@Lou

Oh, we can read very well, it's just that your math-classes obviously never went past counting to 10.....





















....... in binary

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: @Lou Oh, we can read very well, it's just that your math-classes obviously never went past counting to 10..... ....... in binary

If you're gonna come at me, atleast use a dictionary first...

@Lou

Quote:

Apparently you clowns can't read. When something is paired with, it is side by side. Epic FAIL!

Typical Lou post! First start out with an insult. Next blame someone else for Lou's creative new meaning.

Strangely when I learned when one has a pair of something they have TWO of the same object. Lou I know you reject other scientific definitions. So why do you now reject a pairing too? And if just sticking something in front of the other is pairing and mathematically valid why not keep the decimal system. Certainly pairing 1 and 1 to make eleven is even better!

Let's approach Lou's new math with the typical request for evidence. The experiment I want Lou to conduct is take his Mum out for dinner. Spend under eleven for the both of you. McDonalds might be a good option. Now pay with a pair of 1 dollar bills, aka eleven in Lou new math. See if the Manager thanks you and gives you change. Or does the Manager request more bills. If he asks for more give him 1 more bill for one hundred eleven dollars. Then demand change! Lou if you don't get it call a cop and charge the Manager with stealing. Come back and give us the evidence of how that all went down.

Gravitons and the newer physics.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=search-for-new-physics

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Apparently you clowns can't read. When something is paired with, it is side by side. Epic FAIL! Typical Lou post! First start out with an insult. Next blame someone else for Lou's creative new meaning. Strangely when I learned when one has a pair of something they have TWO of the same object. Lou I know you reject other scientific definitions. So why do you now reject a pairing too? And if just sticking something in front of the other is pairing and mathematically valid why not keep the decimal system. Certainly pairing 1 and 1 to make eleven is even better! Let's approach Lou's new math with the typical request for evidence. The experiment I want Lou to conduct is take his Mum out for dinner. Spend under eleven for the both of you. McDonalds might be a good option. Now pay with a pair of 1 dollar bills, aka eleven in Lou new math. See if the Manager thanks you and gives you change. Or does the Manager request more bills. If he asks for more give him 1 more bill for one hundred eleven dollars. Then demand change! Lou if you don't get it call a cop and charge the Manager with stealing. Come back and give us the evidence of how that all went down.

This is a typical BrianK post always trying to twist things, in this case a pair of 1's... You break things down when you should look at the macroscopic result of things. When people "pair up", like to walk down an isle, they are side by side.
Look at your pair of testicles, are they not side by side?
Look at your pair of legs, are they not side by side?

@Lou

Quote:

Look at your pair of testicles, are they not side by side?

They are indeed, and how many do yo have? Eleven? What a load of b o l l o c k s

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Lou

Quote:

This is a typical BrianK post always trying to twist things, in this case a pair of 1's... You break things down when you should look at the macroscopic result of things. When people "pair up", like to walk down an isle, they are side by side. Look at your pair of testicles, are they not side by side? Look at your pair of legs, are they not side by side?

Yes Lou details are important. As you claimed to be a programmer you should live it every time your coding.

As to your answer - Why yes they are side by side.

Here's an easy macroscopic experiment. Count your legs. Do you have three as you claim the right answer is?

Last edited by BrianK on 09-May-2012 at 10:20 PM.

@BrianK

Counting's fine, but I didn't say counting did I. So yes, we agree, the details are important so...

@Lou

Quote:

Counting's fine, but I didn't say counting did I.

Look Lou - I took your answer as an attempt at humor. However, your response was to insult people and be defensive. That response leads me to believe my assumption that you were trying to be cute was wrong. It appears you were being serious. 'Pairing' as the way you handled it is a worthless concept mathematically. It's also highly confusing as you are using 'pairing' in a way that is only known to you and not the public at large.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Counting's fine, but I didn't say counting did I. Look Lou - I took your answer as an attempt at humor. However, your response was to insult people and be defensive. That response leads me to believe my assumption that you were trying to be cute was wrong. It appears you were being serious. 'Pairing' as the way you handled it is a worthless concept mathematically. It's also highly confusing as you are using 'pairing' in a way that is only known to you and not the public at large.

It was an attempt at humor, then my intelligence was insulted.
From there, if you look at what I said and how the public at large uses the word pair, I was correct. The rest is you again twisting things to make me look wrong.

