›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Today's factual error

KilarneyKilarney
edited September 2006 in GeekNights
R.I.T.'s finest have done it again. To dispel today's (9/28) load of crap, please visit this site:
Paper by someone who is much smarter than Scrym.

Summary: Scrym don't know shit about the Hindenburg.

If you read the entire article, it is scary just how wrong Scrym were. Pretty much every element of their untruth is an impossibility.

Perhaps they should check out this place for more education:
Sylvan Learning Center

Does R.I.T. just hand out degrees if you show up?

I've broken down the misinformation into a handy mathematical formula for your convenience:

image
PLUS
image
PLUS
image
EQUALS
image

The CORRECT formula should have been:
image
EQUALS
image

Notice what was inserted into the first equation that is missing from the second equation? (Clue: I'm not talking about the rocket or the paint bucket.) (Clue for Scrym: It's the retard.)
«1

Comments

  • RymRym
    How about that. ^_^

    The last time I read a paper on the Hindenburg was several years ago, when the consensus was different. The majority of the papers refuting the paint theory were published recently, in 2004 and 2005. I did the bulk of my research in 1999 for a few projects, and haven't kept up on it since then.

    ph33r the speed of science.
  • RymRym
    Actually...

    Now that I read some of these papers, the issue is still a major point of contention. There seems to be a lot of evidence that the paint was a significant contributing factor despite not likely being the root cause. There were documents describing similar accidents involving helium-based airships, and it's entirely possible that hydrogen use alone was not the root cause.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    Now that I read some of these papers, the issue is still a major point of contention.
    Those are older papers. If you go back far enough, you might also find that the earth is the center of the universe. More recent papers are from pro-hydrogen sources and ignore the most recent research.

    In any event, that's not what you said during the show.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • AprecheApreche
    The first thing I noticed was a complete lack of a Snopes article on this issue. So next to Wikipedia. On Wikipedia there are many different theories of why the Hindenburg went down. All of them seem equally likely and have equally intelligent papers and research backing them up. I guess there really is no way to know.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I have not heard the show yet (Damn you Apple!) but I am familiar with the paint argument in regards to the Hindenburg.

    Besides, it was all America's fault anyway for putting the embargo on Germany so that they had to use the more dangerous Hydrogen gas rather than the much safer Helium gas.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Who really cares? We are on the verge of the zombie apocalypse!
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    On Wikipedia there are many different theories of why the Hindenburg went down. All of them seem equally likely and have equally intelligent papers and research backing them up.
    The problem is that the Wiki article gives no meaningful timeline and/or differentiation between theory and actual testing. The simple truth is that scientific testing has taken Bain's paint theory and refuted it. This is basic science, folks. Theories get tested and are proven or disproven. This one was disproven. Can anyone show me a paper that refutes the work of Dessler and Appleby? (A paper that is not linked to a pro-hydrogen group with an agenda.)

    Don't let your pride change the basic notion of the scientific method. The day we equate Wiki to a fully researched scientific paper is pretty fucking scary.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • AprecheApreche
    On Wikipedia there are many different theories of why the Hindenburg went down. All of them seem equally likely and have equally intelligent papers and research backing them up.
    The problem is that the Wiki article makes no reference as towhenthese theories were made. The simple truth is that scientific testing has taken Bain's painttheoryand refuted it. This is basic science, folks. Theories get tested and are proven or disproven. This one was disproven. Can anyone show me a paper that refutes the work of Dessler and Appleby? (A paper that is not linked to a pro-hydrogen group with an agenda.)

    Don't let your pride change the basic notion of the scientific method.
    Edit the Wiki then.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    Edit the Wiki then.
    I would but I'm too stupid. ;-)

    Here is a photo of the original Wiki author:
    image
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • RymRym
    I think the point I was trying to make was simply that, when I last researched the topic, there were few significant or compelling arguments against the paint theory and a fairly substantial body of works supporting it.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    Yes, in 1999 there was a very interesting theory that the paint may have been the primary cause of the fire. It was definitely a theory worth considering.

