Can JL Superman Tank Hulks Leviathan Punch?

h1 is literally accusing a credentialed individual of lying or his math/science being wrong while all the while stating that he just needs "reasonable evidence" to do so (even tho he admits he doesn't even know where the guy even got his numbers from).

Literally can't make this sh!t up...

Originally posted by h1a8
That's not relevant. You don't make the rules of how evidence should be presented. As long as the evidence is reasonable then it is valid.

Well h1, we have more than "reasonable evidence" to accuse you of being a liar. Thus, by your logic, our accusation is valid.

Seriously, I guess learning and self-reflection is just beyond you. I feel sorry for you.

Poor h1.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
h1 is literally accusing a credentialed individual of lying or his math/science being wrong while all the while stating that he just needs "reasonable evidence" to do so (even tho he admits he doesn't even know where the guy even got his numbers from).

Literally can't make this sh!t up...

Well h1, we have more than "reasonable evidence" to accuse you of being a liar. Thus, by your logic, our accusation is valid.

Seriously, I guess learning and self-reflection is just beyond you. I feel sorry for you.

What’s up with this “or” junk? You know what I said.
I never accused him of lying or that his science is wrong.
I said that his math is wrong based off the evidence.

You have 0 evidence that I lied at anytime. I been a member since 2005 and never lied once.
If you believe I lied then post or restate the lie and the reason why you think it’s a lie.

1. You don’t know if he made a mistake and therefore don’t know if my claim is false.

2. That neutron star was an old star. He has to use a lower estimate for the temperature, otherwise he is giving faulty numbers on the feat. This has nothing to do with his math error though.

Originally posted by Silent Master
As we're talking about whether or not other people believe your excuses anymore, your opinion is irrelevant. If you want to refute what I said provide the names of people that accept that excuse from you.

If you stand by what you say, provide proof that it's accurate.

I provided evidence. You rejected it because it’s not up to your standards.
Telling me to provide evidence afterwards is asinine.

Originally posted by h1a8
What’s up with this “or” junk? You know what I said.
I never accused him of lying or that his science is wrong.
I said that his math is wrong based off the evidence.

You have 0 evidence that I lied at anytime. I been a member since 2005 and never lied once.
If you believe I lied then post or restate the lie and the reason why you think it’s a lie.

1. You don’t know if he made a mistake and therefore don’t know if my claim is false.

2. That neutron star was an old star. He has to use a lower estimate for the temperature, otherwise he is giving faulty numbers on the feat. This has nothing to do with his math error though.

double post.

Originally posted by h1a8
I never accused him of lying or that his science is wrong.

Originally posted by h1a8
If he did not use those numbers then why in the hell did he post them in the video and link to the other one?
That's being deceitful which is far worse than making an error.

🙄

Originally posted by h1a8
You have 0 evidence that I lied at anytime. I been a member since 2005 and never lied once.

Translation:

"I never lie! Present irrefutable proof of me lying! And btw, I get to decide what is "irrefutable proof" and I can keep changing the narrative at anytime, whenever it suits me."

"Of course, for me: h1, "reasonable proof", even those based on assumptions is enough!"

Durrr.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. You don’t know if he made a mistake and therefore don’t know if my claim is false.

Translation:

"Hello, my name is h1, whenever I make a claim it is your job to try and disprove it! Durrr!"

Originally posted by Silent Master
As we're talking about whether or not other people believe your excuses anymore, your opinion is irrelevant. If you want to refute what I said provide the names of people that accept that excuse from you.

If you stand by what you say, provide proof that it's accurate.

It's actually hilarious how he claims he's never lied once but as soon as I meet him "liar" was the first impression that came to my mind. And I'm thinking I am not alone in this (and this impression may well be shared by the vast majority in this forum). I've met very few people as dishonest as this kid (and I've actually spent a lot of my time around politicians).

Doesn't care a lick about his credibility. Doesn't even attempt to debate in good faith at all. Will do anything and everything to not lose (I doubt he's ever won, he just puts all his effort to not lose thru weasel tactics). Has no balls to back up his claims in a judged environment because he knows no one will buy his sh!t. Or maybe he doubts his ability to debate (also possible)?

And to think he does this on an internet forum about fictional characters. I can just imagine what he is like IRL. Very rare to find anything this pathetic.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
🙄

Translation:

"I never lie! Present irrefutable proof of me lying! And btw, I get to decide what is "irrefutable proof" and I can keep changing the narrative at anytime, whenever it suits me."

"Of course, for me: h1, "reasonable proof", even those based on assumptions is enough!"

Durrr.

Translation:

"Hello, my name is h1, whenever I make a claim it is your job to try and disprove it! Durrr!"

I guess you don't know what a conditional statement is then.
If P then Q
Logic 101

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It's actually hilarious how he claims he's never lied once but as soon as I meet him "liar" was the first impression that came to my mind. And I'm thinking I am not alone in this (and this impression may well be shared by the vast majority in this forum). I've met very few people as dishonest as this kid (and I've actually spent a lot of my time around politicians).

Doesn't care a lick about his credibility. Doesn't even attempt to debate in good faith at all. Will do anything and everything to not lose (I doubt he's ever won, he just puts all his effort to not lose thru weasel tactics). Has no balls to back up his claims in a judged environment because he knows no one will buy his sh!t. Or maybe he doubts his ability to debate (also possible)?

