
Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
34 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Stile, vimesey (4 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,010 Year: 22,046/19,786 Month: 609/1,834 Week: 109/500 Day: 6/61 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 569 (648286)
01-14-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by herebedragons
01-14-2012 7:59 AM


Re: Helpful Side Note
Hi Herebedragons. If you hit the bracket key instead of the parenthesis key, your message link will work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by herebedragons, posted 01-14-2012 7:59 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Admin, posted 01-14-2012 9:06 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 257 of 569 (648290)
01-14-2012 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Coyote
01-13-2012 10:30 PM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
Hi Coyote

Post of the day
Post of the week
Post of the month

with a toggle filter such that you could not pick more than 1 a day for best of day, 1 a week for best of week and 1 a month for best of month?

fun filter coding

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2012 10:30 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 258 of 569 (648292)
01-14-2012 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by RAZD
01-13-2012 10:15 PM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
Zen Deist writes:

Another kick that may be cool but difficult to implement would be a highlight and "like" the highlighted quote, then when the "well written" button is hovered it would either pop out the section or highlight it.

Yeah, neat idea, and probably not too difficult as long as it's okay if it ignores subsequent edits to the original message. There will be improvements to the rating system over time, but I'm working on something else right now.

Edited by Admin, : Remove sig.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2012 10:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 259 of 569 (648293)
01-14-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Coyote
01-13-2012 10:30 PM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
Coyote writes:

I suggested long ago three ratings:

Post of the day
Post of the week
Post of the month

That way there are no negative ratings, just good, better and best.

The suggestion was ignored of course...

About the post of the day/week/month, that's exactly my intention, and also year and decade. No schedule at this time.

About the "no negative ratings", removing that can be done in an instant through the control panel, but it would make detecting problems more difficult since if I make a change that broke negative ratings I might not find it. Sorry.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2012 10:30 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 260 of 569 (648294)
01-14-2012 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Buzsaw
01-14-2012 8:18 AM


Re: Helpful Side Note
Buzsaw writes:

Hi Herebedragons. If you hit the bracket key instead of the parenthesis key, your message link will work.

Actually it will end up referring to the wrong message. What he wants to say is [msg=252], not [mid=252]. [msg] takes the message number, while [mid] takes the message ID, which is the gray number at the top of the message next to "Message x of y"..

Message numbers are unique in a thread and are assigned in sequence beginning at 1 at the beginning of the thread. Once assigned message numbers do not change. This means that deleting message 10 doesn't cause message 11 to become message 10. Message 11 will always be message 11, no matter how many earlier messages are deleted.

Message IDs are unique across the whole forum, beginning at 1 and extending into the six hundred thousands.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2012 8:18 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2012 3:32 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20326
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 261 of 569 (648301)
01-14-2012 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by herebedragons
01-14-2012 7:59 AM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
Hi again herebedragons

I was just kinda thinking that it would be nice to look at a members rating and have an idea of whether it would be worthwhile to enter into a debate with them or not; rather than whether they are creationist or evolutionist.

Yeah, that is kind of the crux of the matter, and it depends on how objective people are rather than on how subjective\emotional they are.

I wonder if there would be some way to set it up with a grid

pro con
good good
pro
good
con
bad bad
pro
bad
con

OR, with radio buttons

I Agree with this position and rate this a goodbad argument
I Disagree with this position and rate this a goodbad argument
(Default no rating)

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by herebedragons, posted 01-14-2012 7:59 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 569 (648312)
01-14-2012 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by herebedragons
01-14-2012 7:59 AM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
I am sure that's true. I was just kinda thinking that it would be nice to look at a members rating and have an idea of whether it would be worthwhile to enter into a debate with them or not; rather than whether they are creationist or evolutionist.

In theory there can be a huge discrepancy for creationists between their ratings and their ability to engage in an evidence based debate because people do tend to cheer posts that support their own position. For example, I saw a recent poster receive a jeer merely for pointing out that following three of the four links provided by a creationist produced 404 messages.

But in fact, I don't believe there are very many anomalies in creationist ratings. For the most part, they do reflect, for creationists, the relative strength and character of their arguments compared to other creationists.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by herebedragons, posted 01-14-2012 7:59 AM herebedragons has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by hooah212002, posted 01-14-2012 12:35 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 161 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(3)
Message 263 of 569 (648314)
01-14-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by NoNukes
01-14-2012 12:30 PM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
I think it says more about this board in particular. Yes, we need creationist members. However, the nature of EvC is that of "back up your claim with tangible evidence or GTFO" and that tends to favor the science side because let's face it: creationists simply lack ANY evidence. I think we would see more "equal" ratings if we just allowed creationist members free range to post whatever BS they wanted.

For example: the one creationist poster who did the whale evolution thread (I think). Didn't he have a 10 for some time? He didn't stick around, but what he did post was honest, to the point and had evidence. It wasn't just a bunch of PRATTs. He seemed like he wanted to learn. We could use more like that.


“Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion.” Joseph Campbell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by NoNukes, posted 01-14-2012 12:30 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2012 3:20 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 569 (648326)
01-14-2012 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by hooah212002
01-14-2012 12:35 PM


Re: Member Ratings. what about comment rating?
hooah writes:

I think we would see more "equal" ratings if we just allowed creationist members free range to post whatever BS they wanted.

