The Bishop Challenge

  • 376 Replies
  • 20130 Views
*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #210 on: January 07, 2020, 11:15:15 AM »
It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact
If you want to use 384,000km People should at least attach a +/- 21296km to reflect the moon distances at its perigee and apogee. Agree?

Whenever you get called out for being a pedantic ignoramus, you retreat back to established knowledge and act defensive.  You're such a troll.

No. Because when you dont qualify the number, the answer you give is a guess at the time of your writing.

No one for instance will say it is 400,000km away or 399,999km away. The numbers provided are either the furthest established km, or the closest, or the 'average' but the average is never qualified with the +/-. At least, it was not in this thread

At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.

Don't tell me the moon is 384,000km away when you dont know that it is at the time you say it. Don't be lazy. Get a laser, get the info and tell me if you really want to preach it

A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #211 on: January 07, 2020, 11:24:53 AM »
It seems no figure can be decided on. Sometimes they say it's 363,104km and other times 405,696 km. So all we are really given is a guess. Guesses aren't fact
If you want to use 384,000km People should at least attach a +/- 21296km to reflect the moon distances at its perigee and apogee. Agree?

Whenever you get called out for being a pedantic ignoramus, you retreat back to established knowledge and act defensive.  You're such a troll.

No. Because when you dont qualify the number, the answer you give is a guess at the time of your writing.

No one for instance will say it is 400,000km away or 399,999km away. The numbers provided are either the furthest established km, or the closest, or the 'average' but the average is never qualified with the +/-. At least, it was not in this thread

At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.

Don't tell me the moon is 384,000km away when you dont know that it is at the time you say it. Don't be lazy. Get a laser, get the info and tell me if you really want to preach it
We know the distance changes due to the movement of the earth and the moon, what's your issue?

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #212 on: January 07, 2020, 11:49:05 AM »
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is to ease communication for the sake of the readers.

You know how in Star Trek when a Vulcan would cite some value to ridiculous precision, and the other characters would roll their eyes, and the audience at home would chuckle?  Do you know what was going on in that interaction?

Then again, maybe you're right, maybe I am being too hard on you.  I should be more respectful towards your autism.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #213 on: January 07, 2020, 12:15:14 PM »
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is to ease communication for the sake of the readers.

You know how in Star Trek when a Vulcan would cite some value to ridiculous precision, and the other characters would roll their eyes, and the audience at home would chuckle?  Do you know what was going on in that interaction?

Then again, maybe you're right, maybe I am being too hard on you.  I should be more respectful towards your autism.

Keep in mind I'm the guy that requests people recite pi to 62 decimal places because that's the minimum you need to get accuracy to within a Planck length in an area the size of the observable universe  8)
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

*

Timeisup

  • 1502
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #214 on: January 07, 2020, 01:00:25 PM »
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is a guess at the time of their writing.
At any time people say a km without qualifying it, it is to ease communication for the sake of the readers.

You know how in Star Trek when a Vulcan would cite some value to ridiculous precision, and the other characters would roll their eyes, and the audience at home would chuckle?  Do you know what was going on in that interaction?

Then again, maybe you're right, maybe I am being too hard on you.  I should be more respectful towards your autism.

Keep in mind I'm the guy that requests people recite pi to 62 decimal places because that's the minimum you need to get accuracy to within a Planck length in an area the size of the observable universe  8)

It appears odd that you demand needless accuracy on the distance of the moon when the argument is if its near, and you will have to ask John Davis the man with the tape exactly how near, or if it's much farther in the region of 384,000 km.  It also strikes me as odd that you demand such accuracy when you yourself are vague in so many things. Its the type of argument that a small child would use, pi tp 62 places, that's just plain ridiculous. I spent a career in 'measuring' and at no time did I ever come across a request for anywhere close to such accuracy. The real world does not operate in that way, but possibly you don't live in the real world. Have you any idea of the implications if everyone demanded such accuracy? How far do you think the moon is by the way? the nearest 1000Km would suffice!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #215 on: January 07, 2020, 01:03:38 PM »
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Who cares? Only fuss-pots like you looking to create arguments.

