Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #555187 > unrolled thread

Hey DildoRider...

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-21 07:20 +0100
    Re: Hey DildoRider... Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-21 15:50 +0800
      Re: Hey DildoRider... snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-21 08:04 +0000
      Re: Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-22 05:49 +0100
        Re: Hey DildoRider... Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-22 15:30 +0800
          Re: Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-22 20:55 +0100
            Re: Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-23 07:48 +0100
              Re: Hey DildoRider... Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-02-22 23:16 -0800
                Re: Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-23 19:10 +0100
                  Re: Hey DildoRider... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-23 11:55 -0700
                  Re: Hey DildoRider... Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-02-23 10:56 -0800
                    Re: Hey DildoRider... "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-23 16:25 -0800
              Re: Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-23 22:50 +0100
        Re: Hey DildoRider... Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-22 15:42 +0800
          Re: Hey DildoRider... "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-22 00:52 -0800
            Re: Hey DildoRider... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-22 09:02 -0700
              Re: Hey DildoRider... "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-22 09:30 -0800
                Re: Hey DildoRider... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-22 10:39 -0700
          Re: Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-22 19:35 +0100
            Re: Hey DildoRider... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-22 12:00 -0700
            Re: Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-23 08:20 +0100
              Re: Hey DildoRider... Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-23 23:05 +0100
                Re: Hey DildoRider... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-23 15:34 -0700
                  Re: Hey DildoRider... "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-23 19:38 -0500
                    Re: Hey DildoRider... snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-24 09:45 +0000
              Re: Hey DildoRider... Jed Clampett <jc@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:51 -0800
          Re: Hey DildoRider... Jed Clampett <jc@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 18:52 -0800
    Re: Hey DildoRider... Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-21 02:55 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#555187 — Hey DildoRider...

<http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>

Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
commercial electrical service.

SPNAK!

You can't get your kooky sinewave subtraction equation to do that, can
you? It just creates a straight line at 150.283974501 volts, which is
*wrong*.

Bwahahahaaa!

DildoRider can't figure out that Euler-Fourier equation to save his
pathetic life, but he makes up for it by spamming bad sinewave after
bad sinewave.

Shiny Metal Brain didn't even know the Euler equation is a subset of
equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is
a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given
that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*), that superposition
was the same as wave interference, that wave interference works the
same for standing or traveling waves, nor that 170 volt peak, 120.208
volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts L-L.

LunkHead is back to backpedaling about "zOMG! Antherpoomorefluch
Glaobael Waoreying! DDUUUURRRHHH!" and getting his stoooopid ass
kicked over it because he can't seem to wrap his puny little brain
around the Laws of Thermodynamics, nor around reality.

And I'm the *only* one who got the equation to graph properly.

<dances a jig>

Ah, it's good to be the king. Maybe next time you'll think twice about
tangling with somebody smarter than you. Moron. LOL

<snicker, gloat, snicker, gloat, snicker, gloat... snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Mathematical Moron. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

-- 

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#555193

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
<FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
> 
> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
> commercial electrical service.

ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.
And a fourth signal with 208v PEAK, not RMS.

Why do they not match the equations on the left, which all
say 170*sin(something)?

Try again.

> DildoRider can't figure out that Euler-Fourier equation to save his
> pathetic life,

Neither can you.

> Shiny Metal Brain didn't even know the Euler equation is a subset of
> equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas,

And i still don't know that, your word to the contrary
notwithstanding.

>   thus that a sinewave is
> a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given
> that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*),

And it's not.

>   that superposition
> was the same as wave interference, that wave interference works the
> same for standing or traveling waves,

Similar but also not the same.

>   nor that 170 volt peak, 120.208
> volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts L-L.

Which you can't graph right.

Actually you started with the wrong numbers.  Standard
electric line power is 120v RMS, which is 169.71v peak.
3phase L-L is 207.85v RMS, or 293.94v peak.

Not that the actual measured values will match to 5
significant digits, and I will forgive you for the small
error.  But it shows you don't understand where those
numbers come from.


> And I'm the *only* one who got the equation to graph properly.

Re-ROFL.

> <dances a jig>
> 
> Ah, it's good to be the king. Maybe next time you'll think twice about
> tangling with somebody smarter than you. Moron. LOL
> 
> <snicker, gloat, snicker, gloat, snicker, gloat... snicker>

Oh, but life is grand in lala land.

Why settle for king, when you could be a Christ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555194

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:

> [Fakey crowed]
> 
> > And I'm the *only* one who got the equation to graph properly.
> 
> Re-ROFL.
> 
> > <dances a jig>
> > 
> > Ah, it's good to be the king. Maybe next time you'll think twice about
> > tangling with somebody smarter than you. Moron. LOL
> > 
> > <snicker, gloat, snicker, gloat, snicker, gloat... snicker>
> 
> Oh, but life is grand in lala land.
> 
> Why settle for king, when you could be a Christ?
>

He has (ahem) shown us all the error of our ways, 
maybe he will lead us into the light and redeem us.

