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

Groups > sci.physics > #641711 > unrolled thread

Re: Most irrational speculations of physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Esteban Viars <esane@snbvten.vt> - 2017-07-21 20:47 +0000
    Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 18:11 -0500
      Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 00:28 +0000
        Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-21 20:21 -0500
          Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:19 +0000
        Re: Most irrational speculations of physics James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 10:18 -0700
    Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 12:18 +0000
      Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-22 08:48 -0500
        Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 15:20 +0000
      Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Kurt Larrabee <arb@twraa.ab> - 2017-07-22 17:14 +0000
        Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-22 13:15 -0500
          Re: Most irrational speculations of physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-22 18:21 -0400
            Re: Most irrational speculations of physics Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-30 20:25 -0500
              Re: Most irrational speculations of physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-31 17:19 -0400
    Re: Most irrational speculations of physics James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 09:02 -0700
    Re: Most irrational speculations of physics James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 18:56 -0700

#641711 — Re: Most irrational speculations of physics

rotchm wrote:

>> Is it? That equal sign distort you. It is actually also wrong.
>> Substitute that by an arrow, ie x(2) -> t²...
> 
> Hello idiot troll. Yes its an equation.
> noun 1. MATHEMATICS a statement that the values of two mathematical
> expressions are equal (indicated by the sign =). 
> 2. the process of equating one thing with another.

Another imbecile pushing up definitions as arguments. It must be right, 
since you chose the right definition, huh? No need for brain, this is so 
wonderful.

> Do you see the equals sing in  x(t) = t² ? Yes? hence its an equation by
> definition.

Listen up, stoopid, when a variable takes an input it depends on, then 
output a value, that's a FUNCTION, not an equation. Functions are usually 
ALL DIRECTIONAL, ie a change in output does NOT implies a change in INPUT.

ie this is false t² -> x(t). (and stupid)

Hopefully you just learned something and never ever will forget. You and 
your friend, morony, would never even pass an exam in half-engineering, my 
rotty. Who is the troll now, rotty boy.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#641744

On 7/21/2017 3:47 PM, Esteban Viars wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> Is it? That equal sign distort you. It is actually also wrong.
>>> Substitute that by an arrow, ie x(2) -> t²...
>>
>> Hello idiot troll. Yes its an equation.
>> noun 1. MATHEMATICS a statement that the values of two mathematical
>> expressions are equal (indicated by the sign =).
>> 2. the process of equating one thing with another.
> 
> Another imbecile pushing up definitions as arguments. It must be right,
> since you chose the right definition, huh? No need for brain, this is so
> wonderful.
> 
>> Do you see the equals sing in  x(t) = t² ? Yes? hence its an equation by
>> definition.
> 
> Listen up, stoopid, when a variable takes an input it depends on, then
> output a value, that's a FUNCTION, 

wrong, it is still an equation as it has the = sign.

> not an equation. Functions are usually
> ALL DIRECTIONAL, ie a change in output does NOT implies a change in INPUT.

wrong, you got that backwards,

> 
> ie this is false t² -> x(t). (and stupid)

what does  ->  mean ?  little arrow ?  or are you describing a line 
statement in a computer program ?

> 
> Hopefully you just learned something and never ever will forget. You and
> your friend, morony, would never even pass an exam in half-engineering, my
> rotty. Who is the troll now, rotty boy.
> 

tut-tut, best if you read a maths book.

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

#641751

Serg io wrote:

>>> Do you see the equals sing in  x(t) = t² ? Yes? hence its an equation
>>> by definition.
>> 
>> Listen up, stoopid, when a variable takes an input it depends on, then
>> output a value, that's a FUNCTION,
> 
> wrong, it is still an equation as it has the = sign.

Isn't x a function of t, hence a FUNCTION dependent of its input?? Can't 
you read, moron. I am surrounded by morons.

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

#641761

On 7/21/2017 7:28 PM, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
> Serg io wrote:
> 
>>>> Do you see the equals sing in  x(t) = t² ? Yes? hence its an equation
>>>> by definition.
>>>
>>> Listen up, stoopid, when a variable takes an input it depends on, then
>>> output a value, that's a FUNCTION,
>>
>> wrong, it is still an equation as it has the = sign.
> 
> Isn't x a function of t, hence a FUNCTION dependent of its input?? Can't
> you read, moron. I am surrounded by morons.
> 


  x(t) = t²  is an equation, x(t) is equated equal to t² using the equal 
sign, google "definition of the equal sign and equation".

x(t) indicates x() is a function of t, under certain conditions. (it may 
not be a function)

when you state what that function is, t², you use the equate sign, to 
form an equation.

the reason you ae having problems with this, is that you surround 
yourself with morons.  Don't do that, it will only make you stupider.


