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


Groups > sci.physics > #560006 > unrolled thread

Re: Clouds are made of water

Started byFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
First post2016-03-07 18:12 +0100
Last post2016-03-08 23:45 -0600
Articles 20 on this page of 29 — 7 participants

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: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-07 18:12 +0100
    Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-07 12:27 -0500
    Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 10:09 -0800
      Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-07 14:33 -0600
      Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 06:18 +0100
        Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 21:49 -0800
          Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 09:03 +0100
            Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 00:57 -0800
              Re: Clouds are made of water Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-09 00:30 +0800
              Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-08 17:29 +0100
                Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:50 -0800
                  Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 05:59 +0100
                    Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-09 00:14 -0500
                      Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-09 20:18 +0100
                      Re: Clouds are made of water vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-03-09 23:43 +0000
                        Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-09 18:58 -0500
                          Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 04:43 +0100
                            Re: Clouds are made of water "\"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> - 2016-03-09 23:53 -0500
                            Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 09:44 +0000
                              Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
                                Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-10 17:59 +0000
                                  Re: Clouds are made of water Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-11 02:03 +0800
                                  Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-11 08:29 +0100
                                    Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-11 07:48 +0000
                                      Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-13 06:54 +0100
                                        Re: Clouds are made of water snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-03-13 08:20 +0000
                                          Re: Clouds are made of water Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-14 05:27 +0100
                    Re: Clouds are made of water James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 21:25 -0800
                      Re: Clouds are made of water Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-08 23:45 -0600

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →


#560006 — Re: Clouds are made of water

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2016-03-07 18:12 +0100
SubjectRe: Clouds are made of water
Message-ID<9a0a5a9f6cad79ce5d7b924abdc6cfc8@dizum.com>
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:4e8cde9d-a687-412f-801d-48d442dcf445@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> I find the thing he's trying to dismiss

I've "dismissed" nothing, Jim. It's *you* who is snipping reams of
scientific data proving that you're a moronic kooktard.

> and keep hitting him over the head with it.

Yeah, let me know when that starts, won't you? You're not smart enough
to spar with me, Jim. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll pay
me the $100,000 you owe me for meeting your challenge and utterly
destroying your kooky theory.

> For example, he tried to dismiss the fact that the boiling point
> of water is known,indisputable.

MID? No? Oh, the kook is lying. Do you think that's a good method for
you to win, Jim? No... no... you're just barely holding on, hoping
I'll lose interest. I won't.

> Like a number of the other mentally challenged participants

Like you, Jim?

> in this NG he tried to suggest that boiling point was a
> statistical range

MID? No? Are your lies in need of cataloging? IOW, will you be making
this a habit to enhance the hilarity as you melt down, or is your
current lying a one-time thing?

> and not a point.

Awww, look at the kooktard demonstrating yet again that he doesn't
know the difference between evaporation and boiling... and he's
demonstrated the same fundamental misconceptions about sublimation in
the past.

Perhaps if you got an education higher than Grade 10, Jim, you'd not
blather out stupidity. The entire underlying premise for your kooky
theory has been destroyed, Jim. There is no 'wiggle room' for you to
adjust your theory, I completely demolished it, proved every single
supposition you'd made was flawed.

Now I'll just keep hitting you over the head with all those errors
you've made, which I've proven with corroborable scientific data,
until you either pay me the $100,000 you owe me, or you're driven
irreparably insane.

Because your particular brand of pompous self-important Dunning-Kruger
stupidity is only fixed when the kooktard feels pain. And you will
feel pain, Mr. McGinn. Oh, yes you will.

Watch that your head doesn't explode on reading my latest posts, Jim.

<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*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

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 attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

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 k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

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
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard 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] | [next] | [standalone]


#560009

From"\"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>
Date2016-03-07 12:27 -0500
Message-ID<op.ydytf3a0tm21m2@benson.localhost>
In reply to#560006
hey jim, ask him to graph a sine wave and watch the hilarity ensue.  LOL


On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 12:12:19 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James McGinn, in
> <news:4e8cde9d-a687-412f-801d-48d442dcf445@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> I find the thing he's trying to dismiss
>
> I've "dismissed" nothing, Jim. It's *you* who is snipping reams of
> scientific data proving that you're a moronic kooktard.
>
>> and keep hitting him over the head with it.
>
> Yeah, let me know when that starts, won't you? You're not smart enough
> to spar with me, Jim. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you'll pay
> me the $100,000 you owe me for meeting your challenge and utterly
> destroying your kooky theory.
>
>> For example, he tried to dismiss the fact that the boiling point
>> of water is known,indisputable.
>
> MID? No? Oh, the kook is lying. Do you think that's a good method for
> you to win, Jim? No... no... you're just barely holding on, hoping
> I'll lose interest. I won't.
>
>> Like a number of the other mentally challenged participants
>
> Like you, Jim?
>
>> in this NG he tried to suggest that boiling point was a
>> statistical range
>
> MID? No? Are your lies in need of cataloging? IOW, will you be making
> this a habit to enhance the hilarity as you melt down, or is your
> current lying a one-time thing?
>
>> and not a point.
>
> Awww, look at the kooktard demonstrating yet again that he doesn't
> know the difference between evaporation and boiling... and he's
> demonstrated the same fundamental misconceptions about sublimation in
> the past.
>
> Perhaps if you got an education higher than Grade 10, Jim, you'd not
> blather out stupidity. The entire underlying premise for your kooky
> theory has been destroyed, Jim. There is no 'wiggle room' for you to
> adjust your theory, I completely demolished it, proved every single
> supposition you'd made was flawed.
>
> Now I'll just keep hitting you over the head with all those errors
> you've made, which I've proven with corroborable scientific data,
> until you either pay me the $100,000 you owe me, or you're driven
> irreparably insane.
>
> Because your particular brand of pompous self-important Dunning-Kruger
> stupidity is only fixed when the kooktard feels pain. And you will
> feel pain, Mr. McGinn. Oh, yes you will.
>
> Watch that your head doesn't explode on reading my latest posts, Jim.
>
> <snicker>
>