*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #216 on: January 07, 2020, 01:05:59 PM »
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Who cares? Only fuss-pots like you looking to create arguments.

Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded. Only small minded people like yourself are happy living in ignorant bliss. I guess that's why it's bliss
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #217 on: January 07, 2020, 01:11:55 PM »
Keep in mind I'm the guy fusspot (FTFY) that requests people recite pi to 62 decimal places because that's the minimum you need to get accuracy to within a Planck length in an area the size of the observable universe   >:D
And who cares about that accuracy when nobody would claim to know what you even mean by "an area the size of the observable universe"?
Do you want volume, area, length or what?

This is the "Debate" forum. How about posting something meaningful instead of useless time-wasting crap?


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #218 on: January 07, 2020, 01:14:12 PM »
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #219 on: January 07, 2020, 01:15:26 PM »
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #220 on: January 07, 2020, 01:37:04 PM »
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Only to the amount needed for the particular event.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #221 on: January 07, 2020, 01:39:12 PM »
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Unnecessary accuracy just in numbers is a total waste of time.
What is the point of writing down something to 62 decimal places when the measurement has never been determined to better than 5 decimal places?

For example the best value of the Universal Gravitational Constant, G,
            is currently 6.67430 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
            but the uncertaincy is 0.00015 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2.
Writing G down to 62 decimal places would be a useless waste of time and computer resources.

The distance to the moon could be measured by laser at a given time to very high accuracy but as the distance varies with time that information is useful only to astronomers improving their understanding of the motion of the moon and what affects it.

There is no point in you or I bothering about it to that accuracy.
I might be able to say that the moon is now 382,173 km from here, about 382,113 km from Canberra but tomorrow it might be 376,951 km away from here.

So, for ordinary people like you and I, who cares?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2020, 02:39:08 PM by rabinoz »

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #222 on: January 07, 2020, 01:39:55 PM »
That link is not helpful. It doesn't tell me the distance to the km right this second.
Either find someone you can buddy up with to measure the parallax and calculate it right this second, or go perform a ranging experiment right this second.

If you want to use 384,000km People should at least attach a +/- 21296km to reflect the moon distances at its perigee and apogee. Agree?
No. The majority of that error is meaningless.

Who really cares if it is 21296 or 21300?
If you are going to do that at least round the error appropriately.

I assume every moment I am not staring at the moon, it loses its inertia and begins an immediate plummet towards Hyrule.  But I know a guy.  He fixes it up every three days or so.
I assume by Hyrule you mean Termina?
But don't worry, it can still happen even when you are looking at it.

Thank the Giants.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #223 on: January 07, 2020, 02:27:45 PM »
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Who cares? Only fuss-pots like you looking to create arguments.

Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded. Only small minded people like yourself are happy living in ignorant bliss. I guess that's why it's bliss
Precise distance to the Moon at the moment is not needed, if launching a probe to the moon, it is not where it is now, but  at launch and  where it will be when my probe gets there. Note there's a large margin for error, due to lunch delays, etc.

P.s. it is not even night know where I am.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

Timeisup

  • 1502
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #224 on: January 07, 2020, 02:40:18 PM »
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.

Not true....accuracy is dependent on circumstances, need and of course cost. Every decimal point you add to the tolerances or accuracy of a manufactured component the difficulty of both manufacture and the cost go up very steeply indeed. Unless you are or have been involved in ‘measuring’ few people have any real idea of what’s involved and the implications. So to answer your question, accuracy can be a good idea if the requirements for it are justified. The other problem with accuracy is defining exactly what you mean by it. The language used has to be commensurate with the accuracy  demanded, in that you have to clearly define what exactly you mean by accurate.

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #225 on: January 07, 2020, 05:17:43 PM »
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Unnecessary accuracy just in numbers is a total waste of time.
What is the point of writing down something to 62 decimal places when the measurement has never been determined to better than 5 decimal places?
You guys mean precision, not accuracy.