Extra Credit:
what certain conditions?

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

#641813

Serg io wrote:

> x(t) indicates x() is a function of t, under certain conditions. (it may
> not be a function)

No shit. Try to convince me it is not.

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

#641830

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 5:29:02 PM UTC-7, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
> Serg io wrote:
> 
> >>> Do you see the equals sing in  x(t) = t² ? Yes? hence its an equation
> >>> by definition.
> >> 
> >> Listen up, stoopid, when a variable takes an input it depends on, then
> >> output a value, that's a FUNCTION,
> > 
> > wrong, it is still an equation as it has the = sign.
> 
> Isn't x a function of t, hence a FUNCTION dependent of its input?? Can't 
> you read, moron. I am surrounded by morons.

Sergio is a moron.  Just ignore him.

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

#641812

rotchm wrote:

> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:33:32 PM UTC-4, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
>> rotchm wrote:
>> 
>> > We are discussing if the expression " x(t) = t^2 " is an *equation*
>> > or not.
>> 
>> no, it's a function, as described by the Scientific Method.
>> x is a function of t.
> 
> So what! We are not discussing if its a function; we are discussing the

Amazing how all these half-engineers are failing seeing that function 
immediately. Functions characterize by a direction

	INPUT(..) -> FUNCTION BLOCK -> OUTPUT(s) 

That equal sign is not very clever. Read it OUT LOUD, in words, Stephane. 
You are not that stupid you appear. How about this one, x(t,s)=t^s. These 
half-engineers are crazy.

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

#641815

On 7/22/2017 7:18 AM, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
> 
>> On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:33:32 PM UTC-4, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
>>> rotchm wrote:
>>>
>>>> We are discussing if the expression " x(t) = t^2 " is an *equation*
>>>> or not.
>>>
>>> no, it's a function, as described by the Scientific Method.
>>> x is a function of t.
>>
>> So what! We are not discussing if its a function; we are discussing the
> 
> Amazing how all these half-engineers are failing seeing that function
> immediately. Functions characterize by a direction
> 
> 	INPUT(..) -> FUNCTION BLOCK -> OUTPUT(s)
> 
> That equal sign is not very clever. Read it OUT LOUD, in words, Stephane.
> You are not that stupid you appear. How about this one, x(t,s)=t^s. These
> half-engineers are crazy.
> 

I see you do not know math very well.

*your definition* of function is incomplete, not precise, and wrong. 
you use undefined symbols.


Extra Credit: Show how your definition of function is
1. incomplete
2. not precise
3. wrong
4. which symbols are undefined

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

#641820

Serg io wrote:

>>>>> We are discussing if the expression " x(t) = t^2 " is an *equation*
>>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> no, it's a function, as described by the Scientific Method.
>>>> x is a function of t.
>>>
>>> So what! We are not discussing if its a function; we are discussing
>>> the
>> 
>> Amazing how all these half-engineers are failing seeing that function
>> immediately. Functions characterize by a direction
>> 	INPUT(..) -> FUNCTION BLOCK -> OUTPUT(s)
>> That equal sign is not very clever. Read it OUT LOUD, in words,
>> Stephane. You are not that stupid you appear. How about this one, 
>> x(t,s)=t^s. These half-engineers are crazy.
>>  
> I see you do not know math very well. 
> *your definition* of function is incomplete, not precise, and wrong. you
> use undefined symbols.

Another cretinism spewed out. That's the whole idea in having symbols, no 
need to define them yet. In math one may primarily work in symbols or 
numerical, something even imbeciles should know. Talk to somebody else.

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

#641829

rotchm wrote:

>> I must insist, read OUT LOUD what YOU wrote! Don't be a cretin. You are
>> not.
> 
> Of course I'm not. I'm the smartest one here, which is why I am (most
> probably) the richest one here.
> 
> This is what I wrote: " Say that we find an equation(s) of the universe;
> like for simplicity, x(t) = t^2 "

Not that, my comrade, read it out laud, as you write in on a blackboard at 
an famous university. Each and every term you write. By not doing it, in a 
capitalist country you'll be laid off, let unemployed and no income. In a 
beautiful Communist country, contrarily, you have to change your 
attribution to a janitor, which is just wonderful, lots of free time. 
Don't make me a capitalist, I'll never become a capitalist. The freedom is 
about having LESS income, not more. So, fuck you very much. I am proud 
being a good Communist. I don't give a shit on your yacht and the many 
women you own. The future will be Communist anyway. Fuck you, my friend.