-- 
"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>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

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>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round 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]


#560032

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-07 10:09 -0800
Message-ID<0d021199-3134-4c12-8871-2afacba96ce8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#560006
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:22:19 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:4e8cde9d-a687-412f-801d-48d442dcf445@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > I find the thing he's trying to dismiss
> 
> I've "dismissed" nothing, Jim.

What is the boiling temperature of H2O at normal pressure?

What is the temperature of atmosphere?  

Where is your evidence that moist air contains gaseous H2O?

Your imagination is not evidence.

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


#560104

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-03-07 14:33 -0600
Message-ID<nbkoim$jeo$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#560032
On 3/7/2016 12:09 PM, James McGinn wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:22:19 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:4e8cde9d-a687-412f-801d-48d442dcf445@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>>
>>> I find the thing he's trying to dismiss
>>
>> I've "dismissed" nothing, Jim.
>
> What is the boiling temperature of H2O at normal pressure?

14.7 psi ?  what altitude ?


>
> What is the temperature of atmosphere?

at what altitude and pressure ? Mean ?  Extremes ?


>
> Where is your evidence that moist air contains gaseous H2O?


Does a wet shirt dry on a clothesline ?


>
> Your imagination is not evidence.


but yours is ?   Hmmm....



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


#560245

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2016-03-08 06:18 +0100
Message-ID<62d2b79d8f5d72ee342d534f05a90965@dizum.com>
In reply to#560032
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:0d021199-3134-4c12-8871-2afacba96ce8@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:22:19 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:4e8cde9d-a687-412f-801d-48d442dcf445@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> I find the thing he's trying to dismiss

>> I've "dismissed" nothing, Jim.

> What is the boiling temperature of H2O at normal pressure?

Awww, poor kooktard James McGinn doesn't know that evaporation and
boiling at the same process under different conditions, as I've
proven. LOL

> What is the temperature of atmosphere?  

If you have to ask questions, rather than offer refutation, Jim, you
don't know... making you a low-information moronic kooktard suffering
the crippling effects of delusional Dunning-Kruger effect. But one of
the manifestations of D-K is that its sufferers, while holding
themselves out as 'experts', display their utter nincompoopish
incompetence, as you do, Jim.

> Where is your evidence that moist air contains gaseous H2O?

See below, Jim. Those peer-reviewed studies presented utterly destroy
your kooky theory.

Why can't you get your kooky theory through the peer-review process,
Jim? Could it be because it's *wrong*, Jim?

> Your imagination is not evidence.

Peer-reviewed evidence is evidence, Jim. Why do you continue cowardly
snipping out and running away from that evidence that proves you're a
moron who in actuality knows next to nothing about that which you're
stupidly blathering about, Jim?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've 
destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving 
that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.

That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, 
combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be 
wrong. Take your meds, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in 
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number 
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least 
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the 
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain 
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, 
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, 
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that 
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise 
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent 
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the 
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was 
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the 
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation 
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's 
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a 
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule 
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the 
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, 
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been 
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been 
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, 
Jim.

<snicker>

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous 
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum 
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains 
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, 
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you 
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding 
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves 
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

<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*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

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 attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

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 k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

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
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard 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]


#560249

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-07 21:49 -0800
Message-ID<b4e7bd0b-b367-4e2a-865e-880c779204e8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#560245
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:28:14 PM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> James McGinn, in
> <news:0d021199-3134-4c12-8871-2afacba96ce8@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:22:19 AM UTC-8,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> >> James McGinn, in
> >> <news:4e8cde9d-a687-412f-801d-48d442dcf445@googlegroups.com> did
> >> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
> 
> >>> I find the thing he's trying to dismiss
> 
> >> I've "dismissed" nothing, Jim.
> 
> > What is the boiling temperature of H2O at normal pressure?
> 
> Awww, poor kooktard James McGinn doesn't know that evaporation and
> boiling at the same process under different conditions, as I've
> proven. LOL

I wonder why nobody has ever built and engine that runs on the power of evaporation.