    My point was only that this is not what you said on the show. This thread would never have existed if you said something like: "There is an interesting theory that..."

    Besides... I'm just cranky that there have been no recent mispronunciations.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • RymRym
    My point was only that this isnotwhat you said on the show. This thread would never have existed if you said something like: "There is an interesting theory that..."
    As far as the research I had done was concerned, that was the most likely explanation. If you expect us to fully research every off-hand comment we make on a mostly comedic podcast, followed by a treatment of possible competing theories, I suspect you'll be left wanting ^_~
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I agree with kilarney...

    Now to amend my tag line...

    This is why you two shouldn't discuss scientific theories on the show...
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    As far as the research I had done was concerned, that was the most likely explanation. an interesting theory.
    I guess the fundamental argument is that I've never agreed with this statement. (see my correction) I'll give you the theory of evolution, but not this one.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Using the words "most likely explanation" leads your audiance to believe that what you are talking about has gone past being a theory and proven to be true.

    Which of the following is more accurate:

    The most likely explanation for Rym and Scott living together is that they are gay.

    OR

    An interesting theory, as to why Rym and Scott live together, is that they are gay.
  • JasonJason
    Hey, did you guys know that gay used to mean happy? Now it just means homosexual, or so the kids tell me. Who'd have thunk?
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    I read a paper in 1999 that said that "gay" meant "happy." So it still means "happy," right?
    The most likely explanation for Rym and Scott living together is that they are gay.

    OR

    An interesting theory, as to why Rym and Scott live together, is that they are gay.
    That might not be the best example, HMTKSteve.

    By the way, if you do a search for "retard" on images.google.com, this image comes up on page #5:
    image

    Is it me, or does this look like Rym if he went on a diet and shaved a ton of body hair?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Yeah, but it was the quickest one that came to mind...

    Besides, someone already blew the whole point of my using the word gay...
  • KilarneyKilarney
    Yet another photo that comes up in a "retard" search. Does anyone see the irony in this photo?:

    image

    Would Jesus really "do" that?
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    Okay, I guess I shouldn't pick on Rym for reading too much into a paper and not checking into it since 1999. It's better than his moustache, which apparently has been forgotten since 1988.
    image

    By the way, Groucho Marks wants his look back.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • AndrewAndrew
    Dude, Kilarney...all these photo's are starting to become annoying. This isn't post a picture of a retard page. Please stop. They have no effect on your argument and honestly it discredits you in my eyes.
  • AndrewAndrew
    Let me clarify.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    Dude, you are way too serious. Where did I lead you to believe that I thought Scrym was actually retarded?

    Let me clarify.

    The reason it is sarcastic is because Scrym are anything but retarded.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • RymRym
    Groucho Marks wants his look back.
    Groucho MarX is one of my favourite comedians ;^)
  • JasonJason
    Let me muddle.

    I think every guy goes through the crap moustache phase. But (and not to be an ass, just honest curiosity) is there a reason to keep the pony tail? That was the thing that really threw me when I found out what you looked like, hahaha.
  • Johannes Uglyfred IIJohannes Uglyfred II
    Rym's long hair is hot and wins the ladies. That's the reason for the ponytail. It's +5 to charisma.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Let's drop the retard stuff... I'm starting to get offended...
  • CremlianCremlian
    Oh... the craziness! Oh the Ad hominems!
  • IlmarinenIlmarinen
    This is basic science, folks. Theories get tested and are proven or disproven. This one was disproven.
    It seems like you need to go back to school and take a basic science class, because this statement is completely wrong.
  • KilarneyKilarney
    edited September 2006
    For your information, I was not writing a technical paper, which is why the use of "theory" was fine.

    I'll make you a deal... I'll go to a science class if you go to an English class. :-)
    Post edited by Kilarney on
Sign In or Register to comment.