-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe       <snipeco.1@gmail.com>
        
My pet rock Gordon just is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555389

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
<news:rtpicb5auonlkgnna9o0fc24876fl8sei1@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
>> 
>> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
>> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
>> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
>> commercial electrical service.

> ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.

WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
moron.

SPNAK!

> And a fourth signal with 208v PEAK, not RMS.
> 
> Why do they not match the equations on the left, which all
> say 170*sin(something)?

Because you're a fucking moron who doesn't understand that the 170
volt peak tributaries result in the 120.208 volt RMS L-N first
resultants via superposition, as is correctly graphed.

Nor do you understand that the 120.208 volt RMS L-N first resultants
result in the 208.207 volt RMS L-L second resultants via
superposition, as is correctly graphed.

Because you're a moron who doesn't understand how the Euler sinewave
summation equation works.

And you're a moron who doesn't understand how superposition (aka
constructive and destructive interference) works.

SPNAK!

> Try again.

That graph is correct. You're just a moron. LOL

SPNAK!

>> DildoRider can't figure out that Euler-Fourier equation to save his
>> pathetic life,

> Neither can you.

I just did. And I graphed it. Correctly. Moron.

SPNAK!

>> Shiny Metal Brain didn't even know the Euler equation is a subset of
>> equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas,

> And i still don't know that, your word to the contrary
> notwithstanding.

My word and...

<https://math.byu.edu/home/sites/default/files/u107/fourseries_0.pdf>
==========================================================
A Fourier Series is a series of periodic functions (typically
sinusoids) that represents another periodic function.

If we could find these easily, then Fourier Series wouldn’t be so
daunting. Luckily, our good friend Euler derived some equations that
are now known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas.
==========================================================

Which handily proves you *wrong* on your kooky contention that the
Euler sinewave summation isn't a subset of the Euler-Fourier Formulas,
*and* handily proves you *wrong* on your kooky contention that Fourier
math isn't used on sinewaves.

SPNAK!

>> thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
>> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate*
>> to create *sinusoids*),

> And it's not.

And it is, you're just a moron.

Already posted (three times), and you avoided it (three times), so
I'll post it again:

<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

<http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to 
Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
"Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups, 
which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as 
groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier 
transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT, 
group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier* 
*transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval 
with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle 
periodic functions."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of 
the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."

Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't 
it?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"Relation with complex exponentials:
The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's 
Formula"

Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak 
3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS
L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.

<http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>

SPNAK!

>>   that superposition
>> was the same as wave interference, that wave interference works the
>> same for standing or traveling waves,

> Similar but also not the same.

Sure they are. All waves interfere, constructively and destructively, 
via superposition.

<http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section5_2/Sec5_2.htm>
"On the other hand, completely independent of the geometry, there is a 
property of waves called superposition that can lead to constructive 
or destructive interference."

Aren't you the *moron* who insisted that constructive / destructive 
interference and superposition were completely different things, then 
backpedaled and said interference only happened with traveling waves 
because you didn't realize wave interference occurs regardless of 
whether a wave is standing or traveling? Yeah... yeah you are.

SPNAK!

>> nor that 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service
>> gives 208.207 volts L-L.

> Which you can't graph right.

<http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>

Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS
L-L, as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most
ubiquitous commercial electrical service.

SPNAK!

> Actually you started with the wrong numbers.  Standard
> electric line power is 120v RMS, which is 169.71v peak.
> 3phase L-L is 207.85v RMS, or 293.94v peak.

Good gawd you're fucking dumb. I plotted the 170 volt peak tributary
sinewaves, which gives the first resultant 120.208 volt RMS L-N
sinewaves, which gives the second resultant 208.207 volt RMS L-L
sinewaves.

SPNAK!

> Not that the actual measured values will match to 5
> significant digits, and I will forgive you for the small
> error.  But it shows you don't understand where those
> numbers come from.

Those equations are exactly *correct*. You're just a moron who's
displaying his inability to grasp reality.

SPNAK!

>> And I'm the *only* one who got the equation to graph properly.

> Re-ROFL.

>> <dances a jig>
>> 
>> Ah, it's good to be the king. Maybe next time you'll think twice about
>> tangling with somebody smarter than you. Moron. LOL
>> 
>> <snicker, gloat, snicker, gloat, snicker, gloat... snicker>

> Oh, but life is grand in lala land.
> 
> Why settle for king, when you could be a Christ?

I'm already your Usenet Lord and Master, what more is there? LOL

SPNAK!

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555417

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
<FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
> <news:rtpicb5auonlkgnna9o0fc24876fl8sei1@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> > <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
> >> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
> >> 
> >> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
> >> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
> >> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
> >> commercial electrical service.
> 
> > ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.
> 
> WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
> three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
> The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
> second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
> like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
> wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
> moron.

Look at your retarded graphs, spunky monkey.  They clearly
*peak* at somewhere around +/- 115 to 117v, and +/- 205 to
208v.

A 120v RMS sinusoid will *peak* at 169.7v.  Duh.

Can you not read the tick marks on the y axis?

The fact that you keep bleating that you are right shows
what a clueless dweebazoid you are.

LOL!