And to think he does this on an internet forum about fictional characters. I can just imagine what he is like IRL. Very rare to find anything this pathetic.

And the fact that you think I'm a liar proves that you have very low IQ.
Its obvious I never lied on here. It shouldn't be even slightly believable that I have ever lied.

Constantly making shit up about me and what I'm doing. You are a straight idiot. You have no clue to what you are talking about. It's almost as if you are crazy and creating shit that don't exist

Originally posted by h1a8
I guess you don't know what a conditional statement is then.
If P then Q
Logic 101

Yes, stating that the credentialed youtube presenter who has no reason to be biased would be "deceitful" IF he didn't use the numbers you wanted him to be using is DEFINITELY just a conditional statement that does not imply anything.

Yes, we definitely do not see thru that BS.

🙄

Originally posted by h1a8
And the fact that you think I'm a liar proves that you have very low IQ.
Its obvious I never lied on here. It shouldn't be even slightly believable that I have ever lied.

I've got very low IQ? And you have "proooff"? Oh my!

Kinda funny that you purport to be smart yet don't have the guts to face me in any of the MULTIPLE times I've challenged you to a BZ.

"Smart" guy doesn't have the balls to face the guy he deems "low IQ" in a BZ.

Must be more cowardly than previously thought.

Tsk tsk. Pathetic.

Originally posted by h1a8
Constantly making shit up about me and what I'm doing. You are a straight idiot. You have no clue to what you are talking about. It's almost as if you are crazy and creating shit that don't exist

You say "make things up", I say "observation from experience garnered from the many debates I've had with you, corroborated by many others".

Will let the forum decide w/c is more truthful.

shrug

Seriously though, just ask dadudemon or Astner to take a look at your calcs. A Battlezone would be pointless if its filled with judges that don't actually have a solid grasp of math or physics. I can't think of anyone more qualified than them to.

Originally posted by h1a8
I honestly don’t know what you are talking about with this “excuse “ talk.

I provided evidence. You rejected it because it’s not up to your standards.
Telling me to provide evidence afterwards is asinine.

At no point have you ever provided evidence that Science guy made any math errors like you claimed.

That makes this another one of your lies.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Seriously though, just ask dadudemon or Astner to take a look at your calcs. A Battlezone would be pointless if its filled with judges that don't actually have a solid grasp of math or physics. I can't think of anyone more qualified than them to.

It's not h1's made up calcs that are being questioned, it's his claim that Kyle Hill made math errors in his calcs that is being questioned.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, stating that the credentialed youtube presenter who has no reason to be biased would be "deceitful" IF he didn't use the numbers you wanted him to be using is DEFINITELY just a conditional statement that does not imply anything.

Yes, we definitely do not see thru that BS.

🙄

I've got very low IQ? And you have "proooff"? Oh my!

Kinda funny that you purport to be smart yet don't have the guts to face me in any of the MULTIPLE times I've challenged you to a BZ.

"Smart" guy doesn't have the balls to face the guy he deems "low IQ" in a BZ.

Must be more cowardly than previously thought.

Tsk tsk. Pathetic.

You say "make things up", I say "observation from experience garnered from the many debates I've had with you, corroborated by many others".

Will let the forum decide w/c is more truthful.

shrug

So it's true. You don't know what a conditional statement is.

Basically you are the idiot in this scenario.

CHARACTER:
"If it just rained then the grass got wet."

IDIOT :
"You are lying. How can you say that the grass is wet?"

Originally posted by Silent Master
At no point have you ever provided evidence that Science guy made any math errors like you claimed.

That makes this another one of your lies.

You are not the judge of what's evidence and what isn't.
I presented evidence. You are saying that I didn't.
Your job is the easy one.

Originally posted by h1a8
You are not the judge of what's evidence and what isn't.
I presented evidence. You are saying that I didn't.
Your job is the easy one.

You are not the judge of what's evidence and what isn't. post the names of the people that agree you've posted evidence that Kyle Hill made math errors.

Originally posted by Silent Master
It's not h1's made up calcs that are being questioned, it's his claim that Kyle Hill made math errors in his calcs that is being questioned.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Seriously though, just ask dadudemon or Astner to take a look at your calcs. A Battlezone would be pointless if its filled with judges that don't actually have a solid grasp of math or physics. I can't think of anyone more qualified than them to.

It's real simple.
Science Guy stated that the neutron star Thor experience has a power output of 25% of the Sun.
Exibit A:
He gives us the formula that calculates power from Stars.
He therefore wants us to use it to verify his result.

Exibit B:
He posts the temperature of the neutron star as 10^6k, even though older stars have temperatures around 600,000k and his first link gives us 600,000k as a typical temperature of an older neutron star.

Exibit C: His first link gives 10km as the typical radius of a neutron star. The same value that Nibedicus' source from the Harvard PhD professor gives.

Plugging in 10km and 10^6k in the formula gives 18.6% (not 25%).

I originally plugged in 10km and 600,000k and got 2.4% I think. But later, I plugged in the values that were supplied.
But does not matter, as we do not get 25% from the numbers he provides.

What do you think, honestly, the conclusion is?
1. He made an error
Or
2. Something else (explain).

Science guy said he used the average numbers, the words average and typical do not mean the same thing.

You really need to stop purposely misrepresenting what Kyle Hill and his sources say.