@Lou

Quote:

It was an attempt at humor, then my intelligence was insulted. From there, if you look at what I said and how the public at large uses the word pair, I was correct. The rest is you again twisting things to make me look wrong.

Thanks for the confirmation it was a cutesy misuse of the word 'pair' for humor. Though you can drop the claim of correctness. No restraunt is going to take 'a pair' of one dollar bills and give you change from your $9 tab. Nor is any clothing store going to sell you 'a pair' of pants that has three legs.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: It was an attempt at humor, then my intelligence was insulted. From there, if you look at what I said and how the public at large uses the word pair, I was correct. The rest is you again twisting things to make me look wrong. Thanks for the confirmation it was a cutesy misuse of the word 'pair' for humor. Though you can drop the claim of correctness. No restraunt is going to take 'a pair' of one dollar bills and give you change from your $9 tab. Nor is any clothing store going to sell you 'a pair' of pants that has three legs.

That's because they'll bill you $2 but accept a pair of dollar bills as equivalent...
They'd also accept 8 quarters...

However if you run two binary lines side-by-side, which is how bits are actually combined to make bytes, words, etc..., then you've increased the maximum value it can represent by 2^nBits - 1, just as a set of 8 bits side by side represents a maximum unsigned byte value of 255 in decimal if all the bits are set to 1.

When it comes to numering systems, position does matter. In decimal, the (here comes Nimrod's favorite phrase) order of magnitude of one position to the next is 10, in binary 2. Those darn Romans, now they were all fudged up.

@Lou

Jumped the Shark dude! Jumped the Shark.

Constraining the different gravitational theories . There are various hypothesis on how gravity works. Some are within the Einsteinian Gravitational model. Some are not. Recently scientists conducted an experiment to identify is the model of a fifth cosmic force may exist. (The four types our present understanding evidence existing are EM, strong, weak, and gravitational.) Turns out a 5th force is highly improbable to the point of being non-existent.

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre8491i5-us-maya-calendar/

Amazing!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Constraining the different gravitational theories . There are various hypothesis on how gravity works. Some are within the Einsteinian Gravitational model. Some are not. Recently scientists conducted an experiment to identify is the model of a fifth cosmic force may exist. (The four types our present understanding evidence existing are EM, strong, weak, and gravitational.) Turns out a 5th force is highly improbable to the point of being non-existent.

Let's not stop there! Let's invent a new particle to be the carrier of that force!
We'll call it the cincon™ particle!


We can then predict it to have some perfectly randomly selected mass/energy of 5GeV, then analyze mostly meaningless data and then proclaim low and behold: CERN detected it!

Last edited by Lou on 11-May-2012 at 05:33 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 11-May-2012 at 05:31 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 11-May-2012 at 05:30 PM.

@Lou
Quote:

Let's not stop there! Let's invent a new particle to be the carrier of that force! We'll call it the cincon™ particle! We can then predict it to have some perfectly randomly selected mass/energy of 5GeV, then analyze mostly meaningless data and then proclaim low and behold: CERN detected it!

Do you not understand they postulated a option then conducted an experiment to evidence the accuracy of the prediction. Turned out the predicted result was so different from reality that they are discarding that option.

And this is the way science works. People have ideas which are compared to reality. When things don't match they don't blame reality. Though I would note you appear to blame reality in order to keep Haramein's failed postulates as truth. Kinda sad there sport.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Quote: Let's not stop there! Let's invent a new particle to be the carrier of that force! We'll call it the cincon™ particle! We can then predict it to have some perfectly randomly selected mass/energy of 5GeV, then analyze mostly meaningless data and then proclaim low and behold: CERN detected it! Do you not understand they postulated a option then conducted an experiment to evidence the accuracy of the prediction. Turned out the predicted result was so different from reality that they are discarding that option. And this is the way science works. People have ideas which are compared to reality. When things don't match they don't blame reality. Though I would note you appear to blame reality in order to keep Haramein's failed postulates as truth. Kinda sad there sport.

Eh...my humor was lost on you. What I wrote could just as easily apply to the "gluon"... I don't believe in particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_wave

@Lou

Blamed on Aliens the Tunuska blast has some new studies around it. The next step is to look deeper in the swamp for evidence. It'll be nice to find materials to see if they really are alien or just another meterior.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Lou Blamed on Aliens the Tunuska blast has some new studies around it. The next step is to look deeper in the swamp for evidence. It'll be nice to find materials to see if they really are alien or just another meterior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiU8VtfhI9Q