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


#560280

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2016-03-08 09:03 +0100
Message-ID<fee8520b82337d0fc1d600e5c4044d75@dizum.com>
In reply to#560249
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:b4e7bd0b-b367-4e2a-865e-880c779204e8@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:28:14 PM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James McGinn, in
>> <news:0d021199-3134-4c12-8871-2afacba96ce8@googlegroups.com> did
>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 9:22:19 AM UTC-8,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> James McGinn, in
>>>> <news:4e8cde9d-a687-412f-801d-48d442dcf445@googlegroups.com> did
>>>> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>>>> I find the thing he's trying to dismiss

>>>> I've "dismissed" nothing, Jim.

>>> What is the boiling temperature of H2O at normal pressure?

>> Awww, poor kooktard James McGinn doesn't know that evaporation and
>> boiling at the same process under different conditions, as I've
>> proven. LOL

> I wonder why nobody has ever built and engine that runs on the power of evaporation.

Because evaporation is a process of vaporization that is below the
energy level necessary to create gaseous phase pressure sufficient to
overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus is much slower than the same
process with more energy input sufficient to exceed atmospheric
pressure, Jim.

That you don't know this means you don't know enough about anything to
ever be considered an expert at anything at all, Jim.

Now, get to refuting that peer-reviewed data which utterly destroys
your kooky theory...

Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that
evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've 
destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving 
that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.

That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions, 
combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be 
wrong. Take your meds, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in 
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number 
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least 
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the 
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain 
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this, 
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies, 
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that 
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise 
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent 
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the 
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was 
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the 
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation 
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's 
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a 
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule 
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the 
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere, 
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been 
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been 
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay, 
Jim.

<snicker>

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous 
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum 
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains 
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim, 
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you 
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding 
challenge, it also utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves 
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

<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*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

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 attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

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 k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

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
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard 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]


#560284

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-08 00:57 -0800
Message-ID<3f3dbb0c-9baf-422a-b502-d1a03e5a4219@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#560280
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:13:35 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > I wonder why nobody has ever built and engine that runs on the power of evaporation.
> 
> Because evaporation is a process of vaporization that is below the
> energy level necessary to create gaseous phase pressure sufficient to
> overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus is much slower than the same
> process with more energy input sufficient to exceed atmospheric
> pressure, Jim.

Hmm.  I wonder what underlies the inability to create sufficient gaseous phase pressure?  Hmm.  I mean, I wonder what could be causing that?  Hmm.  Gee golly, I'm going to have to think about that one. Hmm.

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


#560351

FromBite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future>
Date2016-03-09 00:30 +0800
Message-ID<f6vtdbpq1ufrb6ijnn065vhp23j3l5mv9f@4ax.com>
In reply to#560284
James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:13:35 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> > > I wonder why nobody has ever built and engine that runs on the power of evaporation.
> > 
> > Because evaporation is a process of vaporization that is below the
> > energy level necessary to create gaseous phase pressure sufficient to
> > overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus is much slower than the same
> > process with more energy input sufficient to exceed atmospheric
> > pressure, Jim.
> 
> Hmm.  I wonder what underlies the inability to create sufficient gaseous phase pressure?  Hmm.  I mean, I wonder what could be causing that?  Hmm.  Gee golly, I'm going to have to think about that one. Hmm.

Jim, do you really believe what the Peer-Review Cabal
[tinprc] tells us about water being H2O?

I mean, it could really be H2NOH, and the Cabal [tinprc] is
keeping the whole thing secret.

Surely an out-of-the-box physicist such as yourself could at
least investigate.  Or, you could just shrug and buy it all.

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


#560355

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2016-03-08 17:29 +0100
Message-ID<3957213f26b82a90a25d8a7105c52bd9@dizum.com>
In reply to#560284
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:3f3dbb0c-9baf-422a-b502-d1a03e5a4219@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:13:35 AM UTC-8,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> I wonder why nobody has ever built and engine that
>>> runs on the power of evaporation.

>> Because evaporation is a process of vaporization that is below the
>> energy level necessary to create gaseous phase pressure sufficient to
>> overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus is much slower than the same
>> process with more energy input sufficient to exceed atmospheric
>> pressure, Jim.
>> 
>> That you don't know this means you don't know enough about anything to
>> ever be considered an expert at anything at all, Jim.
>> 
>> Now, get to refuting that peer-reviewed data which utterly destroys
>> your kooky theory...
>> 
>> Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that
>> evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
>> nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?

> Hmm.  I wonder what underlies the inability to create sufficient
> gaseous phase pressure?  Hmm.  I mean, I wonder what could be
> causing that?  Hmm.  Gee golly, I'm going to have to think about
> that one. Hmm.

Yeah, I'm sure you do have to think about that one, Jim, because
you're a moron who doesn't understand physical processes. That's also
likely why you're forced to snip out all that peer-reviewed data that
causes your such painful cognitive dissonance in proving your kooky
theory *wrong*.

Yet again James McGinn the delusional kooktard demonstrates that he
can't grasp that water being evaporated is merely a slower,
lower-energy process of vaporization, the same as boiling is a faster,
higher-energy process of vaporization. Not even after the proof of
same has been posted, from the physics department of a university, no 
less.