Oh no, now I am the autistic pedant!  :-[
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #226 on: January 07, 2020, 05:23:55 PM »
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Unnecessary accuracy just in numbers is a total waste of time.
What is the point of writing down something to 62 decimal places when the measurement has never been determined to better than 5 decimal places?
You guys mean precision, not accuracy.

Oh no, now I am the autistic pedant!  :-[
Yes. But possibly not autistic.

But one has to use words Shifter understands ::).

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40844
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #227 on: January 07, 2020, 06:21:29 PM »
Are you happy to assume the moon is 'roughly' 384,000km all the time? Aren't you the least bit curious to what the real distance is every time you look at it?
Not really.  Are you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40844
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #228 on: January 07, 2020, 06:27:12 PM »
blah blah yadda yadda

Can you look outside and tell me right now what the distance to the moon is in km? Or will you just use some average? You could be many thousands of km off. That matters when you are trying to spout facts
Who cares? Only fuss-pots like you looking to create arguments.
That's known as trolling.  Guess who took the bait.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #229 on: January 07, 2020, 06:29:26 PM »
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.

Wrong.  This is called false precision, and it's most definitely bad practice.  At best it's unnecessary, at worst misleading.  Do this at university in a technical degree and expect to lose marks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision

*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #230 on: January 08, 2020, 12:41:39 AM »
Arguments and debates is how knowledge is formed and understanding expanded.
Sure, but when those arguments are your useless 62 decimal places rubbish they are simply time-wasters and you know it!

Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.

Wrong.  This is called false precision, and it's most definitely bad practice.  At best it's unnecessary, at worst misleading.  Do this at university in a technical degree and expect to lose marks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_precision

You would lose marks because it's not in the syllabus and would require the professor or teacher to actually have to think. I've worked at a university with a professor. They are not what they are cracked up to be. After my nearly 15 years at that joint I lost a lot of faith in the scientific process

Cherry picking of data, changing the conditions and controls mid experiment. Changing the dose of drugs to experimental mice because "Oh shit they keep dying from internal bleeds". It's all BS.

The 'professor' spent the entire year preparing for grant funding. And the only way you get the money is through pretty looking results. And the only way our lab could do it was by fudging everything. When a drug is made by a company listed on a stock market, they dont want it to look bad

They even put a number to the drug. 88. Why 88 you ask? Because 8 is a lucky number in Chinese and they hoped to attract Chinese investors or some other garbage.
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #231 on: January 08, 2020, 12:46:52 AM »
You would lose marks because it's not in the syllabus and would require the professor or teacher to actually have to think.
No, you lose marks specifically because the syllabus includes precision and accuracy as part of it, and because the instructor is trying to have you think.

By including more significant figures than you actually have, you are making numbers up.

I've worked at a university
And I'm sure as a cleaner you saw all sorts of stuff.

*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #232 on: January 08, 2020, 12:50:59 AM »
You would lose marks because it's not in the syllabus and would require the professor or teacher to actually have to think.
No, you lose marks specifically because the syllabus includes precision and accuracy as part of it, and because the instructor is trying to have you think.

By including more significant figures than you actually have, you are making numbers up.

I've worked at a university
And I'm sure as a cleaner you saw all sorts of stuff.

I was not a 'cleaner'. I was an animal/laboratory technician dumbo. I guess cleaning was involved (mice dont clean and autoclave the cages themselves) but not in the way you insinuate. I also injected the mice with the drugs, kept the records, plotted the data (only to find many plot points disappear as the professor decided they were outliers or changed the conditions post experiment) and managed the ordering and maintenance of laboratory equipment.
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #233 on: January 08, 2020, 12:53:56 AM »
By including more significant figures than you actually have, you are making numbers up.

Here is pi to 62 places after the decimal point
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459

Which number(s) is 'made up'?

or are you talking nonsense again!
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #234 on: January 08, 2020, 02:40:21 AM »
I was not a 'cleaner'. I was an animal/laboratory technician dumbo.
Sure you were...

