|
Author
|
Topic: Hubble Constant (H0) fixed to light speed c and calculated as 71 km/s/Mpc
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10563 Joined: 03-06-2009
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
David Hine writes: The question you must ask is, if my maths is wrong, how do I get the right answers for the 2 equations? You don't get the right answer. 2 * 3.086E19 km * 300,000 km/s* Pi 21 = 5.101E35 km 2/s
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 403 by David Hine, posted 11-04-2025 5:40 AM | | David Hine has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 408 by dwise1, posted 11-04-2025 4:59 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6488 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.4
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
Are you claiming that I got something wrong? OK, so prove it! Unlike you, I presented my math and my calculations and showed every step of my calculations. It should therefore be very simple for you to point out where you think I had gone wrong. Go ahead, show us where I had gone wrong! And it's not like I'm trying to rush you or anything, since YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE WEEK TO DO IT! Go ahead. Please, please, please! Oh, and at the same time, explain to us why YOUR math is right. Though that would just be icing on the cake -- we would be thrilled with just the first part of the challenge: show us where my math is wrong. From Message 402, here's my math again (anticipating that you will refuse to go back and refer to it on your own -- sorry, but trying to deal with creationists has left me very pessimistic when dealing with willfully stupid assholes):
dwise1 writes in Message 402: So, let's resolve this issue that you've been evading for over a month now. A large part of the problem is that both sides (ie, you versus the entire world) are using different mathematics. You see, WE are using actual mathematics; ie, "the real thing" that actual works and that the world uses effectively to real-world problems. In contrast to that, YOU are using something that you had concocted yourself which nobody uses except for yourself and which has not been demonstrated to be functional and which has given you nonsensical results. The difference is most apparent in how your novelty math mishandles units. In real math, units are handled like variables subject to the identities of algebra:
Algebraic Identities:
a × 1 = a
a/a = 1
a × a = a2
But in your pretend math ... who the fuck knows how it handles units! Nothing you've posted has made any sense, though you have allowed some intel slip out (whether through COMSEC or OPSEC violations); to wit:
David Hine writes in Message 97: Multiply 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 25 chickens. Divide 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 1 chicken. From that we can derive what YOU think the identities should be:
Hine's Crazy Identities:
a × a = a -- from your Multiply 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 25 chickens
a/a = a -- from your Divide 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 1 chicken.
Insanity! And we know that your Message 97 was not a typo, because you have stood by that nonsense and doubled down on the insanity. That's why we keep asking you to show your work with units, because everything you've presented so far reeks of innumeracy (mathematical illiteracy). So then let's walk through the math together, contrasting real math with your own pretend math. Let's use a simple example, the rate-time-distance formula ( rt = d ) which also applies to many problems not involving distance. Its importance here is that it provides very good examples for handling calculations with units, the very grist of this albeit-one-sided discussion. It's also the basic problem that many here have tried to walk you through for your edification; the most recent being:
Taq writes in Message 401: If you are ever able to, let's see if you can solve this very simple calculation. Two vehicles are moving away from each other at a constant 100 mph. They are 500 miles apart. How long ago were they together? Show your work. For course you won't solve that problem. You won't even try. Why not? Obviously because you are incapable of it. You can't do the math, and you have to do everything you can to hide that fact from us. Too late, we already see through your subterfuge. . . . So then, let's address that problem that you are so afraid of. First, here are the three ways of solving the rate-time-distance formula for each of the three variables:
Rate-Time-Distance Formulae:
Solve for distance: d = rt, "distance equals rate times time", "dist/time × time = dist" Solve for time: t = d/r, "time equals distance divided by rate", "dist / (dist/time) = time" Solve for rate: r = d/t, "rate equals distance divided by time", "dist / time = dist/time"
Now let's evaluate each of them paying particular attention to how we handle the units.
quote:
Solve for distance: d = rt, "distance equals rate times time", "dist/time × time = dist" As per OUR math:
Evaluate 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours = 60×1.5 (mi/hr)(hr) → 90 (mi)(hr/hr)
hours cancel out (hr/hr = 1) -- as per the identity: a/a = 1
∴ 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours evaluates to 90 miles
QED
As per YOUR math:
Evaluate 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours = 60×1.5 (mi/hr)(hr) → 90 (mi)(hr/hr)
hours get messed up (hr/hr = hr) -- as per YOUR identity: a/a = a
90 (mi)(hr/hr) → 90 (mi)(hr)
∴ in your special private universe, 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours evaluates to 90 mile-hours
FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition)
Distance is supposed to be in units of distance, like MILES. Just what the fuck are YOUR MILE-HOURS supposed to mean?