<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/vappre.html>
===============================================================
Evaporation vs Boiling

Ordinary evaporation is a surface phenomenon - since the vapor
pressure is low and since the pressure inside the liquid is equal to
atmospheric pressure plus the liquid pressure, bubbles of water vapor
cannot form. But at the boiling point, the saturated vapor pressure is
equal to atmospheric pressure, bubbles form, and the vaporization
becomes a volume phenomena.
===============================================================

Do you not understand that in the process of evaporation the
monomolecular gaseous phase water is electrostatically bonding to
*other* *molecules* in the air, which is the entire fucking basis for
evaporation in the first place, you fucking *moron*? Or that the same
process is taking place in boiling, except the water is given a higher
energy level such that more of the water molecules can be
electrostatically bonded to *other* *molecules* in the air, and
sufficient energy that some of the water molecules can be driven from
the water despite atmospheric pressure, without having to wait for
electrostatic bonding to an air molecule?

Now, as to all that proof of your being a delusional kooktard, which 
you cowardly snipped out, let's set you to refuting that peer-reviewed 
data, shall we?

<snicker>

======================================================================
Bwahahahaaa! Referring to your own blathering asinine nitwittery isn't 
proof, Jim. You fucking kooktard.

"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse 
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are 
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron 
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is 
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is 
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you 
fucking *moron*?

Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma 
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from 
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well 
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning 
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never 
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near 
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who 
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor, 
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled 
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere, 
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere. 
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy. 
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few 
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no 
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and 
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface 
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its 
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is 
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized 
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet 
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest 
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they 
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which 
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting 
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls, 
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous 
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets 
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface 
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall 
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different 
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an 
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); 
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are 
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its 
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air 
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of 
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as 
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of 
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further 
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is 
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas 
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating 
lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the 
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by 
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a 
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced 
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle 
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the 
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and 
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination 
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their 
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically 
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster, 
thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which 
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your 
challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing 
scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known 
and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your 
promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky 
theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me.

Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong 
via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised 
$100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be 
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to 
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that 
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory 
*wrong*:
-------------------------
Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
processes.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, you further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when
an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that 
evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to 
nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've
destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving
that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.

That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions,
combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be
wrong. Take your meds, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this,
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies,
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere,
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay,
Jim.

<snicker>

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim,
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

<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*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

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 attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

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 k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

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
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard 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]


#560360

FromJames McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com>
Date2016-03-08 08:50 -0800
Message-ID<d407daa5-67a9-45e1-a293-864a9799187e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#560355
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:39:41 AM UTC-8, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> >>> I wonder why nobody has ever built and engine that
> >>> runs on the power of evaporation.
> 
> >> Because evaporation is a process of vaporization that is below the
> >> energy level necessary to create gaseous phase pressure sufficient to
> >> overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus is much slower than the same
> >> process with more energy input sufficient to exceed atmospheric
> >> pressure, Jim.
> >> 
> >> That you don't know this means you don't know enough about anything to
> >> ever be considered an expert at anything at all, Jim.
> >> 
> >> Now, get to refuting that peer-reviewed data which utterly destroys
> >> your kooky theory...
> >> 
> >> Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that
> >> evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
> >> nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?
> 
> > Hmm.  I wonder what underlies the inability to create sufficient
> > gaseous phase pressure?  Hmm.  I mean, I wonder what could be
> > causing that?  Hmm.  Gee golly, I'm going to have to think about
> > that one. Hmm.
> 
> Yeah, I'm sure you do have to think about that one, Jim, because
> you're a moron who doesn't understand physical processes. 

Apparently.  

Hmm.  I wonder if anybody ever thought of a car engine that runs on the power of evaporation.  Hmm.

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


#560661

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2016-03-09 05:59 +0100
Message-ID<3b5bb9d859e32fe3ed0cfab088d08e86@dizum.com>
In reply to#560360
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:d407daa5-67a9-45e1-a293-864a9799187e@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 8:39:41 AM UTC-8, Friendly
> Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> I wonder why nobody has ever built and engine that
>>>>> runs on the power of evaporation.

>>>> Because evaporation is a process of vaporization that is below the
>>>> energy level necessary to create gaseous phase pressure sufficient to
>>>> overcome atmospheric pressure, and thus is much slower than the same
>>>> process with more energy input sufficient to exceed atmospheric
>>>> pressure, Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> That you don't know this means you don't know enough about anything to
>>>> ever be considered an expert at anything at all, Jim.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, get to refuting that peer-reviewed data which utterly destroys
>>>> your kooky theory...
>>>> 
>>>> Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that
>>>> evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
>>>> nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?

>>> Hmm.  I wonder what underlies the inability to create sufficient
>>> gaseous phase pressure?  Hmm.  I mean, I wonder what could be
>>> causing that?  Hmm.  Gee golly, I'm going to have to think about
>>> that one. Hmm.

>> Yeah, I'm sure you do have to think about that one, Jim, because
>> you're a moron who doesn't understand physical processes. 

> Apparently.  