Here is pi to 62 places after the decimal point
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510582097494459

Which number(s) is 'made up'?

or are you talking nonsense again!
And good job ignoring the point, yet again, all so you can boost your ego, just like pretending you worked at a uni.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #235 on: January 08, 2020, 02:43:48 AM »
I also injected the mice with the drugs,
And I assume that you measured you injected dose with a precision of 62 decimal places. If not, why not?

Quote from: Shifter
kept the records, plotted the data.
You did, of course, keep "the records" and "plotted the data" with 62 decimal places ;D.
Remember, someone who claims to know everything said:
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOU 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?
 

*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #236 on: January 08, 2020, 02:59:20 AM »
I also injected the mice with the drugs,
And I assume that you measured you injected dose with a precision of 62 decimal places. If not, why not?

Quote from: Shifter
kept the records, plotted the data.
You did, of course, keep "the records" and "plotted the data" with 62 decimal places ;D.
Remember, someone who claims to know everything said:
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOU 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?

My '62 decimal point' standard applies to pi. I see no reason not to calculate that given our working usable universe is 93 billion light years across. It is enough that we end there.

I gave the dose I was instructed to. To be frank, I didn't care after a while. I knew it was all BS and that they would change it later anyway. Honestly working in medical research really disenfranchised me to the field

Any wonder why you see on the news (and my boss made it on the news more than once) a 'miracle' sounding new therapy has just been discovered and is going to proceed to clinical trials. But you never hear about it again. It's because you cant fake this shit in higher stage clinical trials. And it obviously suggests that the experimental work and research leading up to the clinical trial stage was littered in bullshit

A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #237 on: January 08, 2020, 03:14:02 AM »
I also injected the mice with the drugs,
And I assume that you measured you injected dose with a precision of 62 decimal places. If not, why not?

Quote from: Shifter
kept the records, plotted the data.
You did, of course, keep "the records" and "plotted the data" with 62 decimal places ;D.

My '62 decimal point' standard applies to pi. I see no reason not to calculate that given our working usable universe is 93 billion light years across. It is enough that we end there.
In other words all your "'62 decimal point' standard" is useless crap because there is no way to "measure" the size of the observant Universal to 2 decimal places let alone 62.
Now what about this?

Remember, someone who claims to know everything said:
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Quote from: rabinoz
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOUR 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?

*

Shifter

  • 16364
  • Blind to the truth
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #238 on: January 08, 2020, 03:23:06 AM »
Remember, someone who claims to know everything said:
Accuracy is never a waste of time. It is good practice.
Quote from: rabinoz
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOUR 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?

There is no accuracy there. But unlike you, they are working on it. You believe you're already there

If I need to measure the distance to a fuel station I dont need to know the kilometres to 62 decimal places. Also, it wouldn;t make a lot of sense to use 62 decimal places for every unit of measure. 62 places for kilometres, 62 places for metres? 62 places for nano metres? You get the point

But for pi, nothing wrong with 62 decimal places

By all means, send your rocket ship to Pluto using 3.14. Don't come crying to me when things go awry for the inaccuracy

Use 2 decimal places to measure the circumference of a circle you just drew on your desk for all I care. Just dont tell me that answer is 'precise'. It has error.

Because if you say 3.14, you are essentially using pi but changing the calculation to 3.14000000000.....00000 etc. And that is wrong.

How many here give shit to Danang for his take on pi? It's wrong but so is 3.14000000000.....00000
A Future Is Not Given To You. It Is Something You Must Take For Yourself

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Bishop Challenge
« Reply #239 on: January 08, 2020, 05:03:26 AM »
But while we're talking about "accuracy" what about holding flat-Earthers to YOUR 62 decimal place standard? 
When it comes to the height of the Sun above the flat-Earth:
     Sandokhan claims 12, 15 or 20 km,
     Rowbotham claims "not more than 700 statute miles",
     most flat-Earthers seem to claim about 3000 miles
     but I believe that Tom Bishop has suggested it may 6100 miles above the Earth.
Where is their accuracy now?

There is no accuracy there. But unlike you, they are working on it.
[/quote]
Really, where are they "working on it"?

I dare you to even try to convince Sandokhan that he's wrong about anything.