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

#641845

On 7/22/2017 12:14 PM, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
> 
>>> I must insist, read OUT LOUD what YOU wrote! Don't be a cretin. You are
>>> not.
>>
>> Of course I'm not. I'm the smartest one here, which is why I am (most
>> probably) the richest one here.
>>
>> This is what I wrote: " Say that we find an equation(s) of the universe;
>> like for simplicity, x(t) = t^2 "
> 
> Not that, my comrade, read it out laud, as you write in on a blackboard at
> an famous university. Each and every term you write. By not doing it, in a
> capitalist country you'll be laid off, let unemployed and no income. In a
> beautiful Communist country, contrarily, you have to change your
> attribution to a janitor, which is just wonderful, lots of free time.
> Don't make me a capitalist, I'll never become a capitalist. The freedom is
> about having LESS income, not more. So, fuck you very much. I am proud
> being a good Communist. I don't give a shit on your yacht and the many
> women you own. The future will be Communist anyway. Fuck you, my friend.
> 

you live in France ?

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

#641869

On 7/22/2017 2:15 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 12:14 PM, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
>> rotchm wrote:
>>
>>>> I must insist, read OUT LOUD what YOU wrote! Don't be a cretin. You are
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> Of course I'm not. I'm the smartest one here, which is why I am (most
>>> probably) the richest one here.
>>>
>>> This is what I wrote: " Say that we find an equation(s) of the universe;
>>> like for simplicity, x(t) = t^2 "
>>
>> Not that, my comrade, read it out laud, as you write in on a 
>> blackboard at
>> an famous university. Each and every term you write. By not doing it, 
>> in a
>> capitalist country you'll be laid off, let unemployed and no income. In a
>> beautiful Communist country, contrarily, you have to change your
>> attribution to a janitor, which is just wonderful, lots of free time.
>> Don't make me a capitalist, I'll never become a capitalist. The 
>> freedom is
>> about having LESS income, not more. So, fuck you very much. I am proud
>> being a good Communist. I don't give a shit on your yacht and the many
>> women you own. The future will be Communist anyway. Fuck you, my friend.
>>
> 
> you live in France ?

Oh man! Didn't this "progressive" get the memo that their biggest social 
experiment the world had ever seen and even after trying to prop it up 
with the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent humans STILL crashed 
and burned under the weight of it's own stupidity?

Today the only people left who still think Marxism is the future are 
North Koreans and Democrats in the United States... and possibly a few 
French... Everyone else got the message some time ago.

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

#643480

On 7/22/2017 5:21 PM, benj wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 2:15 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 12:14 PM, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
>>> rotchm wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I must insist, read OUT LOUD what YOU wrote! Don't be a cretin. You 
>>>>> are
>>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I'm not. I'm the smartest one here, which is why I am (most
>>>> probably) the richest one here.
>>>>
>>>> This is what I wrote: " Say that we find an equation(s) of the 
>>>> universe;
>>>> like for simplicity, x(t) = t^2 "
>>>
>>> Not that, my comrade, read it out laud, as you write in on a 
>>> blackboard at
>>> an famous university. Each and every term you write. By not doing it, 
>>> in a
>>> capitalist country you'll be laid off, let unemployed and no income. 
>>> In a
>>> beautiful Communist country, contrarily, you have to change your
>>> attribution to a janitor, which is just wonderful, lots of free time.
>>> Don't make me a capitalist, I'll never become a capitalist. The 
>>> freedom is
>>> about having LESS income, not more. So, fuck you very much. I am proud
>>> being a good Communist. I don't give a shit on your yacht and the many
>>> women you own. The future will be Communist anyway. Fuck you, my friend.
>>>
>>
>> you live in France ?
> 
> Oh man! Didn't this "progressive" get the memo that their biggest social 
> experiment the world had ever seen and even after trying to prop it up 
> with the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent humans STILL crashed 
> and burned under the weight of it's own stupidity?
> 
> Today the only people left who still think Marxism is the future are 
> North Koreans and Democrats in the United States... and possibly a few 
> French... Everyone else got the message some time ago.
> 

not so sure about that,
consider how the EU has evolved, one surpent head in Brussels,  all in 
europe equivelent, (which lead to immegrent problem), very socialist 
tendancies via Brussels.

and Burnie Sanders in the USA, guess all those leftist teachers finally 
had an effect that will last for a decade or two

Obama was caving into Brussels and the EU big time. So would have Hillary.

then Venezuela

[screw progressives, socialists, commies, I want to make my money and 
spend it myself]