What's good for the gander is good for the goose. What is regarded a BS to evolutionists will always be regarded as such to the majority of evolutionists on this highly biased cite.

BS fertilizes and BS contaminates, depending on the grounds upon which it is spread.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by hooah212002, posted 01-14-2012 12:35 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 569 (648328)
01-14-2012 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Admin
01-14-2012 9:06 AM


Re: Helpful Side Note
Actually it will end up referring to the wrong message. What he wants to say is Message 252, not Message 1. [msg] takes the message number, while Message 1 takes the message ID, which is the gray number at the top of the message next to "Message x of y"..

Message numbers are unique in a thread and are assigned in sequence beginning at 1 at the beginning of the thread. Once assigned message numbers do not change. This means that deleting message 10 doesn't cause message 11 to become message 10. Message 11 will always be message 11, no matter how many earlier messages are deleted.

Message IDs are unique across the whole forum, beginning at 1 and extending into the six hundred thousands.

Thanks, Admin. I'm a slow but avid learner, ever searching out what is true, useful and advantageous, ever learning and never having arrived to the un-achievable goal of perfection.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Admin, posted 01-14-2012 9:06 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 266 of 569 (655128)
03-07-2012 5:00 PM


proving setterfield wrong?
I was reading about that on another thread and saw someone say that the constancy of the quasar period proves setterfields speed of light theories wrong. Can someone point me to an article on the web where this was done?

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 03-07-2012 5:34 PM foreveryoung has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8207
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 267 of 569 (655131)
03-07-2012 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by foreveryoung
03-07-2012 5:00 PM


Re: proving setterfield wrong?
I was reading about that on another thread and saw someone say that the constancy of the quasar period proves setterfields speed of light theories wrong. Can someone point me to an article on the web where this was done?

This paper has several refutations of Setterfield's c-decay theory, including the discussion on pulsars:

http://homepage.mac.com/...1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison2.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by foreveryoung, posted 03-07-2012 5:00 PM foreveryoung has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 12:59 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 268 of 569 (655155)
03-08-2012 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Taq
03-07-2012 5:34 PM


Re: proving setterfield wrong?
Here is a quote from that paper:

Pulsar rotation periods are extremely stable and precise, and for this reason have been extensively studied by astronomers. Periods of over 1,700 pulsars are available for download and study on the website of the Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF).82 Figure 14 shows the complete set of pulsar data available from the ATNF. As the figure shows, we have data on many pulsars out to 50,000 light years, and a few even out to 180,000 light years. The Setterfield model predicts a slowing-down effect for these periods, with a maximum effect of 180,000/8,000 = 22.5. Do we see such an effect in the period vs. distance data?
There doesn’t seem to be any upward trend with increasing distance in Figure 14, but the scatter in the plotted data makes it difficult to see whether there is any trend at all. Therefore, in Figure 15 we display a moving average (with a moving interval of 100 points). It’s clear that the average pulsar period is constant at about 0.75 over the entire distance range. Figure 15 also shows the prediction that follows from the minimum Setterfield slowing-down effect, as a function of distance. The disagreement is obvious.

I think jellison doesn't understand setterfield's hypothesis very well. How does he come to the conclusion that "Setterfield model predicts a slowing-down effect for these periods, with a maximum effect of 180,000/8,000 = 22.5. "?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Taq, posted 03-07-2012 5:34 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by PaulK, posted 03-08-2012 1:11 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15640
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 269 of 569 (655156)
03-08-2012 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by foreveryoung
03-08-2012 12:59 AM


Re: proving setterfield wrong?
The slowing-down effect is a consequence of changing light speed, as explained in the paper (in section 2.2 entitled "The Slowing Down Effect").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 12:59 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 85 days)
Posts: 920
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 270 of 569 (655157)
03-08-2012 1:20 AM


Here is setterfield's response to the notion that constancy of pulsar periods is in contradiction to his model:

Setterfield: Thanks for your question about pulsars. There are several aspects to this. First of all, pulsars are not all that distant, the furthest that we can detect are in small satellite galaxies of our own Milky Way system. Second, because the curve of lightspeed is very flat at those distances compared with the very steep climb closer to the origin, the change in lightspeed is small. This means that any pulsar slowdown rate originating with the changing speed of light is also small. The third point is that the mechanism that produces the pulses is in dispute as some theories link the pulses with magnetic effects separate from the star itself, so that the spin rate of the host star may not be involved. Until this mechanism is finally determined, the final word about the pulses and the effects of lightspeed cannot be given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Admin, posted 03-08-2012 8:48 AM foreveryoung has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=648328
www.evcforum.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-51
189047
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:LVCXFNDI765CMKPQR2F3UMBJUXYXQWLH
<urn:uuid:e8e87b6d-0e3a-4633-b094-e549b3d131b0>
2019-12-10T13:32:24Z
66.148.117.70
text/html
sha1:2OZDX5ZTCAMDMQNEJB3X6L5WGWDGPBZC
<urn:uuid:fa8c96b9-77bb-4f2d-8e0f-2ec32c996f42>
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=648328
response
<urn:uuid:5b2d9082-1687-4ba5-9669-35bf6683da61>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-51
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for December 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-80.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/