There's no "apparently" about it, Jim. Your Dunning-Kruger affliction
has compelled you to conceive of a kooky conspiracy theory, as you
discount the mountain of evidence that you're *wrong*, because those
afflicted with D-K have problems with authority figures. Thus you
discount anything from anyone smarter than you (which is everyone),
and thus you have no sounding board to determine whether your kooky
conflations and misrepresentations of physical phenomena has any basis
in reality. Another manifestation of D-K is that you are so sure that
you are right that you plunge headlong down the rabbit hole of
insanity, building your kooky theory one misconception upon another
without bothering to ever go back and examine whether your premise is
correct.

Fortunately for you, I've destroyed the underlying pillars of your
kooky conspiracy theory... now all you have to do is accept that
reality in order to save yourself from the inevitable insanity which
D-K sufferers always eventually experience. Of course, your being
afflicted with D-K precludes your doing so.

IOW, you're doomed to schizoid insanity, Jim. Deal with that reality
as you will.

<snicker>

> Hmm.  I wonder if anybody ever thought of a car engine that runs
> on the power of evaporation.  Hmm.

Repeating the same stupid non sequitur questions you've already
bleated proves you not only don't have any refutation of the
peer-reviewed data I've presented, you can't even muster a defense as
pathetic as coming up with new stupid non sequitur questions, Jim.

Your tacit admission of defeat is accepted, Jim.

Now, get to addressing all that peer-reviewed data I presented, which
utterly destroys your kooky conspiracy theory.
==============================================
"Plasma in the atmosphere"
"thick air"
"tornadoes... jet stream... same thing"
"this oxygen sucks down more of the electrons, making the Mickey Mouse
ears more relatively positive"

And you said all that loonbat tripe with a straight face. LOL

Holy shit, Jim... do you not realize that the reason people are
laughing at you and your kooky theory is that you're a fucking moron
in dire need of psychotropic drugs? LOL

Do you not understand that the monomolecular gaseous phase water is
electrostatically bonding to *other* *molecules* in the air, which is
the entire fucking basis for evaporation in the first place, you
fucking *moron*?

Do you not understand what plasma is, you fecking nong? If plasma
existed in the trophosphere, the electromagnetic interference from
that electromagnetic plasma would make radio communication nigh well
impossible. If plasma existed in the troposphere, we'd see lightning
strikes right out of the blue... but you're the moron who never
stopped to consider *why* lightning always comes from moving air near
clouds or other sources of moisture... because you're the moron who
knew nothing of the Triboelectric Effect until I schooled you. Nor,
apparently, were you aware that water is a dielectric until I schooled
you.

Plasma does not exist in our atmosphere except in the plasmasphere,
just outside the upper ionosphere, just inside the magnetosphere.
That's a minimum of 48 miles above the tropopause.

For clouds, there is no plasma involved in their apparent buoyancy.
It's merely that the droplet size is sufficiently small (from a few
microns to a few tens of microns) that the droplets have no
appreciable fall velocity in light of random air movements and
updraft. The fall speed is related to the droplet's mass and surface
area. A roughly spherical droplet has a mass proportional to its
radius cubed. The downward-facing surface area of such a droplet is
proportional to the radius squared. Thus, as that tiny micron-sized
water droplet grows, its mass becomes more important. At a droplet
radius of 100 microns (an order of magnitude larger than the largest
average droplet size), the fall velocity is only ~27 cm/s. Thus they
stay suspended because clouds generally form in areas where air which
is laden with gaseous water (and is thus less dense) rises, offsetting
the fall velocity. As the altitude increases, the temperature falls,
thus the water carrying capacity of that air drops, thus the gaseous
phase water condenses into those tiny droplets, those tiny droplets
grow, and eventually the ratio of droplet mass:downward-facing surface
area is sufficient for that droplet to overcome the updraft and fall
to the ground. Which is why different cloud types (caused by different
updraft speeds) cause different types of rain.

Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an
environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s);
convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are
associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second.

For clear sky, the relative humidity proves that there is water in its
fully gaseous phase in the air, given that water is miscible in air
down to ~-60 C. Sublimation further proves this fact. The speed of
sound being faster in the less-dense air laden with gaseous water as
compared to dry air further proves this fact. The relative density of
air laden with gaseous phase water being less than dry air further
proves this fact.

Your contention that lightning is caused by your purported plasma is
another easily disproved kook contention... the upward draft in areas
where cloud formation is prevalent also contributes to creating
lightning... this can be proven by the fact that tribocharging (the
Triboelectric Effect, a form of contact electrification) is caused by
rubbing a dielectric such as a balloon or comb... water is a
dielectric. So lightning is nothing more than an updraft-induced
tribocharging. This is why NASA cancels launches if the space vehicle
being launched has to fly through certain types of clouds, because the
P-static (precipitation static) would interfere with communication and
telemetry, and particularly the mission-critical flight termination
signals should something go wrong. NASA calls this their
Triboelectrification Rule. This is why convective clouds are typically
the only type of clouds to exhibit lightning... the updraft is faster,
thus the Triboelectrification Effect is stronger.

So... given the above, I'm sure you can figure out for yourself which
types of clouds would trigger NASA's Triboelectrification Rule, right?