David Hine writes in Message 138: Just follow my instructions, and you will get you maths correct, with the right answers. Simples. We just used your "maths" and got nonsense results. Your assertion is demonstrably false. Idiot!
Our mathematics works, whereas YOUR alternative mathematics does NOT work and isn't worth spit. But for the sake of completeness let's also go over what YOUR MATH does to solving for each of the other two variables.
quote:
Solve for time: t = d/r, "time equals distance divided by rate", "dist / (dist/time) = time" As per OUR math:
Evaluate (90 mi)/(60 mi/hr) = (90/60) (mi × 1/(mi/hr)) → 1.5 (mi × hr/mi) → 1.5 (hr × mi/mi)
miles cancel out (mi/mi = 1) -- as per the identity: a/a = 1
∴ (90 mi)/(60 mi/hr) evaluates to 1.5 HOURS
QED
As per YOUR math:
Evaluate (90 mi)/(60 mi/hr) = (90/60) (mi × 1/(mi/hr) → 1.5 (mi × hr/mi) → 1.5 (hr × mi/mi)
miles get messed up (mi/mi = mi) -- as per YOUR identity: a/a = a
1.5 (hr)(mi/mi) → 90 (hr)(mi)
∴ in your special private universe, (90 mi)/(60 mi/hr) evaluates to 1.5 MILE-HOURS
FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition)
Again with the MILE-HOURS! Time is supposed to be in units of TIME, like HOURS. Just what the fuck are YOUR MILE-HOURS supposed to mean?
And ...
quote:
Solve for rate: r = d/t, "rate equals distance divided by time", "dist / time = dist/time" As per OUR math:
Evaluate (90 mi)/(1.5 hr) = (90/1.5) mi/hr → 60 mi/hr
No units to cancel out; this is the final result (mi/hr)
∴ (90 mi)/(1.5 hr) evaluates to 60 miles per hour
QED
As per YOUR math:
Evaluate (90 mi)/(1.5 hr) = (90/1.5) mi/hr → 60 mi/hr
None of your identities are applicable; this is the final result (mi/hr)
∴ (90 mi)/(1.5 hr) evaluates to 60 miles per hour
QED
In this one case, your math does not foul everything up beyond all recognition. But that only reason it doesn't is that the calculations are protected from your fouled-up math because its fouled-up identities are not applicable. Had your identities been applicable, the results would yet again be FUBAR.
We have considered your "maths" and found them to be terminally defective. As in the current vernacular, Your "math" does not math; ie, it does not work. And the Gold Standard for an engineer is whether something works! If you still think that you're right, THEN PROVE IT! SHOW US! As I have just shown you that your "maths" is fouled up beyond all recognition ( FUBAR). Over. There it is. Show us where OUR math is wrong but yours is supposedly right.
SHOW US!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 403 by David Hine, posted 11-04-2025 5:40 AM | | David Hine has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6488 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
Message 408 of 438 (924343)
11-04-2025 4:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 406 by Taq
11-04-2025 11:57 AM
|
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
2 * 3.086E19 km * 300,000 km/s* Pi21 = 5.101E35 km2/s So the result is the rate at which the area is expanding per unit time. Like the area of an expanding wavefront. Isn't expansion what Hine is arguing against? And yet his own "equation" describes a rate of expansion. Looks like he's disproven his own assertion. Classic!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 406 by Taq, posted 11-04-2025 11:57 AM | | Taq has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 409 by Taq, posted 11-05-2025 12:41 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10563 Joined: 03-06-2009
|
|
|
Message 409 of 438 (924349)
11-05-2025 12:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 408 by dwise1
11-04-2025 4:59 PM
|
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
dwise writes: Isn't expansion what Hine is arguing against? And yet his own "equation" describes a rate of expansion. That's the most amusing irony in this whole thread. Someone is claiming the universe isn't expanding and yet argues that their calculations result in an expansion rate. Mr. Hine's math should result in a Hubble constant of 0 km/s/Mpc if his claims are actually true. The fact that he thinks (k) is a measure of distance is also hilarious.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 408 by dwise1, posted 11-04-2025 4:59 PM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
David Hine 
Suspended Member Posts: 177 From: United Kingdom Joined: 09-30-2025
|
|
|
Message 410 of 438 (924368)
11-11-2025 4:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 409 by Taq
11-05-2025 12:41 PM
|
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
The Universe was Created large, and the Ho = 2MC/Pi^21 equation says the large universe is further expanding at the constant rate of 71 k/s/Mpc, probably to prevent Olber's Paradox that would destroy a static universe..
