Re: pearl's list update

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:33:57 -0000, "pearl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>"swamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 13:39:20 -0000, "pearl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >valid:
>> >hollow earth
>> >inner-earth beings
>> >chemtrails
>> >9/11 controlled demolition
>> >veganism
>> >Aids and Ebola man-made
>> >astrology
>> >'zappers'
>> >reflexology
>> >crop-circles
>> >telepathy (channelling)
>> >Rense
>>
>> I don't know what "zappers" are or "Rense" is, but the rest are
>> sufficient to show your beliefs indiscriminate and your skepticism
>> level profoundly lacking.
>
>Ipse dixit.

Nope. Those beliefs "dixit" themselves.

>> >lied about:
>> >feed:beef ratio
>>
>> No, he didn't. Your original ratio of 8:1 was about right.
>
>8:1 is about right for grain (excluding silage/hay) : liveweight gain.

8:1 is about right for every juvenile, land-based herbivorous mammal.
The ratio goes down upon maturity.

[snip of bad math and misapplied, undocumented data]

>Right?

Wrong. Let's work backwards, just to double-check your results. For
ease of calculation, let's say the average steer gains 1000# from
birth to slaughter and you argue it takes 100# of feed per # to gain
the weight. That means the animal consumes 100,000# of feed during
that time. 1 oz. of wheat contains 80 calories. Once again, for ease
of calculation let's say 750 calories/#. So, given the ratio you
provide, a single steer consumes 75 million calories before slaughter.

Since beef is about twice as "calorie dense" as wheat, you have 60
million calories/steer to account for. Some would go toward movement
and maintaining body temp, and some would be excreted in feces, urine,
and sweat, but nowhere close to 80% of a ruminant's intake goes there.

>> Then you,
>> along w/ help of other ar/evs, began adding irrelevant factors
>> (transportation of livestock and livestock feeds) and omitting
>> relevant ones (finishing, silage). By the time you were done bloating
>> the ratio, you'd proven that mammalian life can't exist on Earth.
>> Since *most* of us have the ability to look around and see
>> observational evidence to the contrary, we logically concluded your
>> numbers were grossly inaccurate. Your challenge that we parse your
>> numbers and double-check your arithmetic was a hollow bluff and
>> unnecessary exercize.
>
>Huff and puff all you like, swamp, you can't blow the data away.

I just did, or more accurately, your dishonest manipulation of them.
The physical impossibility of a mathematical result, in itself, isn't
damning. It often happens when you're engaged in lengthy calculations.
You go back over your math and find the mistake(s). Could be a decimal
point out of place, a polarity or transcription error, anything. You,
otoh, are clearly more interested in propogating mistakes than finding
them.

>> Just so you know, if ruminants required the staggering 85-90:1 feed to
>> meat ratio you eventually rocketed to,
>
>DM.

???

>> a cow pie would have more
>> potential chemical energy than TNT.
>
>Welcome to the real world.

The real world? You do realize cow pies aren't actually land mines,
don't you? I ask because your grasp of the real world is...
unscientific. You can add ~1 qt. of ammonia to a 60# bag of steer
manure and get roughly the equivalent of one stick of dynamite. I
don't know how many cow pies it takes to make 60# of manure, but it's
definitely a helluva lot more than one.

>> Another fantastic possibilty is
>> that livestock are running internal temps in the 1000F range, in which
>> case 5000 head of cattle are producing enough energy to light Chicago.
>
>No need to exaggerate.  Really.

You're hardly one to be admonishing anyone about exaggerating. Using
your techniques, here's the math:

75 million calories = 87.225 kilowatt hours, or enough energy to light
7 typical US households. So, 5000 head would light a town of 35,000.
Since we're allowed a 10:1 exaggeration factor, that'd be a town of
350,000. And since we're allowed a 10:1 mathematical error, that'd a
town of 3,500,000. That's Chicago, baby.

>> You and your number-juggling "disproved" the First Law of
>> Thermodynamics. You didn't know you were doing this, but when the
>> obvious flaws were pointed out to you, you continued to insist your
>> ratios were arrived at accurately. Thus, suspect's accusation is/was
>> valid. I don't recall participating in the other discussions, but I'll
>> bet his other accusations are valid as well.
>
>No flaws were pointed out.  Suggest you do your own thinking.

I do, and strongly suggest you don't, (both meanings intended)

-- swamp