Your kooky contention has been demolished, the dictates of your
challenge have not only been met but have been exceeded, utilizing
scientific facts, figures, equations, diagrams and concepts long-known
and admissible in a court of law. Hence, you will make good on your
promise to pay $100,000 to the person who disproved your kooky
theory... namely your Usenet Lord and Master... me.

Stop denying reality, Mr. McGinn. I've proven your kooky theory wrong
via several different avenues, and you'll be paying me the promised
$100,000 for meeting (indeed, *exceeding*) your challenge.

Holy fuck, Jim. Seek immediate professional psychiatric help, and be
sure to describe in detail your kooky theory that has led you to
become so very delusional.

But meanwhile, how about you get right on refuting all that
peer-reviewed scientific data I've provided proving your kooky theory
*wrong*:
-------------------------
Jim, you're a kooktard who k'lames that stripping multiple molecules
of water away from the surface of water via evaporation takes *less*
energy than stripping away a single molecule because you're a
low-information uneducated oaf who can't wrap your delusional
Dunning-Kruger afflicted brain around the reality of physical
processes.

The only ways electron probability distribution in bulk water can
shift, Jim, is if a solute or ion solution is introduced to the
water... but then we'd not be talking about just water, would we,
Jim?... or if the water changes phase, which would prove me right that
gaseous water is being evaporated into the air, meaning your challenge
has been met, yet another central tenet of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, you've been proven wrong again, and you owe me
$100,000 for meeting your challenge.

You're not doing very well defending your kooky little theory, Jim.

Jim, you further have demonstrated that you don't understand that when
an inter-molecular H bond is broken, the other inter-molecular H bond
isn't strengthened, the diametrically-opposed covalent bond to that
broken inter-molecular H bond is preferentially strengthened:

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_hydrogen_bonding.html>
"There is a trade-off between the covalent and hydrogen bond
strengths; the stronger the H····O hydrogen bond, the weaker the O-H
covalent bond, and the shorter the O····O distance"

Note the graph... the covalent bond remains shorter (and stronger)
than the inter-molecular H bond. Because the inter-molecular H bond is
~1/20th the strength of the covalent bond, the diametrically-opposite
covalent bond will preferentially shorten and strengthen when one of
the inter-molecular bonds is broken, Jim. That's why, when using high
frequency AC to dissociate water, you target the short covalent bond
frequency, as the long covalent bond frequency is too close to the H
bond frequency, and if you break that, you strengthen the covalent
bonds.

You are *wrong*. Your kooky theory is *wrong*. The entire underlying
premise of your kooky theory is fallacious. I've just destroyed your
kooky theory, Jim. Now what will you do?

Why do you continue cowardly snipping out and running away from that
evidence that proves you're a moron who in actuality knows next to
nothing about that which you're stupidly blathering, Jim?

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/interfacial_water.html>
"About a quarter of the water molecules each have a 'dangling' O-H
group [415, 1613] pointing at a slight angle out of the water [594,
1261] whilst slightly more have 'dangling' acceptor electron positions
[2334] similar to water-hydrophobe surfaces, creating a slight
negative charge on the surface."

What's that say, you moron? Just how do you think evaporation occurs
in the first place? The surface potential of water is negative. The
electric potential of air is positive. This, combined with random
thermal vibrations in the bulk water, causes individual water
molecules to be electrically attached to the air. Reference Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Electricity In The Atmosphere, 1964.

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_09.html>
<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/img/FLP_II/f09-01/f09-01_tc_iPad_big_a.svgz>

You're wrong, Jim. Your entire kooky theory is wrong, Jim. I've
destroyed the central premise of your kooky theory, thereby proving
that both you *and* your kooky theory are wrong, Jim.

That'd be because you're an uneducated moron suffering from delusions,
combined with Dunning-Kruger causing you to believe you can never be
wrong. Take your meds, Jim.

Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research
<http://www.mpip-mainz.mpg.de/molecular_mechanism_of_water_evaporation>
=================================================
A water molecule is typically tied to three or four other molecules in
the liquid through strong hydrogen bonds. At the surface, this number
is reduced, and in order to evaporate the molecule must break at least
one hydrogen bond. However, this requires substantial energy, and the
obvious question is: "How do evaporating water molecules gain
sufficient energy to break the strong hydrogen bond?" To answer this,
the researchers watched molecules evaporate in their molecular movies,
and inspected the evaporating molecules' trajectories. They found that
an ejected molecule always gains its kinetic energy through a precise
interaction with two other molecules. It always had a violent
collision with a fast-moving molecule just prior to leaving the
liquid. This fast-moving molecule, further study showed, was
interacting strongly with a third molecule, femtoseconds prior to the
evaporation process, in a way that was crucial to the evaporation
process. As such, the evaporation process can be viewed as a Newton's
cradle, where momentum is transferred to the surface from below, in a
well-timed manner, to kick off one water molecule.
=================================================

"one water molecule", Jim. Evaporation is a molecule-by-molecule
process, meaning that water in its gaseous phase is entering the
atmosphere, meaning water in its gaseous phase is in the atmosphere,
meaning your kooky challenge has been met and the proof has been
provided, meaning the underlying premise of your kooky theory has been
utterly destroyed, meaning you  owe me $100,000, Jim. You *will* pay,
Jim.