-- 
"...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
  --Fakey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555599

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
<news:efdlcbls1ge7lv25iaj8bgh4rhju220ksn@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>> <news:rtpicb5auonlkgnna9o0fc24876fl8sei1@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:

>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
>>>> 
>>>> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
>>>> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
>>>> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
>>>> commercial electrical service.

>>> ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.

>> WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
>> three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
>> The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
>> second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
>> like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
>> wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
>> moron.

> Look at your retarded graphs, spunky monkey.  They clearly
> *peak* at somewhere around +/- 115 to 117v,

The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts, moron. LOL

> and +/- 205 to 208v.

The 208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewave peaks at 208.207 volts, moron. LOL

You're retarded. The graph very clearly shows a label for the peak
voltage of one of the first resultants, and it's 120.208 volts RMS
L-N. The second resultant very clearly shows 208.207 volt RMS L-L,
which is shown in the inset box.

<http://i.imgur.com/Em4KS1b.png>

SPNAK! on the moron who continues to demonstrate that he's so stupid
he can't even read a graph. LOL

> A 120v RMS sinusoid will *peak* at 169.7v.  Duh.

Moron. The 170 volt peak tributaries aren't graphed, they're the
inputs, in the first three equations. The first-resultant 120.208 volt
RMS L-N sinewaves are graphed, as is one of the second-resultant
208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewaves.

But thanks for reiterating that the graph (and therefore your Usenet
Lord and Master) is correct. LOL

SPNAK! on the moron who continues to demonstrate that he's a bigger
moron than nearly everyone else on Usenet. Jerry Sauk might give you a
run for your money, though.

<snicker>

> Can you not read the tick marks on the y axis?

The old graph is gradated in 25 volt increments. Can you not read the
tick marks on the y axis? The new one is gradated by 10 volts, same
equations.

<http://i.imgur.com/Em4KS1b.png>

SPNAK! on the moron who continues to demonstrate that he can't quite
grasp how that Euler sinewave summation equation works.

> The fact that you keep bleating that you are right shows
> what a clueless dweebazoid you are.

Except I'm right, and you're a moron.

<http://i.imgur.com/Em4KS1b.png>

SPNAK! on the moron.

LOL!

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555786

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
<news:o6qncbdoaqme31oc3ka77g1pdtpii3r669@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in

>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
>>>>>> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
>>>>>> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
>>>>>> commercial electrical service.

>>>>> ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.

>>>> WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
>>>> three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
>>>> The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
>>>> second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
>>>> like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
>>>> wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
>>>> moron.

>>> Look at your retarded graphs, spunky monkey.  They clearly
>>> *peak* at somewhere around +/- 115 to 117v,

>> The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts, moron. LOL

>>> and +/- 205 to 208v.

>> The 208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewave peaks at 208.207 volts, moron. LOL

> So the uneducable moron thinks RMS and peak voltages are
> identically equal.

Yeah, you're the uneducable moron who's already demonstrated his
inability to distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you
blathered that the graph above was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.

Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
<MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
"You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."

Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the 
difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting 
147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.

SPNAK!

> *sigh*... i tried.  You are hopeless, fakey.

You're delusional. Seek immediate psychiatric help.

<snicker>

>>> A 120v RMS sinusoid will *peak* at 169.7v.  Duh.

> You still don't get it.

Moron.

> Insert bleatage here:
> ______________________________
> 
> -- 
> "...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
>   --Fakey

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>

Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
=========================================================
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

<http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to 
Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
"Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups, 
which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as 
groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier 
transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT, 
group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier* 
*transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval 
with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle 
periodic functions."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of 
the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."

Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't 
it?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"Relation with complex exponentials:
The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's 
Formula"

Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak 
3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS 
L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.

<http://i.imgur.com/NrZzxlb.png>

SPNAK!
=========================================================

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
are.

Spankard. Moron. LOL

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555789

x-no-archive: yes

On 2/22/2016 10:48 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
> <news:o6qncbdoaqme31oc3ka77g1pdtpii3r669@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>
>>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
>>>>>>> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
>>>>>>> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
>>>>>>> commercial electrical service.
>
>>>>>> ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.
>
>>>>> WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
>>>>> three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
>>>>> The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
>>>>> second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
>>>>> like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
>>>>> wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
>>>>> moron.
>
>>>> Look at your retarded graphs, spunky monkey.  They clearly
>>>> *peak* at somewhere around +/- 115 to 117v,
>
>>> The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts, moron. LOL
>
>>>> and +/- 205 to 208v.
>
>>> The 208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewave peaks at 208.207 volts, moron. LOL
>
>> So the uneducable moron thinks RMS and peak voltages are
>> identically equal.
>
> Yeah, you're the uneducable moron who's already demonstrated his
> inability to distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you
> blathered that the graph above was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.
>
> Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
> <MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
> "You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."
>
> Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the
> difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting
> 147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.
>
> SPNAK!
>
>> *sigh*... i tried.  You are hopeless, fakey.
>
> You're delusional. Seek immediate psychiatric help.
>
> <snicker>
>
>>>> A 120v RMS sinusoid will *peak* at 169.7v.  Duh.
>
>> You still don't get it.
>
> Moron.
>
>> Insert bleatage here:
>> ______________________________
>>
>> --
>> "...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
>>    --Fakey
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
>
> Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
> =========================================================
> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
> See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
> transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
> the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
>
> <http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
> 2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to
> Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
> "Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups,
> which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as
> groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier
> transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT,
> group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier*
> *transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval
> with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle
> periodic functions."
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
> You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
> "In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of
> the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."
>
> Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't
> it?
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
> "Relation with complex exponentials:
> The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
> Formula"
>
> Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak
> 3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS
> L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.
>
> <http://i.imgur.com/NrZzxlb.png>
>
> SPNAK!
> =========================================================
>
> Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
> to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
> are.
>
> Spankard. Moron. LOL


