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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#555791

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
<news:i1mmcbpq12u6il6l1f3g0tbqnh1l2rte57@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

alt.free.newsservers and sci.physics desnecked, Spankard.

Afraid others will realize you're a moron? LOL

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

>> 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*);

> So, if the fourier transform of a circle is a sine wave,
> then the fourier transform of a triangle must be...
> 
> A TRIANGLE WAVE!!!  <ta-dum!>
> 
> We know you're an expertician on triangle waves, fakey.

No, the Fourier transform of the triangle function is the sinc
function squared. Don't you know anything? LOL

<http://www.thefouriertransform.com/pairs/triangle.php>

>>> 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.

> I already told you, dimbulb.
> 
> You don't understand what complex numbers are, do you?

Sure I do. In fact, I've already demonstrated that fact by properly
graphing the 170 volt peak of each hot leg, graphed along with 
the 120.208 volt RMS L-N first-resultants and the 208.207 volt RMS L-L 
second-resultants, coincidentally color-coordinated to show the 
resultant phase shift due to superposition, completely in agreement 
with the phasor diagram:

<http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/wyedelta.gif>
<http://i.imgur.com/NrZzxlb.png>

Input #1, Graph #1 (red): 170v peak, hot leg #1, 0 degree phase
Input #2, Graph #2 (green): 170v peak, hot leg #2, 120 degree phase
Input #3, Graph #3 (purple): 170v peak, hot leg #3, 240 degree phase

1st Resultant #1, Graph #4 (red): 120.208 volt RMS L1-N
1st Resultant #2, Graph #5 (green): 120.208 volt RMS L2-N
1st Resultant #3, Graph #6: (purple): 120.208 volt RMS L3-N
2nd Resultant #1, Graph #7: (red): 208.207 volt RMS L1-L2
2nd Resultant #2, Graph #8: (green): 208.207 volt RMS L2-L3
2nd Resultant #3, Graph #9: (purple): 208.207 volt RMS L3-L1

The 170 volt peak hot legs are the inputs, which result in the 120.208
volt RMS L-N first-resultants as graphed, which result in the 208.207
volt RMS L-L second-resultants as graphed.

The voltage of the 120.208 volt RMS L-N first-resultant is Peak
Voltage / SQRT(2):
170 / 120.208 = 1.41421
170 / SQRT(2) = 120.208
SQRT(2) = 1.41421

The voltage of the 208.207 volt RMS L-L second-resultant is SQRT(3) *
First Resultant:
208.207 / 120.208 = 1.73205
120.208 * SQRT(3) = 208.20636
SQRT(3) = 1.73205

SPNAK!

Now you k'lame the graph is wrong (again) so you can demonstrate
you're a know-nothing moron (again).

<snicker>

> Do i have to start charging you tuition?

Says the moron who's been wrong about nearly everything. 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 cross
correlation is used with Fourier transforms; that superposition is the
same as wave interference; that wave interference works the same for
standing or traveling waves; that RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two
different things; 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/NrZzxlb.png>

SPNAK!

Do I have to start charging you tuition?

<snicker>

> -- 
> "...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]

#556025

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

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in
<news:hb4pcbhphh1gpsqc0g2jq17u122m7mv1mf@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
first into the wood chipper again:

Froups desnecked, Coward.

> 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:i1mmcbpq12u6il6l1f3g0tbqnh1l2rte57@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:
>> 
>> alt.free.newsservers and sci.physics desnecked, Spankard.
>> 
>> Afraid others will realize you're a moron? LOL

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

>>>> 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*);

>>> So, if the fourier transform of a circle is a sine wave,
>>> then the fourier transform of a triangle must be...
>>> 
>>> A TRIANGLE WAVE!!!  <ta-dum!>
>>> 
>>> We know you're an expertician on triangle waves, fakey.

>> No, the Fourier transform of the triangle function is the sinc
>> function squared. Don't you know anything? LOL
>> 
>> <http://www.thefouriertransform.com/pairs/triangle.php>

> Wow!  Isn't it a shame you can't understand any of that.