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 409 by Taq, posted 11-05-2025 12:41 PM | | Taq has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 411 by Tangle, posted 11-11-2025 6:44 PM | | David Hine has not replied | | | Message 412 by dwise1, posted 11-11-2025 7:57 PM | | David Hine has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9889 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.5
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
You're supposed to be good at sums. If you've been banned for one day, then 2 days then 3 days, then 7 days for not answering the question asked. Can you calculate how long your next ban will be? Unless, of course, you answer the question. Highly recommended.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 410 by David Hine, posted 11-11-2025 4:11 PM | | David Hine has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6488 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.4
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
Taq writes in Message 409: The fact that [Hine] thinks (k) is a measure of distance is also hilarious.  The irony! Though of course you are apparently too dumb to understand irony.
WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR k SUPPOSED TO BE? That is just one of many questions that we have asked you AND WHICH YOU HAVE RUN AWAY FROM EVERY TIME! In order to avoid inviting yet another suspension, you need to start answering questions. Try starting with this one, since it should be the easiest one for you to answer. Though somehow I suspect that even this one is beyond your abilities. Your terror of that simple question is yet more evidence of your complete incompetence with mathematics. Another question that you have been avoiding for over a month now (from 06-Oct-2025) is:
Percy writes in Message 129: David Hine writes in Message 114: Equation 2:- oneMpc x C, divided by Ho and then divided by one billion gives you 13.78 BLY's distance only, not years. This is incorrect. This is your equation 2 represented in standard notation and using a value of 69.8 (km/s)/Mpc for H 0:
You have both a value and a units problem. Numerically the left hand side equals 4.57*10^7 and the units are light-years 2, which is area. Rewriting your equation so that the right hand side has the proper value and the equivalent units for equality:
Which is nonsense, not to mention that the 10 9 is just pulled from the air. By the way, the Hubble constant is not "Ho", i.e., it is not the letter "H" followed by the letter "o". The Hubble constant is "H 0", that is, the letter "H" followed by the zero subscript. Subscripts can be inconvenient to enter, so "H0" is an acceptable alternative, but not "Ho". Note that it was corrected from "Ho" to "H 0" in the title of this thread. --Percy Nor is Percy alone, since several of us who have tried to examine your empty claims have found mathematical errors, especially errors in how you mishandle units. You need to at least try to give Percy and them a proper reply instead of just running away from your errors. And after having accused me of making errors in my math (your Message 403 "replying" to my Message 402), you are still avoiding showing what those "errors" are, DESPITE MY HAVING SHOWN ALL MY WORK, something that you absolutely refuse to do with YOUR OWN "work". At the core of your inability to comprehend units is your:
David Hine writes in Message 97: Multiply 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 25 chickens. Divide 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 1 chicken. That you are using some "alternative maths" (is that like MAGAts' "alternative facts"?) is evidenced by:
David Hine writes in Message 138: Just follow my instructions, and you will get you maths correct, with the right answers. Simples. So since you have chided us for using normal math instead of YOUR SPECIAL MATH (even to the point of insisting that if we did it your way then we'd get your results), in my Message 402 I used that statement to reconstruct your special math, or at least some of its identities:
dwise1 writes in Message 402: From that we can derive what YOU think the identities should be:
Hine's Crazy Identities:
a × a = a -- from your Multiply 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 25 chickens
a/a = a -- from your Divide 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 1 chicken.
Insanity! And we know that your Message 97 was not a typo, because you have stood by that nonsense and doubled down on the insanity. That's why we keep asking you to show your work with units, because everything you've presented so far reeks of innumeracy (mathematical illiteracy).