hi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555913

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Janithor, in <news:nah0vj$pkj$1@news.albasani.net> wrote:

> On 2/22/2016 10:48 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>> <news:o6qncbdoaqme31oc3ka77g1pdtpii3r669@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:

>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in

>>>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
>>>>>>>> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
>>>>>>>> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
>>>>>>>> commercial electrical service.

>>>>>>> ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.

>>>>>> WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
>>>>>> three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
>>>>>> The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
>>>>>> second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
>>>>>> like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
>>>>>> wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
>>>>>> moron.

>>>>> Look at your retarded graphs, spunky monkey.  They clearly
>>>>> *peak* at somewhere around +/- 115 to 117v,

>>>> The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts, moron. LOL

>>>>> and +/- 205 to 208v.

>>>> The 208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewave peaks at 208.207 volts, moron. LOL

>>> So the uneducable moron thinks RMS and peak voltages are
>>> identically equal.

>> Yeah, you're the uneducable moron who's already demonstrated his
>> inability to distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you
>> blathered that the graph above was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.
>>
>> Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
>> <MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
>> "You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."
>>
>> Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the
>> difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting
>> 147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.
>>
>> SPNAK!

>>> *sigh*... i tried.  You are hopeless, fakey.

>> You're delusional. Seek immediate psychiatric help.
>>
>> <snicker>

>>>>> A 120v RMS sinusoid will *peak* at 169.7v.  Duh.

>>> You still don't get it.

>> Moron.

>>> Insert bleatage here:
>>> ______________________________
>>>
>>> --
>>> "...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
>>>    --Fakey

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
>>
>> Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
>> =========================================================
>> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
>> See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
>> transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
>> the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
>>
>> <http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
>> 2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to
>> Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
>> "Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups,
>> which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as
>> groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier
>> transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT,
>> group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier*
>> *transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval
>> with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle
>> periodic functions."
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
>> You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
>> "In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of
>> the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."
>>
>> Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't
>> it?
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
>> "Relation with complex exponentials:
>> The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
>> Formula"
>>
>> Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak
>> 3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS
>> L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.
>>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/NrZzxlb.png>
>>
>> SPNAK!
>> =========================================================
>>
>> Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
>> to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
>> are.
>>
>> Spankard. Moron. LOL

> hi

Hi. I assume you're here to clean up the blood and guts after that
wicked SPNAK!age I delivered upon the kooks last night. Did you see
it? I bootfucked them so hard they have bootprints on the inside of
their teeth.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555932

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:10:32 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
>Janithor, in <news:nah0vj$pkj$1@news.albasani.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2016 10:48 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>>> <news:o6qncbdoaqme31oc3ka77g1pdtpii3r669@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>>> first into the wood chipper again:
>
>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>
>>>>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
>>>>>>>>> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
>>>>>>>>> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
>>>>>>>>> commercial electrical service.
>
>>>>>>>> ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.
>
>>>>>>> WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
>>>>>>> three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
>>>>>>> The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
>>>>>>> second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
>>>>>>> like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
>>>>>>> wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
>>>>>>> moron.
>
>>>>>> Look at your retarded graphs, spunky monkey.  They clearly
>>>>>> *peak* at somewhere around +/- 115 to 117v,
>
>>>>> The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts, moron. LOL
>
>>>>>> and +/- 205 to 208v.
>
>>>>> The 208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewave peaks at 208.207 volts, moron. LOL
>
>>>> So the uneducable moron thinks RMS and peak voltages are
>>>> identically equal.
>
>>> Yeah, you're the uneducable moron who's already demonstrated his
>>> inability to distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you
>>> blathered that the graph above was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.
>>>
>>> Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
>>> <MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
>>> "You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."
>>>
>>> Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the
>>> difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting
>>> 147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.
>>>
>>> SPNAK!
>
>>>> *sigh*... i tried.  You are hopeless, fakey.
>
>>> You're delusional. Seek immediate psychiatric help.
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>
>>>>>> A 120v RMS sinusoid will *peak* at 169.7v.  Duh.
>
>>>> You still don't get it.
>
>>> Moron.
>
>>>> Insert bleatage here:
>>>> ______________________________
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
>>>>    --Fakey
>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
>>> =========================================================
>>> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
>>> See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
>>> transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
>>> the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
>>>
>>> <http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
>>> 2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to
>>> Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
>>> "Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups,
>>> which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as
>>> groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier
>>> transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT,
>>> group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier*
>>> *transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval
>>> with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle
>>> periodic functions."
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
>>> You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
>>> "In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of
>>> the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."
>>>
>>> Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't
>>> it?
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
>>> "Relation with complex exponentials:
>>> The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
>>> Formula"
>>>
>>> Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak
>>> 3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS
>>> L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.
>>>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/NrZzxlb.png>
>>>
>>> SPNAK!
>>> =========================================================
>>>
>>> Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
>>> to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
>>> are.
>>>
>>> Spankard. Moron. LOL
>
>> hi
>
>Hi. I assume you're here to clean up the blood and guts after that
>wicked SPNAK!age I delivered upon the kooks last night. Did you see
>it? I bootfucked them so hard they have bootprints on the inside of
>their teeth.
>
><snicker>