Sure I do, whereas you've demonstrated time and again that you
understand very little. For instance:

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 cross 
correlation is used with Fourier transforms; that superposition is the 
same as wave interference; that wave interference works the same for 
standing or traveling waves; that RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two 
different things; 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.

>>>>> 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.

>>> I already told you, dimbulb.
>>> 
>>> You don't understand what complex numbers are, do you?

>> Sure I do. In fact, I've already demonstrated that fact by properly
>> graphing the 170 volt peak of each hot leg, graphed along with 
>> the 120.208 volt RMS L-N first-resultants and the 208.207 volt RMS L-L 

> Wow!  You graphed sine waves!  What a genius.

Not just graphed them, you'll note all the equations are using the 170
volt peak L-N voltage for their input. So I've proven the Euler
sinewave summation equations work. It shows the 120.208 volt RMS L-N
derived from the 170 volt peak voltage, with its concomitant slight
phase lag, and I showed the 208.207 volt RMS L-L derived from the
120.208 volt RMS L-N, complete with its concomitant phase advance.

DildoRider can't even get his kooky sinewave subtraction equation to
follow Watt's Law.

> But... but there are no complex numbers there!

Sure there are, you're just a moron.

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 cross
correlation is used with Fourier transforms; that superposition is the
same as wave interference; that wave interference works the same for
standing or traveling waves; that RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two
different things; 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. He's more clueless than
even Chimpy when it comes to electrics.

> And you continue to prove you don't understand the
> difference between RMS and peak.

Aren't you the 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!

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

Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames 120.208 volts is a peak voltage and not an
RMS voltage. LOL!

SPNAK! on the moron.

<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]

#556028

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:05:47 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> But... but there are no complex numbers there!
>
>Sure there are, you're just a moron.



I see a fakey meltdown coming......again.

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

#556067

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:34:50 -0500, Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:05:47 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>> But... but there are no complex numbers there!
>>
>> Sure there are, you're just a moron.
>
> I see a fakey meltdown coming......again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBxOR4uuiA

LOLOL

-- 
"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:  
<3dcad3dd0a0d39727506717506883c26@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>>  phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>>  voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking  
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to  
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract  
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each  
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
  opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
  of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb8a348293c5cf9f13@dizum.com>

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

-

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<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
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. 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


on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist.  hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

-

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007

 

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

#556164

"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> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:34:50 -0500, Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:05:47 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
> > Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> >
> >>> But... but there are no complex numbers there!
> >>
> >> Sure there are, you're just a moron.
> >
> > I see a fakey meltdown coming......again.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKBxOR4uuiA
> 
> LOLOL

ROFLMAO

-- 
^Ï^.    Sn!pe, DoW #2    <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

PTB
Siri Seal of Disavowal #007-007 (license to killfile)
AUK DoW #2, Fuckhead #3 
AUK Ministry of Circle Jerks, Aug. 2015 (award now deprecated)
0 %

My pet rock Gordon just is.

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

#558170

In article <8e6d9ce73030a103b1e9ee56e97aabe2@dizum.com>,
 Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus 
 <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> No, the Fourier transform of the triangle function is the sinc
> function squared. Don't you know anything? LOL

Because the triangle function is the convolution of 
the rectangle function with itself and the Fourier
transform of a convolution f o g, F(f o g) = F(f) * F(g).
Everybody knows that.

-- 
Jed Clampett

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

#558171

In article <kkelcbhdec4mu10f68qu6o44orql0va9v6@4ax.com>,
 Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> wrote:

> 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.

Do you mean a function f: R -> C?
The graph is defined as the set of ordered pairs (t, f(t)).

> Can you guess how to label the 3 axes?

Two axes:
"t" and "f(t)". 

> Got it?
> Get busy.

-- 
Jed Clampett

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

#555215

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 07:20:55 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>

The scent of an attention whore is detected.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web