And then I applied both normal math and your personal insanity to solve a simple rate-time-distance problem with emphasis on how the units are handled:
dwise1 writes in Message 402: quote:
Solve for distance: d = rt, "distance equals rate times time", "dist/time × time = dist" As per OUR math:
Evaluate 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours = 60×1.5 (mi/hr)(hr) → 90 (mi)(hr/hr)
hours cancel out (hr/hr = 1) -- as per the identity: a/a = 1
∴ 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours evaluates to 90 miles
QED
As per YOUR math:
Evaluate 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours = 60×1.5 (mi/hr)(hr) → 90 (mi)(hr/hr)
hours get messed up (hr/hr = hr) -- as per YOUR identity: a/a = a
90 (mi)(hr/hr) → 90 (mi)(hr)
∴ in your special private universe, 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours evaluates to 90 mile-hours
FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition)
Distance is supposed to be in units of distance, like MILES. Just what the fuck are YOUR MILE-HOURS supposed to mean?
David Hine writes in Message 138: Just follow my instructions, and you will get you maths correct, with the right answers. Simples. We just used your "maths" and got nonsense results. Your assertion is demonstrably false. Idiot!
Our mathematics works, whereas YOUR alternative mathematics does NOT work and isn't worth spit. To that, you "replied":
To which I replied:
dwise1 writes in Message 407: Are you claiming that I got something wrong? OK, so prove it! Unlike you, I presented my math and my calculations and showed every step of my calculations. It should therefore be very simple for you to point out where you think I had gone wrong. Go ahead, show us where I had gone wrong! And it's not like I'm trying to rush you or anything, since YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE WEEK TO DO IT! Go ahead. Please, please, please! Oh, and at the same time, explain to us why YOUR math is right. Though that would just be icing on the cake -- we would be thrilled with just the first part of the challenge: show us where my math is wrong.
{ section in which I repost my Message 402, parts of which are reposted above in this message } There it is. Show us where OUR math is wrong but yours is supposedly right.
SHOW US! And, of course, you just ran away AGAIN in stark terror. You know full well what you need to do, so just be a man and do it, instead of being a whimpering wanker.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 410 by David Hine, posted 11-11-2025 4:11 PM | | David Hine has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 413 by AZPaul3, posted 11-12-2025 11:17 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8874 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006
|
|
|
Message 413 of 438 (924380)
11-12-2025 11:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 412 by dwise1
11-11-2025 7:57 PM
|
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR k SUPPOSED TO BE? A typo for km. I'd give him that since reading, proofreading or otherwise, is not his strong suit.
"There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion,” -Daniel Dennett One of man’s greatest achievements was to reach out his mind and teach sand to think. Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 412 by dwise1, posted 11-11-2025 7:57 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 414 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2025 2:50 PM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6488 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 414 of 438 (924383)
11-12-2025 2:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 413 by AZPaul3
11-12-2025 11:17 AM
|
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
dwise1 writes: WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR k SUPPOSED TO BE?
A typo for km. Obviously apparent as we have all had to INTERPRET from Hine's confused and confusing poor excuse for a presentation that he consistently refuses to clarify. But that's not the reason for the question. The reason for repeating this same question that Hine consistently refused to answer is to get Hine to answer the question himself. There are many simple questions that Hine refuses to answer; this is just the simplest question serving as the easiest possible first step toward making an honest man out of him. It's abundantly clear that Hine does not know what he is talking about. I also strongly suspect, since he is incapable of explaining what he claims, that he stole his nonsense from someone else and is reposting it verbatim as his own "work". That is typical of almost all creationists I've encountered over the past four decades who make grandiose claims with supreme confidence while being unable to discuss any part of their claims (all they know about their claims is how to repeat them from memory, but the moment you draw them away from their script they're lost). IOW, it is painfully apparent that David Hine is a fraud. Of course, he could disprove that, but he refuses to even try.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 413 by AZPaul3, posted 11-12-2025 11:17 AM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
|
David Hine
Suspended Member Posts: 177 From: United Kingdom Joined: 09-30-2025
|
|
|
Message 415 of 438 (924389)
11-14-2025 12:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 414 by dwise1
11-12-2025 2:50 PM
|
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
A little test for you. Do you know what Pi^21 is also equal to in big bang cosmology? A clue is in a rotating universe that expands at 71 k/s/Mpc according to 2MC/Pi^21. From this, the time the universe rotates once can also be easily calculated.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 414 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2025 2:50 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9889 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 4.5
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
You're not listening, answer the question.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13237 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
Hi David, I would like to add a little administrative push to the request that you answer the question. dwise1 recapitulated the issues and problems in his Message 412. Please reply.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 415 by David Hine, posted 11-14-2025 12:46 PM | | David Hine has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6488 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.4
|
Re: Hine Cannot Do Simple math; What's He Hiding?