I saw empty hooks dropped and you charging like an Ethiopian running
after a rolling donut.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555933

x-no-archive: yes

On 2/23/2016 10:10 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Janithor, in <news:nah0vj$pkj$1@news.albasani.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2016 10:48 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>>> <news:o6qncbdoaqme31oc3ka77g1pdtpii3r669@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>>> first into the wood chipper again:
>
>>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>
>>>>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
>>>>>>>>> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
>>>>>>>>> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
>>>>>>>>> commercial electrical service.
>
>>>>>>>> ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.
>
>>>>>>> WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
>>>>>>> three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
>>>>>>> The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
>>>>>>> second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
>>>>>>> like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
>>>>>>> wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
>>>>>>> moron.
>
>>>>>> Look at your retarded graphs, spunky monkey.  They clearly
>>>>>> *peak* at somewhere around +/- 115 to 117v,
>
>>>>> The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts, moron. LOL
>
>>>>>> and +/- 205 to 208v.
>
>>>>> The 208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewave peaks at 208.207 volts, moron. LOL
>
>>>> So the uneducable moron thinks RMS and peak voltages are
>>>> identically equal.
>
>>> Yeah, you're the uneducable moron who's already demonstrated his
>>> inability to distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you
>>> blathered that the graph above was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.
>>>
>>> Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
>>> <MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
>>> "You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."
>>>
>>> Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the
>>> difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting
>>> 147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.
>>>
>>> SPNAK!
>
>>>> *sigh*... i tried.  You are hopeless, fakey.
>
>>> You're delusional. Seek immediate psychiatric help.
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>
>>>>>> A 120v RMS sinusoid will *peak* at 169.7v.  Duh.
>
>>>> You still don't get it.
>
>>> Moron.
>
>>>> Insert bleatage here:
>>>> ______________________________
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
>>>>     --Fakey
>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
>>> =========================================================
>>> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
>>> See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
>>> transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
>>> the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
>>>
>>> <http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
>>> 2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to
>>> Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
>>> "Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups,
>>> which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as
>>> groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier
>>> transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT,
>>> group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier*
>>> *transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval
>>> with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle
>>> periodic functions."
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
>>> You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
>>> "In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of
>>> the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."
>>>
>>> Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't
>>> it?
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
>>> "Relation with complex exponentials:
>>> The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
>>> Formula"
>>>
>>> Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak
>>> 3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS
>>> L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.
>>>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/NrZzxlb.png>
>>>
>>> SPNAK!
>>> =========================================================
>>>
>>> Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
>>> to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
>>> are.
>>>
>>> Spankard. Moron. LOL
>
>> hi
>
> Hi. I assume you're here to clean up the blood and guts after that
> wicked SPNAK!age I delivered upon the kooks last night. Did you see
> it? I bootfucked them so hard they have bootprints on the inside of
> their teeth.
>
> <snicker>


Sorry, I haven't been reading AUK very much the past week or so. 
Actually I  was going to ask your advice on how I can get % to be 
friends with me again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556060

In article <naia0o$640$4@news.albasani.net>, Janithor@comcast.net 
says...


