'm an "exception" or are you just going to sit there saying it's true because you say so?
Yours and the correct one.
Claiming out of thin air that you are correct does not make it so.
How about you just agree with me that we have completely polarised opinions on this
No fuck that, if you're going to claim the admins hold opinions they never said they did, you better damn well back it up.
Jerkclock - 'my religion is more valid because science is totally wrong'.
Didn't say science was totally wrong, only said that shit like stuff that "proves" the age of the earth is by no means actually proven, and it really isn't.
At 1/8/08 03:42 PM, Elfer wrote:
Well,
Avoidance of the point noted, too bad a link pox provided actually proved that temperature does effect the rate of decay.
Yes, but the door swings both ways.
Only if your IQ is low, and yours is. You think people can't make shit up to "disprove" specific ideas too?
This is a pretty bad attempt at a proof by assertion.
Well actually no it isn't, your Argumentum Ad Nauseum is. People don't normally build boats like that because they aren't needed. They'd only do so if they knew a masssive flood was coming that would flood out a conventional one, otherwise it would be impracticle.
However, all of the evidence suggests that they didn't,
Really, you have screenshots of what happened? Oh wait, there is no evidence, you're making it up.
Let me be more specific.
You're just playing semantics again. Heat being hot temperature means that if heat effects it, temperature in effect does, you are just trying to dance around that point with semantics.
"Elastic" and "plastic" isn't semantics.
Saying "elastic and plastic mean this, but I won't prove it does what they mean, but those words do really mean that so I'm right" IS playing semantics.
Let me explain this again.
Too bad your own link said otherwise. So YOUR explanation doesn't mean shit.
The one person
The one person said "not significantly" but what's "not significant" in our lifetime is very significant over millions and billions of years. Especially considering that due to the nature of decay slowing over time with respect to proportion, a "not significant" effect in 100 years would likely have a massive effect over millions and billions of years.
Why should it have started very fast?
Why should it have not? It could or could not have, but your asinine idea of continental drift being constant is busted wide open by your own link.
Also, even if it did start very fast,
So? It at least means we don't know for a fact how long ago pangea existed.
Well, if it was equally concentrated,
Not necessarily(non-filtered smoking for instance), the point remains however that you shouldn't blindly believe whatever you are told.
you're just blindly rejecting things with no basis for doing so.
No, I acknowledge their possibility, just saying that it isn't known definitively.
Temperature is
Semantics, does it really matter? Either way molecular particles move slower at lower temperatures and faster at higher ones. And with temperatures effecting neighboring temperatures, it really doesn't matter what cause and effect are, it means either way temperature effects decay.
You mean "Didn't elaborate on"?
Doesn't matter, it said continental drift will eventually stop, indicating it is not constant. Unless you want to sell me the asinine idea that they're going to just come to a screeching halt one day.
what you're suggesting is equivalent
Really, so you calculated every activity in the universe and figured out the odds? Amazing.
Well, what strata the objects came from,
Which you have still not proven reliable.
any recorded dates available for the object or the area in which it was found,
Which still doesn't mean it wasn't created 1000s of years before those dates.
radiometric dating
Which you still haven't proven reliable.
It's like asking what makes rolling a five less likely than rolling a three.
Right, a simple concept is equally as plausible as a much more complex one.
No, life itself makes sense
Right, so define life and what makes something alive. No it isn't our organs, or anything about our bodies. If you don't believe me go synthesis a human body and see if it lives, it won't. We don't know how life works, we know how BODIES work, but a body doesn't live by simply being created.
Claiming that all energy everywhere
I didn't say "all energies everywhere" would become a life form, I said an isolated collection of energy could, and could in theory control other energies.
Mr. I'll ban you for disagreeing with me wrote:
repeating opponents arguments.
Concession noted.
nuclear reactor
So you're still arguing that science works in magic numbers?
So how do you know the room is at 825 degrees?
Avoidance of the point noted. I didn't say the room was that hot, I said by your logic it would be simply because it kept being measured that way consisntantly even though at room temperature, it clearly was not.
Sorry if you don't understand scientific things
Yeah, that looks familiar. You're the one who thinks science works in magic numbers. It doesn't just not effect shit and then suddenly start efffecting shit when it gets hot like a nuclear reactor, no matter how much you repeat that mantra it doesn't work that way.
Yes, it does exactly that
Well actually no it doesn't, you can say it does, but that won't make it so.
if it expands at a rate of 2 times per day, and the earth expands at 3 times per day
And it has to expand at exactly the rate you say it will or expanding matter is utterly invalid, right? Oh wait, no it doesn't, you just like to pretend you know what you're talking about when you don't. If the earth only expanded by 1000000th of it's size every day, we would not likely measure a difference withing a human lifespan, at least not with our current technology.
So that would mean that the rate of the earth's expansion is 9.8 m/s
If it were expanding, it would be expanding with respect to its size, not at a flat 9.8 m/s. If it were flat our gravity would be getting perpetually weaker. If expanding matter were true, it would be logical to conclude the earth is expanding out at less than 1000th per second. The moon actually would expand at about the same rate with respect to its size(actually a little over 1000th, but only by about as much as the earth is under), with them expanding out at roughly the same rate with respect to their size it is unlikely we could measure a noticible size ratio change in our lifetime.
At 1/5/08 05:56 AM, Coop83 wrote:
A link would be really helpful here, but now you come to mention it, I do remember hearing of users who have had their Post count reset as with their B/P as well. Sadly, I can't remember names at present.
Someone named LordBlam I remember this happening to, but I can't seem to find his profile. He may have been deleted or I may be getting the name wrong. Also my original account Anarchy-Balsac(back then Anarchy_Balsac before the forced name change), lost my XP and my B/P. I don't like to recall it though.
Then they're not really that desperate for attention, are they? If they were, they'd try again once the ban is lifted.
Funny how I stopped trying because of the system even though according to your remark I'd have kept trying, even though I didn't. I'm not saying there aren't some who do, but there's certainly a lot who don't. And if it isn't really effecting malacious users like it's supposed to, what's the point?
Prove that he hasn't.
The only way I can do that is link all his posts since then, but even then you could still say he said it off site or something. Prove that he has.
I don't need to.
Then don't claim he thinks that way.
I notice you failed to address gfoxcook's argument about the accounts who have had Post count and / or B/P counts reset.
I didn't even notice it because I've only been watching your posts but looking at it, it just validates what I've been saying.
In my eyes, my argument was not a logical fallacy
Special Pleading, you wish not believe something, but that doesn't effect its truth.
You've never heard of the good business sense of 'providing a united front'?
Playing semantics with the word "Business" to dodge the point. No how about instead you justify your reason for saying that.
Anyway, you still haven't proven any admins think that spam will DOS the site.
Gfox wrote:
Didn't he say a user with their exp or b/p reset to 0? That's not the same thing as deleting a user.
Yeah I know it happened with "Anarchy_Balsac", if you remember we used to have discussions about that having happened. I've seen others I just can't remember them.
