Cultcow Brad Watson / Richard Bradshaw Watson / Brad Watson_Miami - Jesus & Albert Einstein reincarnated, discoverer of GOD=7_4 Theory

[Graffiti canvas]

That's false. And what is "1.1507"? 64 knots = 73.6448 mph. Most people would round-that-off to 74. Is 73.6448 the complete number or does it continue further to more decimals? Is it an irrational number? I've never heard any scientist or weatheman say, "The storm is now a hurricane since it's sustained winds have receached 73.6448 mph." You're argument is not based in reality.

Holy shit dude. 1.1507 is the actual 1 MPH equivalent of 1 knot. Not a rounded number that's easy to say. The reason scientists and weathermen round the number up is because in the context of reporting a storm's intensity, rounding doesn't matter. But it does in the science.

Fuck you. I knew what knots were when all you could do was suck your thumb and roll around getting your diaper in knots.

Read above, you crazy bastard. If you knew what a knot was, you wouldn't be clueless of how to convert it. The storms are measured and calculated in Knots. It trumps MPH/KPH as far as the specific data goes. No Hurricane or Typhoon achieves it's status over land.

Actually, programming works with what is programmed into the computer. If there is a restriction to the length of decimals an irrational number is going to be expressed as, then that's part of the program. The classic example of this is pi 3.14 or 3.14159 will succesfully detemine almost all functions of pi. Do you know any examples where a problem requires more decimal points of pi to solve the problem? The lunar cycle is another example. I've never heard any astronomer refer to the lunar cycle as 29.503, they just say 29.5 because that really small change after that is just that.

Huh. so I guess the lunar cycle that's calculated off of the speed of orbit should just be rounded for everything, eh? I wonder how rounding that orbit's length would work for getting a lunar lander to the moon.

What do you think, Brad. Would you want to climb into a capsule shot towards the moon with calculations rounded up? I bet that .003 makes a massive difference projected over a 238,900 mile trajectory.

That's false. It all depends on what exactly is being focused on. GOD=7_4 includes 74, not 73.6 or 73.64 or 73. 644 or 73.6448 or...although those numbers are all properly rounded-off to 74. You are not willing to accept the program/algorithm/code of GOD=7_4, that's a "shitty scientist who would most likely kill himself or others" with your lack of understanding due to your non-scientific dogma.

Exactly. Everything must fit into 74. That's why specifics don't matter, just generalized half facts that disregard any substantive data.

You forgot local TV and radio broadcasts as well as all Internet weather forecasting. I've never heard knots used in describing a cyclone (hurricane/typhoon)

Wrong. Every weatherman and person reporting on hurricanes that in any way come near the United States uses miles-per-hour. You're obviously a 41521385217. Of course, that could be just rounded-off to 4, but then that would leave some guess work.

This is just bullshit. The news dumbs things down for you Brad. That's been my whole point this entire time. You don't hear them use Knots because unless you're a mariner or scientist in the field, Knots aren't a measurement people readily understand.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

Synchronism: 11:51 "Check out the numbers." - ESPN

When I googled 64 knots, I got 73.6498847 mph. @Graffiti canvas , where did you get 73.6448 mph from?! You may not think this .005 difference is much, but as a scientist and mathematician, this is a HUGE missteak!

 

[Graffiti canvas]

this is a HUGE missteak!

So is your grammar.

And http://www.militaryfactory.com/conversioncalculators/speed_knots_to_miles_per_hour.asp

http://calculator-converter.com/converter_knots_to_mph_calculator.php

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

@ChurchOfGodBear,

Fuck you motherfucker. Have you noticed a pattern in my posts74 to you?

Yes. You consistently fail to back up your claims or even comprehend when others have disproved you. To be fair, this is not exclusive to replies you have made to me. It's true for everyone here.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

1.1507 is the actual 1 MPH equivalent of 1 knot.

Holy shit, dudette, I should keep that conversation table right here next to my computer!

Listen, time47 to change the* topic. Do you believe Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock and other Mason47s encoded GOD=7_4 in 7/4/1776?


*Synchronism: 12:01 "You're not changing your defense... You have to make adjustments... Let's not nit-pick and pick apart everything this guy does for his team." - ESPN

 

[Graffiti canvas]

Holy shit, dudette, I should keep that conversation table right here next to my computer!