> 
> x-no-archive: yes
> 
> On 2/23/2016 10:10 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> >
> > Janithor, in <news:nah0vj$pkj$1@news.albasani.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/22/2016 10:48 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >
> >>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
> >>> <news:o6qncbdoaqme31oc3ka77g1pdtpii3r669@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> >>> first into the wood chipper again:
> >
> >>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> >>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
> >
> >>>>>>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Showing the Euler sinewave summation equation plotting 170 volt peak
> >>>>>>>>> hot legs translating into 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt L-L,
> >>>>>>>>> as is evidenced in 120/208 wye electrical service, the most ubiquitous
> >>>>>>>>> commercial electrical service.
> >
> >>>>>>>> ROFL!  Fakey, you graphed 3 signals of 120v PEAK, not RMS.
> >
> >>>>>>> WTF? You're retarded. The 170 volt peak sinewaves are in the first
> >>>>>>> three equations, the 120.208 volt RMS L-N are the first resultants.
> >>>>>>> The fourth equation calculates the 208.207 volt RMS L-L, one of the
> >>>>>>> second resultants as a result of summing the first resultants. If you
> >>>>>>> like, I can graph the other two 208.207 volt RMS L-L legs to prove you
> >>>>>>> wrong even further, but there's little point. I'm right, and you're a
> >>>>>>> moron.
> >
> >>>>>> Look at your retarded graphs, spunky monkey.  They clearly
> >>>>>> *peak* at somewhere around +/- 115 to 117v,
> >
> >>>>> The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts, moron. LOL
> >
> >>>>>> and +/- 205 to 208v.
> >
> >>>>> The 208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewave peaks at 208.207 volts, moron. LOL
> >
> >>>> So the uneducable moron thinks RMS and peak voltages are
> >>>> identically equal.
> >
> >>> Yeah, you're the uneducable moron who's already demonstrated his
> >>> inability to distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you
> >>> blathered that the graph above was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.
> >>>
> >>> Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
> >>> <MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
> >>> "You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the
> >>> difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting
> >>> 147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.
> >>>
> >>> SPNAK!
> >
> >>>> *sigh*... i tried.  You are hopeless, fakey.
> >
> >>> You're delusional. Seek immediate psychiatric help.
> >>>
> >>> <snicker>
> >
> >>>>>> A 120v RMS sinusoid will *peak* at 169.7v.  Duh.
> >
> >>>> You still don't get it.
> >
> >>> Moron.
> >
> >>>> Insert bleatage here:
> >>>> ______________________________
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> "...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
> >>>>     --Fakey
> >
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
> >>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>
> >>>
> >>> Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
> >>> =========================================================
> >>> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
> >>> See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
> >>> transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
> >>> the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
> >>>
> >>> <http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
> >>> 2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to
> >>> Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.
> >>>
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
> >>> "Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups,
> >>> which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as
> >>> groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier
> >>> transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT,
> >>> group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier*
> >>> *transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval
> >>> with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle
> >>> periodic functions."
> >>>
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
> >>> You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.
> >>>
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
> >>> "In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of
> >>> the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."
> >>>
> >>> Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't
> >>> it?
> >>>
> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
> >>> "Relation with complex exponentials:
> >>> The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
> >>> Formula"
> >>>
> >>> Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak
> >>> 3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS
> >>> L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.
> >>>
> >>> <http://i.imgur.com/NrZzxlb.png>
> >>>
> >>> SPNAK!
> >>> =========================================================
> >>>
> >>> Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
> >>> to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
> >>> are.
> >>>
> >>> Spankard. Moron. LOL
> >
> >> hi
> >
> > Hi. I assume you're here to clean up the blood and guts after that
> > wicked SPNAK!age I delivered upon the kooks last night. Did you see
> > it? I bootfucked them so hard they have bootprints on the inside of
> > their teeth.
> >
> > <snicker>
> 
> 
> Sorry, I haven't been reading AUK very much the past week or so. 
> Actually I  was going to ask your advice on how I can get % to be 
> friends with me again.

Actually, Fakey was just hoping to use you as an opportunity to proclaim 
he was the spankor, and not the spankee.  Of course the reality is, that 
he's been getting his ass handed to him by everyone in the group that 
understands electrical distribution systems better than he does... which 
IS everybody.  He's still too stubborn and cowardly to admit he's wrong 
though.  He'd rather keep coming up with new constructs to "prove" he's 
always right.  He can't disappoint his daddy again, because daddy finds 
that unacceptable.  It's such a sad story...

-- 

Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote  (Post-Burnore)
Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame
Copyright © 2016 
all rights reserved 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#556023

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
<news:oi3pcb9v64fabgnjh2h0mc56uemmmb4giq@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

Froups desnecked, Coward.

> FNVWe mashed a moron's Shiny Tinfoil Brain. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
>> <news:o6qncbdoaqme31oc3ka77g1pdtpii3r669@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:

>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>>>> The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts, moron. LOL

>>>>> and +/- 205 to 208v.

>>>> The 208.207 volt RMS L-L sinewave peaks at 208.207 volts, moron. LOL

>>> So the uneducable moron thinks RMS and peak voltages are
>>> identically equal.

>> Yeah, you're the uneducable moron who's already demonstrated his
>> inability to distinguish between peak-to-peak and RMS when you
>> blathered that the graph above was actually a graph of 85 volt RMS.
>> 
>> Shiny Tinfoil Brain wrote:
>> <MID:rdomcb169mq5csebugqrbj9ganol8je5s1@4ax.com>
>> "You graphed sines with 85v RMS and 147v RMS amplitude."
>> 
>> Yeah, you *are* the moron who demonstrated that you don't know the 
>> difference between RMS and peak-to-peak. No idea where you're getting 
>> 147 volts, maybe you're just a moron.
>> 
>> SPNAK!

> Ok. 'Nuff said.

Indeed.

> SPNAKITY-SPNAK!

Oh, indeed.