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

#643686

On 7/30/2017 9:25 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 7/22/2017 5:21 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 7/22/2017 2:15 PM, Serg io wrote:
>>> On 7/22/2017 12:14 PM, Kurt Larrabee wrote:
>>>> rotchm wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I must insist, read OUT LOUD what YOU wrote! Don't be a cretin. 
>>>>>> You are
>>>>>> not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I'm not. I'm the smartest one here, which is why I am (most
>>>>> probably) the richest one here.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what I wrote: " Say that we find an equation(s) of the 
>>>>> universe;
>>>>> like for simplicity, x(t) = t^2 "
>>>>
>>>> Not that, my comrade, read it out laud, as you write in on a 
>>>> blackboard at
>>>> an famous university. Each and every term you write. By not doing 
>>>> it, in a
>>>> capitalist country you'll be laid off, let unemployed and no income. 
>>>> In a
>>>> beautiful Communist country, contrarily, you have to change your
>>>> attribution to a janitor, which is just wonderful, lots of free time.
>>>> Don't make me a capitalist, I'll never become a capitalist. The 
>>>> freedom is
>>>> about having LESS income, not more. So, fuck you very much. I am proud
>>>> being a good Communist. I don't give a shit on your yacht and the many
>>>> women you own. The future will be Communist anyway. Fuck you, my 
>>>> friend.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you live in France ?
>>
>> Oh man! Didn't this "progressive" get the memo that their biggest 
>> social experiment the world had ever seen and even after trying to 
>> prop it up with the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent humans 
>> STILL crashed and burned under the weight of it's own stupidity?
>>
>> Today the only people left who still think Marxism is the future are 
>> North Koreans and Democrats in the United States... and possibly a few 
>> French... Everyone else got the message some time ago.
>>
> 
> not so sure about that,
> consider how the EU has evolved, one surpent head in Brussels,  all in 
> europe equivelent, (which lead to immegrent problem), very socialist 
> tendancies via Brussels.
> 
> and Burnie Sanders in the USA, guess all those leftist teachers finally 
> had an effect that will last for a decade or two
> 
> Obama was caving into Brussels and the EU big time. So would have Hillary.
> 
> then Venezuela
> 
> [screw progressives, socialists, commies, I want to make my money and 
> spend it myself]

Come on Sergio. Everybody knows that you and everybody else are really 
too stupid to wisely spend your own money. That is why we need 
progressives to pass laws to insure that all money is spent in the most 
effective ways (like giving it to those with none).

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

#641825

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 1:48:05 PM UTC-7, Esteban Viars wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
> 
> >> Is it? That equal sign distort you. It is actually also wrong.
> >> Substitute that by an arrow, ie x(2) -> t²...
> > 
> > Hello idiot troll. Yes its an equation.
> > noun 1. MATHEMATICS a statement that the values of two mathematical
> > expressions are equal (indicated by the sign =). 
> > 2. the process of equating one thing with another.
> 
> Another imbecile pushing up definitions as arguments. It must be right, 
> since you chose the right definition, huh? No need for brain, 

LOL.  Yes.  The internet is full of idiots that think that definitions are scientifically valid.

Hey Pnal.  Look.  You are an idiot.

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

#643483

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 1:48:05 PM UTC-7, Esteban Viars wrote:
> rotchm wrote:
> 
> >> Is it? That equal sign distort you. It is actually also wrong.
> >> Substitute that by an arrow, ie x(2) -> t²...
> > 
> > Hello idiot troll. Yes its an equation.
> > noun 1. MATHEMATICS a statement that the values of two mathematical
> > expressions are equal (indicated by the sign =). 
> > 2. the process of equating one thing with another.
> 
> Another imbecile pushing up definitions as arguments. It must be right, 
> since you chose the right definition, huh? No need for brain, this is so 
> wonderful.

LOL. Isn't that surreal. Trolls always use this dumb tactic.  Once complete dumbass troll (Pnal) tried to use this tactic.  When I pointed out that looking this up in a dictionary is not a scientific method he agreed and then began to argue that convenience was the principle upon which he based his argument.  

Its incomprehensible how brain-dead dumb these people are.

The internet is ruining science because it has given a bunch of morons a tool they can use to collectivize into a consensus of dunces.


> 
> > Do you see the equals sing in  x(t) = t² ? Yes? hence its an equation by
> > definition.
> 
> Listen up, stoopid, when a variable takes an input it depends on, then 
> output a value, that's a FUNCTION, not an equation. Functions are usually 
> ALL DIRECTIONAL, ie a change in output does NOT implies a change in INPUT.
> 
> ie this is false t² -> x(t). (and stupid)
> 
> Hopefully you just learned something and never ever will forget. You and 
> your friend, morony, would never even pass an exam in half-engineering, my 
> rotty. Who is the troll now, rotty boy.

It's not possible to educate a troll.  

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web