<snicker>

Whooopsie... *another* peer-reviewed study proving monomer gaseous
water exists in the atmosphere:
<http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6686/>
=========================================================
Superimposed on the water monomer absorption, a water continuum
absorption has long been recognized, but its true nature still remains
controversial.
=========================================================

That not only meets the terms of your kooky challenge (again), Jim,
thereby triggering your paying me that offered $100,000 which you
promised in a publicly announced and therefore legally binding
challenge, but it utterly destroys your kooky theory *and* proves
you're a moronic kooktard, Jim.

<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*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

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 attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

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 k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

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
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard 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]


#560663

From"\"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>
Date2016-03-09 00:14 -0500
Message-ID<op.yd1kucv5tm21m2@benson.localhost>
In reply to#560661
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:59:33 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Repeating the same stupid non sequitur

we noticed.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/sample-rate-and-rms.80042/

"Thank you all for your tips and insights!

I've played some more with MATLAB during the couple of days and here's  
where I've gotten to. Ok, I plotted the sine wave in accordance with the  
sampling rate AND plotted the RMS (which is a straight line)."


"No, you can work out the RMS value of a sine wave by sampling at almost  
any frequency. It's safe to use any frequency > 2F, but as long as you  
avoid subharmonics, F and 2F, you can use any other frequency."

-- 
"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>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

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>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round 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]


#560874

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2016-03-09 20:18 +0100
Message-ID<b205d22f56f6f03a0f3846ec98dd7624@dizum.com>
In reply to#560663
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yd1kucv5tm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
into the wood chipper again:

> we noticed.
> 
> http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/sample-rate-and-rms.80042/
> 
> "Thank you all for your tips and insights!
> 
> I've played some more with MATLAB during the couple of days and here's  
> where I've gotten to. Ok, I plotted the sine wave in accordance with the  
> sampling rate AND plotted the RMS (which is a straight line)."
> 
> "No, you can work out the RMS value of a sine wave by sampling at almost  
> any frequency. It's safe to use any frequency > 2F, but as long as you  
> avoid subharmonics, F and 2F, you can use any other frequency."

<http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/sample-rate-and-rms.80042/>
"Are you sure your math is done correctly? You would take the
measurement over the number of samples for one cycle and then divide
by that number of samples."

DildoRider is a math-challenged moron who has struggled to comprehend
vector summation for more than two months. LOL

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
Obsessed Retard. 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 Usenet History. 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#560970

Fromvallor <vallor@cultnix.org>
Date2016-03-09 23:43 +0000
Message-ID<dkbqoqFn5sU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#560663
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:14:26 -0500, \"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 wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:59:33 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
> 
>> Repeating the same stupid non sequitur
> 
> we noticed.
> 
> http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/sample-rate-and-rms.80042/
> 
> "Thank you all for your tips and insights!
> 
> I've played some more with MATLAB during the couple of days and here's
> where I've gotten to. Ok, I plotted the sine wave in accordance with the
> sampling rate AND plotted the RMS (which is a straight line)."
> 
> 
> "No, you can work out the RMS value of a sine wave by sampling at almost
> any frequency. It's safe to use any frequency > 2F, but as long as you
> avoid subharmonics, F and 2F, you can use any other frequency."

Is he confused about the continuous solution vs. the discrete solution?

As seen in TOW:

The RMS value of a set of values (OR A CONTINUOUS-TIME WAVEFORM) is the 
square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of the values, or the 
SQUARE OF THE FUNCTION THAT DEFINES THE CONTINUOUS WAVEFORM.
[emph. added]

So there's a discrete definition AND a continous definition.  Guess which 
one is more correct for a continuous, periodic waveform?

For a sine wave, the RMS is a/sqrt(2).  There is no "t" in this equation.

And no, you can't claim to be using the discrete definition, then start 
talking about "instantaneous averages".  Seriously, WTF?

-- 
 -v

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


#560972

From"\"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>
Date2016-03-09 18:58 -0500
Message-ID<op.yd20v8fjtm21m2@benson.localhost>
In reply to#560970
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 18:43:22 -0500, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 00:14:26 -0500, \"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 wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 23:59:33 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
>> Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Repeating the same stupid non sequitur
>>
>> we noticed.
>>
>> http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/sample-rate-and-rms.80042/
>>
>> "Thank you all for your tips and insights!
>>
>> I've played some more with MATLAB during the couple of days and here's
>> where I've gotten to. Ok, I plotted the sine wave in accordance with the
>> sampling rate AND plotted the RMS (which is a straight line)."
>>
>>
>> "No, you can work out the RMS value of a sine wave by sampling at almost
>> any frequency. It's safe to use any frequency > 2F, but as long as you
>> avoid subharmonics, F and 2F, you can use any other frequency."
>
> Is he confused about the continuous solution vs. the discrete solution?
>
> As seen in TOW:
>
> The RMS value of a set of values (OR A CONTINUOUS-TIME WAVEFORM) is the
> square root of the arithmetic mean of the squares of the values, or the
> SQUARE OF THE FUNCTION THAT DEFINES THE CONTINUOUS WAVEFORM.
> [emph. added]
>
> So there's a discrete definition AND a continous definition.  Guess which
> one is more correct for a continuous, periodic waveform?
>
> For a sine wave, the RMS is a/sqrt(2).  There is no "t" in this equation.
>
> And no, you can't claim to be using the discrete definition, then start
> talking about "instantaneous averages".  Seriously, WTF?
>
that's fakey's modus operandi.