<snicker>

> -- 
> "The 120.208 volt RMS L-N sinewaves peak at 120.208 volts,
> moron. LOL"
>   --fakey claims RMS and peak voltage are identically equal

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>

Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
=========================================================
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

<http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to 
Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
"Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups, 
which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as 
groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier 
transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT, 
group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier* 
*transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval 
with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle 
periodic functions."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of 
the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."

Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't 
it?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"Relation with complex exponentials:
The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's 
Formula"

Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak 
3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS 
L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.

<http://i.imgur.com/NrZzxlb.png>

SPNAK!
=========================================================

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
are.

Spankard. Moron. LOL

-- 

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555422

Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
<FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> >> thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
> >> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate*
> >> to create *sinusoids*),
> 
> > And it's not.
> 
> And it is, you're just a moron.
> 
> Already posted (three times), and you avoided it (three times), so
> I'll post it again:
> 
> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
> See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
> transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
> the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

Here's another free clue, Fakey.  Use it wisely, because it
might be your last one...

In order to graph a complex function in time, you need a 3
(three) dimension plot.

Can you guess how to label the 3 axes?

Got it?
Get busy.

-- 
"...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
  --Fakey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555429

In article <kkelcbhdec4mu10f68qu6o44orql0va9v6@4ax.com>, 
bender@the.future says...


> 
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
> > >> thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
> > >> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate*
> > >> to create *sinusoids*),
> > 
> > > And it's not.
> > 
> > And it is, you're just a moron.
> > 
> > Already posted (three times), and you avoided it (three times), so
> > I'll post it again:
> > 
> > <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
> > See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
> > transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
> > the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
> 
> Here's another free clue, Fakey.  Use it wisely, because it
> might be your last one...
> 
> In order to graph a complex function in time, you need a 3
> (three) dimension plot.
> 
> Can you guess how to label the 3 axes?
> 
> Got it?
> Get busy.

Why, it's as easy as XYZ!  Next he'll rephrase his original explanation 
to make it sound like you misunderstood it, thereby making him right, 
and then he'll claim victolly again.  Or, he might decide to just assign 
you your very own custom made faglame...

-- 

Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote  (Post-Burnore)
Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame
Copyright © 2016 
all rights reserved 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555502

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:52:43 -0800, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
<Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote:

>In article <kkelcbhdec4mu10f68qu6o44orql0va9v6@4ax.com>, 
>bender@the.future says...
>
>
>> 
>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>> 
>> > >> thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
>> > >> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate*
>> > >> to create *sinusoids*),
>> > 
>> > > And it's not.
>> > 
>> > And it is, you're just a moron.
>> > 
>> > Already posted (three times), and you avoided it (three times), so
>> > I'll post it again:
>> > 
>> > <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
>> > See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
>> > transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
>> > the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
>> 
>> Here's another free clue, Fakey.  Use it wisely, because it
>> might be your last one...
>> 
>> In order to graph a complex function in time, you need a 3
>> (three) dimension plot.
>> 
>> Can you guess how to label the 3 axes?
>> 
>> Got it?
>> Get busy.
>
>Why, it's as easy as XYZ!  Next he'll rephrase his original explanation 
>to make it sound like you misunderstood it, thereby making him right, 
>and then he'll claim victolly again.  Or, he might decide to just assign 
>you your very own custom made faglame...


Fk you! I wanna fag lame too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555527

In article <18cmcb5lpj06fffq6s63g28ph1lahnv1d7@4ax.com>, 
skeet@invalid.invalid says...


> 
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:52:43 -0800, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
> <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote:
> 
> >In article <kkelcbhdec4mu10f68qu6o44orql0va9v6@4ax.com>, 
> >bender@the.future says...
> >
> >
> >> 
> >> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> >> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > >> thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
> >> > >> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate*
> >> > >> to create *sinusoids*),
> >> > 
> >> > > And it's not.
> >> > 
> >> > And it is, you're just a moron.
> >> > 
> >> > Already posted (three times), and you avoided it (three times), so
> >> > I'll post it again:
> >> > 
> >> > <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
> >> > See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
> >> > transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
> >> > the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
> >> 
> >> Here's another free clue, Fakey.  Use it wisely, because it
> >> might be your last one...
> >> 
> >> In order to graph a complex function in time, you need a 3
> >> (three) dimension plot.
> >> 
> >> Can you guess how to label the 3 axes?
> >> 
> >> Got it?
> >> Get busy.
> >
> >Why, it's as easy as XYZ!  Next he'll rephrase his original explanation 
> >to make it sound like you misunderstood it, thereby making him right, 
> >and then he'll claim victolly again.  Or, he might decide to just assign 
> >you your very own custom made faglame...
> 
> 
> Fk you! I wanna fag lame too.

Sorry, you'll have to be content to be a single-wide trailer-dwelling 
pissbum.  All the good faglames have been taken.