No, you should google it before you base an example of your theory off of incorrect math.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

1 knot (kt) = 1.15077945 miles per hour (mph)​

I need more decimal points - many more!

@Graffiti canvas , did you notice how http://calculator-converter.com/converter_knots_to_mph_calculator.php gives you "Rounding options 1-5 decimals"? WHAT KIND OF SCIENTIST/MATHEMATICIAN WOULD ROUND-OFF?! AND WHO WOULD SETTLE FOR ONLY 5 DIGITS?! IT'S BLASHPEMY!!

 

[CatParty]

1 knot (kt) = 1.15077945 miles per hour (mph)​

I need more decimal points - many more!

 

[Graffiti canvas]

1 knot (kt) = 1.15077945 miles per hour (mph)​

I need more decimal points - many more!

See this example of why decimal points and not rounding things matter in real science, Brad.

Huh. so I guess the lunar cycle that's calculated off of the speed of orbit should just be rounded for everything, eh? I wonder how rounding that orbit's length would work for getting a lunar lander to the moon.

What do you think, Brad. Would you want to climb into a capsule shot towards the moon with calculations rounded up? I bet that .003 makes a massive difference projected over a 238,900 mile trajectory.

1 knot (kt) = 1.15077945 miles per hour (mph)​

I need more decimal points - many more!

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

@ChurchOfGodBear,

Hey motherfucker, I AM obviously refering to the fact that I've only called you motherfucker for awhile now without replying in any other way to you. You had to recognize this pattern, right motherfucker?

Again, your lack of a meaningful response is not unique to replies made to me.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

@Graffiti canvas ,

You are one crazy bastard to actually think that 73.6498847 mph sustained winds is what is observed in a tropical cyclone. Please, tie that in knots and stick it up your ass.

 

[Graffiti canvas]

@Graffiti canvas ,

You are one crazy bastard to actually think that 73.6498847 mph sustained winds is what is observed in a tropical cyclone. Please, tie that in knots and stick it up your ass.

Silly Brad. How do you know I'm not using 118.5 KPH? That's even further from 74mph but still more accurate.

 

[Brad Watson_Miami]

@Graffiti canvas ,

You are one crazy bastard to actually think that 73.6498847 mph sustained winds is what is observed in a tropical cyclone. Please, tie that in knots and stick it up your ass.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

@ChurchOfGodBear,

Fuck you, motherfucker. Until you address why I AM doing this, motherfucker, this is all you're going to get out of me. Is milking this reaction fun for you, motherfucker?

Why you respond the way you do is not really a concern of mine. As I've said several times, your responses have always been devoid of insight or reason, I see no particular significance to your more recent ones. I long ago accepted that expecting scholarly- or scientific-level intellectual honesty was too much for you.

In short, it is what it is.

 

[Graffiti canvas]

@Graffiti canvas ,

You are one crazy bastard to actually think that 73.6498847 mph sustained winds is what is observed in a tropical cyclone. Please, tie that in knots and stick it up your ass.

Silly Brad. How do you know I'm not using 118.5 KPH? That's even further from 74mph but still more accurate.

@Graffiti canvas ,

You are one crazy bastard to actually think that 73.6498847 mph sustained winds is what is observed in a tropical cyclone. Please, tie that in knots and stick it up your ass.

Silly Brad. How do you know I'm not using 64 Knots? That's even further from 74mph but still more accurate.

 

[voiceguy]

1.1507 * 64 = 73.6448 mph

That's false.

No, it's true. Use a calculator.

And what is "1.1507"?

That is the standard conversion factor used to express knots as miles per hour. For someone who "knew what knots were when all you could do was suck your thumb and roll around getting your diaper in knots", you sure are ignorant.

64 knots = 73.6448 mph.

First you said it was false, then you state it as a fact; so you must have been lying when you said it was false.

I've never heard knots used in describing a cyclone (hurricane/typhoon)

That's because knots is a nautical term for speed that the average person isn't all that familiar with. My father was in the Navy, so I knew what knots were when all you could do was suck your thumb and roll around getting your diaper in knots. I also learned at a young age how to convert knots into mph, which admittedly most average people don't know how to do.

When he says 74 MPH, he's just using a converted, then rounded number to make it easy for you.