Stop with the stupid bullshit (bollocks) and JUST ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS! Our basic line of questioning is: DO YOU UNDERSTAND EVEN THE MOST BASIC MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS? Painful as it is, you force us to ask you such incredibly basic questions BECAUSE YOU REPEATEDLY DEMONSTRATE ABJECT IGNORANCE OF BASIC MATH. And that is compounded by the extreme measures you use to avoid answering the most basic math questions. You claim to be a "retired engineer", but no engineer would be as abysmally incompetent in BASIC MATH as you repeatedly demonstrate yourself to be. You are obviously lying to us and are obviously a FRAUD. What the fuck is WRONG with you?
YET AGAIN!:
dwise1 writes in Message 412: Taq writes in Message 409: The fact that [Hine] thinks (k) is a measure of distance is also hilarious. The irony! Though of course you are apparently too dumb to understand irony.
WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR k SUPPOSED TO BE? That is just one of many questions that we have asked you AND WHICH YOU HAVE RUN AWAY FROM EVERY TIME! In order to avoid inviting yet another suspension, you need to start answering questions. Try starting with this one, since it should be the easiest one for you to answer. Though somehow I suspect that even this one is beyond your abilities. Your terror of that simple question is yet more evidence of your complete incompetence with mathematics. Another question that you have been avoiding for over a month now (from 06-Oct-2025) is:
Percy writes in Message 129: David Hine writes in Message 114: Equation 2:- oneMpc x C, divided by Ho and then divided by one billion gives you 13.78 BLY's distance only, not years. This is incorrect. This is your equation 2 represented in standard notation and using a value of 69.8 (km/s)/Mpc for H 0:
You have both a value and a units problem. Numerically the left hand side equals 4.57*10^7 and the units are light-years 2, which is area. Rewriting your equation so that the right hand side has the proper value and the equivalent units for equality:
Which is nonsense, not to mention that the 10 9 is just pulled from the air. By the way, the Hubble constant is not "Ho", i.e., it is not the letter "H" followed by the letter "o". The Hubble constant is "H 0", that is, the letter "H" followed by the zero subscript. Subscripts can be inconvenient to enter, so "H0" is an acceptable alternative, but not "Ho". Note that it was corrected from "Ho" to "H 0" in the title of this thread. --Percy Nor is Percy alone, since several of us who have tried to examine your empty claims have found mathematical errors, especially errors in how you mishandle units. You need to at least try to give Percy and them a proper reply instead of just running away from your errors. And after having accused me of making errors in my math (your Message 403 "replying" to my Message 402), you are still avoiding showing what those "errors" are, DESPITE MY HAVING SHOWN ALL MY WORK, something that you absolutely refuse to do with YOUR OWN "work". At the core of your inability to comprehend units is your:
David Hine writes in Message 97: Multiply 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 25 chickens. Divide 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 1 chicken. That you are using some "alternative maths" (is that like MAGAts' "alternative facts"?) is evidenced by:
David Hine writes in Message 138: Just follow my instructions, and you will get you maths correct, with the right answers. Simples. So since you have chided us for using normal math instead of YOUR SPECIAL MATH (even to the point of insisting that if we did it your way then we'd get your results), in my Message 402 I used that statement to reconstruct your special math, or at least some of its identities:
dwise1 writes in Message 402: From that we can derive what YOU think the identities should be:
Hine's Crazy Identities:
a × a = a -- from your Multiply 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 25 chickens
a/a = a -- from your Divide 5 chickens by 5 chickens = 1 chicken.
Insanity! And we know that your Message 97 was not a typo, because you have stood by that nonsense and doubled down on the insanity. That's why we keep asking you to show your work with units, because everything you've presented so far reeks of innumeracy (mathematical illiteracy).