-- 

Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote  (Post-Burnore)
Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame
Copyright © 2016 
all rights reserved 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555528

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:30:30 -0800, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
<Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote:

>In article <18cmcb5lpj06fffq6s63g28ph1lahnv1d7@4ax.com>, 
>skeet@invalid.invalid says...
>
>
>> 
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 00:52:43 -0800, "Checkmate, DoW #1"
>> <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <kkelcbhdec4mu10f68qu6o44orql0va9v6@4ax.com>, 
>> >bender@the.future says...
>> >
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>> >> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > >> thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
>> >> > >> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate*
>> >> > >> to create *sinusoids*),
>> >> > 
>> >> > > And it's not.
>> >> > 
>> >> > And it is, you're just a moron.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Already posted (three times), and you avoided it (three times), so
>> >> > I'll post it again:
>> >> > 
>> >> > <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
>> >> > See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
>> >> > transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
>> >> > the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL
>> >> 
>> >> Here's another free clue, Fakey.  Use it wisely, because it
>> >> might be your last one...
>> >> 
>> >> In order to graph a complex function in time, you need a 3
>> >> (three) dimension plot.
>> >> 
>> >> Can you guess how to label the 3 axes?
>> >> 
>> >> Got it?
>> >> Get busy.
>> >
>> >Why, it's as easy as XYZ!  Next he'll rephrase his original explanation 
>> >to make it sound like you misunderstood it, thereby making him right, 
>> >and then he'll claim victolly again.  Or, he might decide to just assign 
>> >you your very own custom made faglame...
>> 
>> 
>> Fk you! I wanna fag lame too.
>
>Sorry, you'll have to be content to be a single-wide trailer-dwelling 
>pissbum.  All the good faglames have been taken.

Don't forget woman beating drug addled sumptin or another.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555552

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
<news:kkelcbhdec4mu10f68qu6o44orql0va9v6@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
> <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>>>> thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
>>>> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate*
>>>> to create *sinusoids*),

>>> And it's not.

>> And it is, you're just a moron.
>> 
>> Already posted (three times), and you avoided it (three times), so
>> I'll post it again:
>> 
>> <http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
>> See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
>> transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
>> the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

Now that Shiny Tinfoil Brain has gotten a clue, he's going to
immediately try to give it away so he remains blissfully clueless. LOL

> Here's another free clue, Fakey.

No, hold onto those... you're so lacking in clue, you need every one
you can get. LOL

Shiny Tinfoil Brain didn't even know the Euler equation is a subset of
equations known as the Euler-Fourier Formulas, thus that a sinewave is
a transformation of a circle (which should have been intuitive, given
that generators *rotate* to create *sinusoids*); that superposition
was the same as wave interference; that wave interference works the
same for standing or traveling waves; that 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt
RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207 volts RMS L-L; and the moron
continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.

<http://i.imgur.com/Em4KS1b.png>

SPNAK!

<snicker>

> Use it wisely, because it might be your last one...

You're... you're giving away your last clue? Well, I knew you were
close to being totally clueless, but this confirms it. LOL

> In order to graph a complex function in time, you need a 3
> (three) dimension plot.

You'll be getting right on detailing what, exactly, you're plotting in
that third dimension to juxtapose it against voltage on the Y axis and
time on the X axis when plotting voltage vs. time for sinewaves, Shiny
Tinfoil Brain.

> Can you guess how to label the 3 axes?

No, because I have no idea what you're blathering about. I suspect
*you* have no idea what you're blathering about, it's just that you
spent all night raping Google, found some web page that you thought
you could use to divert attention away from the fact that you've
proven yourself to be a dimwitted moron, then leapt to Usenet to bleat
more.

Are you perhaps referring to the S-plane, the complex plane on which
Laplace transforms are graphed, where instead of viewing time-domain
processes, the functions are modeled in the frequency domain?

Or are you perhaps referring to the fact that a circularly symmetric
function transforms via Fourier equation to a Bessinc shape in a 3-D
Euclidean-space complex-plane plot, thereby establishing the time axis
x, the amplitude axis y, the real axis z, the orthogonal imaginary
axis Z, which I've already discussed?

Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df316c519affcf3838@dizum.com>
=========================================================
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

<http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to 
Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
"Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups, 
which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as 
groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier 
transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT, 
group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier* 
*transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval 
with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle 
periodic functions."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of 
the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."

Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't 
it?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"Relation with complex exponentials:
The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's 
Formula"

Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak 
3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS 
L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.

<http://i.imgur.com/SMRGcQY.png>

SPNAK!
=========================================================

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
are.

Spankard. Moron. LOL

> Got it?
> Get busy.

<http://i.imgur.com/Em4KS1b.png>

A properly graphed example of 3-phase wye electrical service. The 170
volt peak hot legs are in the first three equations, which results in
the 120.208 volt RMS L-N first-resultants as graphed, which result in
the 208.207 volt RMS L-L second-resultant, only one of which is
graphed.

SPNAK! on DildoRider and, by extension, Shiny Tinfoil Brain who
continues to demonstrate that he can't understand how the Euler
sinewave summation equation works.

<snicker>

-- 

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934b3e8a0fb022b7618@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfaa1257fb33fb0c082@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f712515dedb738e450@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#555563

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:35:35 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Can you guess how to label the 3 axes?
>
>No

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web