Wrong.

No, that's actually right. They round up to 74 mph because it's easier for the average person to grasp that number than 73.6448 mph, which is the actual wind speed that determines a storm becoming a hurricane. What are you bitching about? At least there's a 64 in there.

Every weatherman and person reporting on hurricanes that in any way come near the United States uses miles-per-hour.

Once again, because the average person (as you have shown yourself to be) doesn't know the formula for converting knots to mph.

You're obviously a 41521385217.

Why don't you stop with the school child games already. If you're going to insult us, be enough of a man to insult us to our faces, you douche bag ass-sniffing baby.

Do you believe Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock and other Mason47s encoded GOD=7_4 in 7/4/1776?

No, because as already pointed out 12 pages ago, 4 is not considered to be one of the major Sacred Masonic Numbers. To reiterate: "The most important symbolic or sacred numbers in Masonry are three, five, seven, nine, twenty-seven, and eighty-one." -- page 538 of An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry by Albert G. Mackey (Grand Lecturer and Grand Secretary of The Grand Lodge of South Carolina, as well as Secretary General of the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States).

 

[Graffiti canvas]

At least there's a 64 in there

I'm actually surprised he hasn't switched gears and used the "AH HA! 6|4 KNOTS!!! THIS PROVES I'M RIGHT!" argument.

I would have done that long ago and I'm not even the one who believes every coincidence is GOD'S will. Way to be observant with your own theories, Bradly.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

@RomanesEuntDomus,

Are you a gun lover? Do you think semi-automatic rifles should be available to the public? Do you feel that gun manufacturers are liable for how their guns are used?

Your lack of argument has been duly noted, Latasilvas.

They are not mistakes, they are false statements made with deliberate intent to deceive.

You know, with Brad demanding blind obedience and all his lies, he's quite the great deceiver, don't you agree?

 

[BlueArmedDevil]

But pork is not good for you; I eat too much bacon.

Most pork is actually good for you, bacon not so much.

I digress though, so you admit this "science"you actually preform is really numerology?

 

[Kablamo]

Wrong. That was a possibility until @Kablamo started wearing clean underpants. That has had quite a ripple effect throughout this quadrant of the galaxy. Nestor was spared and other catastrophes were avoided.

I cannot tell you how thrilled I am that my 536 days of consecutive clean underpants have had a ripple effect throughout this quadrant of the galaxy. At my most optimistic, I was hoping that it might have a ripple effect within the Oort Cloud.

Do you have a page number and post number for your Judgment?

And why did I do that? How many years non-commutable?

I didn't Judge you for wearing dirty underpants. If I had known about that, your sentence would have been higher. But keep in mind, that even though God-incarnate does not know stuff like that, GOD is omniscient.

We have to go back and review the record. But, I usually don't provide for revising a sentence for good behavior. Have you done any verifiable community service? (Wearing clean underpants doesn't count.)

No. But if you were able to pick what animal you could be reincarnated as, what would it be?

Please allow me to offer a summary of events:

You and I started our discourse on April 24th, 2015. We talked a little back and fourth about Thomas the Apostle. I think we can both agree that it didn't really go anywhere productive. Later in the week on April 29th, 2015 I tried again to ask you some questions, and we had a relatively uninspired exchange. Later on the same day, I finally got frustrated and tried to use my non-science philosophy mumbo jumbo to discredit you.

As a response to my moment of heresy, you then struck me down with your God(=7_4)ly judgment. It was from that moment on that that I vowed to redeem myself in the eyes of Brad (Jesus) Watson, and have committed my life to that goal.

On the upside, you did not specify that my sentence was non-commutable!

I have been volunteering extensively over the last few years at karaoke charity events to help raise funds for various charities. It is hard for me to do other volunteering works because of my disabilities. I can provide photos of my karaoke contributions upon request.

At risk of incurring your wrath my naming my preference of reincarnation, let me first state that I am unsure if reincarnation is based on a linear concept of time, or if I can be reincarnated at another period of time. God=7_4 is omnipotent and omniscient after all, so I am assuming the latter. If it were entirely my preference, I would choose to be reincarnated as the majestic and powerful Cockatrice. I draw Cockatrices a lot and can provide photos of my artistic works upon request.