And then I applied both normal math and your personal insanity to solve a simple rate-time-distance problem with emphasis on how the units are handled:
dwise1 writes in Message 402: quote:
Solve for distance: d = rt, "distance equals rate times time", "dist/time × time = dist" As per OUR math:
Evaluate 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours = 60×1.5 (mi/hr)(hr) → 90 (mi)(hr/hr)
hours cancel out (hr/hr = 1) -- as per the identity: a/a = 1
∴ 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours evaluates to 90 miles
QED
As per YOUR math:
Evaluate 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours = 60×1.5 (mi/hr)(hr) → 90 (mi)(hr/hr)
hours get messed up (hr/hr = hr) -- as per YOUR identity: a/a = a
90 (mi)(hr/hr) → 90 (mi)(hr)
∴ in your special private universe, 60 mi/hr × 1.5 hours evaluates to 90 mile-hours
FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition)
Distance is supposed to be in units of distance, like MILES. Just what the fuck are YOUR MILE-HOURS supposed to mean?
David Hine writes in Message 138: Just follow my instructions, and you will get you maths correct, with the right answers. Simples. We just used your "maths" and got nonsense results. Your assertion is demonstrably false. Idiot!
Our mathematics works, whereas YOUR alternative mathematics does NOT work and isn't worth spit. To that, you "replied":
To which I replied:
dwise1 writes in Message 407: Are you claiming that I got something wrong? OK, so prove it! Unlike you, I presented my math and my calculations and showed every step of my calculations. It should therefore be very simple for you to point out where you think I had gone wrong. Go ahead, show us where I had gone wrong! And it's not like I'm trying to rush you or anything, since YOU HAVE AN ENTIRE WEEK TO DO IT! Go ahead. Please, please, please! Oh, and at the same time, explain to us why YOUR math is right. Though that would just be icing on the cake -- we would be thrilled with just the first part of the challenge: show us where my math is wrong.
{ section in which I repost my Message 402, parts of which are reposted above in this message } There it is. Show us where OUR math is wrong but yours is supposedly right.
SHOW US! And, of course, you just ran away AGAIN in stark terror. You know full well what you need to do, so just be a man and do it, instead of being a whimpering wanker. But since you are incapable of answering even the simplest math questions, then consider just confessing to your sins of fraud. Start with telling us what bollocks source you stole your bullshit lies from. That you did not write your bullshit yourself is evidenced by your inability to answer the question of what your "k" is (from your "... 71 k/s/Mpc ..." ). Your extreme contortions to avoid answering that extremely simple question are a confession from you that you have absolutely no idea what it is. That is because you are just copy-and-pasting the same old bullshit lies without any comprehension of your own bullshit. You quite literally do not know what you are talking about. And you are engaged in your fraud since that is the only way you can support your stupid god. A god who can only be served through lies is not worthy of any worship, you stupid idiot! Dump your false god and choose a different one. Like a standard version of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic gods, who are far more aligned with Truth (at least nominally). Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 415 by David Hine, posted 11-14-2025 12:46 PM | | David Hine has not replied |
|
David Hine
Suspended Member Posts: 177 From: United Kingdom Joined: 09-30-2025
|
|
|
Message 419 of 438 (924393)
11-14-2025 1:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 416 by Tangle
11-14-2025 12:51 PM
|
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
You will find as telescopes improve and dig deeper, their observations will make less and less sense, and the guesswork will become more and more assumption and guesswork based. We will end up with only the Genesis (Moses), Isaiah / John Creation accounts, and the maths of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein to try in vain to understand what is totally beyond the reach of our understanding regarding the universe. The "big bang" will be continually patched up, until more and more observations don't fit. Science is the attempt to study God's Creation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 416 by Tangle, posted 11-14-2025 12:51 PM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 420 by Taq, posted 11-14-2025 3:10 PM | | David Hine has not replied | | | Message 421 by Tangle, posted 11-14-2025 4:37 PM | | David Hine has not replied | | | Message 422 by dwise1, posted 11-14-2025 5:57 PM | | David Hine has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10563 Joined: 03-06-2009
|
Re: Simple math, but Hine's Math Doesn't Math
David Hine writes: You will find as telescopes improve and dig deeper, their observations will make less and less sense, and the guesswork will become more and more assumption and guesswork based. It's like a Flat Earther claiming that the whole world will come to their senses and finally realize the Earth is flat. All you are giving us now is fantasy and dreams.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 419 by David Hine, posted 11-14-2025 1:48 PM | | David Hine has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 423 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2025 1:13 AM | | Taq has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2