he still isn't sure if one can mathematically represent a  
reversed-polarity sine wave by adding pi to the term inside the sine  
function - which is a lot of the reason that he can't understand that one  
subtracts potentials between points to determine voltage.  all one has to  
do is look at the schematic for a voltmeter (or know what one does).

https://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/mastascu/eLessonsHTML/Measurements/MeasVolt.html
"Next, you need to be aware of what the voltmeter measures.  Here it is in  
a nutshell.
A voltmeter measures the voltage difference between the positive input  
terminal of the voltmeter and the negative input terminal."

fakey sounds as if he's had some cursory vo-tech (or possibly just google)  
electrician training, but clearly he has not taken an engineering course  
in physics (or any other subject) in his entire life.  if he did, surely  
he failed.

-- 
"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>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

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>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round 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]


#561005

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2016-03-10 04:43 +0100
Message-ID<853976e01709b7a2297c20f4d4170234@dizum.com>
In reply to#560972
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yd20v8fjtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
into the wood chipper again:

> tha<SMACKAFAG!>

Says the skinny emo-goth AIDS-patient dildoriding tranny crackhead
kooktard who k'lamed that the resultant of two 120 degree phase
shifted sinewaves was 0 volts; then backpedaled and k'lamed the
resultant of two 120 degree phase shifted sinewaves was 208 volts
(both results *wrong*); then k'lamed that the resultant of all three
phases of 3-phase AC most definitely resulted in *doubling* the
voltage and most definitely did *not* result in 0 volts (both
*wrong*); then k'lamed that he was feeding a *substation* transformer
with 240 volts on the *primary* side, deriving 120 volts from the
*primary* side, then feeding that 240 volts to a 120/208 volt
electrical system, then backpedaled and k'lamed that the primary was
actually running at a voltage of "12 kVA", thereby proving he doesn't
know the difference between voltage and apparent power; then melted
down badly, spamming bad spaghetti code and bad sinewaves, all of
which used a kooky sinewave subtraction equation that couldn't even
get the correct results without randomly flipping phase angles and
giving trash results such as deriving an RMS voltage with a *higher*
amplitude than the peak voltage from which it was derived.

His melty demonstration of his utter ineptitude is just the latest in
a long series of DildoRider proving himself to be a moron. He has
these flare-ups from time to time... likely a result of his tranny
sex-change hormones driving him batty.

Now that his latest sinewave spamming New Way Of Melting Down is all
but played out, I expect DildoRider will have to come up with a New
New Way of Melting Down... he's tried ASCII Art Made By A Retard (aka
Word Cloud Art), a BMI graven image of his Usenet Lord and Master
which he prays to daily, his Spamming Sinewave Psychosis, his creation
of a book cover in tribute to his Usenet Lord and Master (note that
DildoRider is far too untalented to actually create the book
contents), and his running around taking photos of various parts of
his house... such as the gables on *top* of his roof, thereby proving
the moron doesn't know what a gable is. LOL

Can't wait to see how he melts down next. Maybe he'll grow enough of a
brain to actually complete that fucking song he promised his Usenet
Lord and Master. It'd better be fucking fantastic, you bleatfarting
talentless halfwitted frothmonkey... because if it's not, I'm gonna
kick your stooopid ass so hard you'll have to reach up to wipe.

<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
Obsessed Retard. 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 Usenet History. 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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#561017

From"\"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>
Date2016-03-09 23:53 -0500
Message-ID<op.yd3ej3j6tm21m2@benson.localhost>
In reply to#561005
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 22:43:40 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
> socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
> <news:op.yd20v8fjtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
> into the wood chipper again:
>
>> tha<SMACKAFAG!>
>
> Says the skinny emo-goth AIDS-patient dildoriding tranny crackhead
> kooktard who k'lamed that the resultant of two 120 degree phase
> shifted sinewaves was 0 volts; then backpedaled and k'lamed the
> resultant of two 120 degree phase shifted sinewaves was 208 volts
> (both results *wrong*); then k'lamed that the resultant of all three
> phases of 3-phase AC most definitely resulted in *doubling* the
> voltage and most definitely did *not* result in 0 volts (both
> *wrong*); then k'lamed that he was feeding a *substation* transformer
> with 240 volts on the *primary* side, deriving 120 volts from the
> *primary* side, then feeding that 240 volts to a 120/208 volt
> electrical system, then backpedaled and k'lamed that the primary was
> actually running at a voltage of "12 kVA", thereby proving he doesn't
> know the difference between voltage and apparent power; then melted
> down badly, spamming bad spaghetti code and bad sinewaves, all of
> which used a kooky sinewave subtraction equation that couldn't even
> get the correct results without randomly flipping phase angles and
> giving trash results such as deriving an RMS voltage with a *higher*
> amplitude than the peak voltage from which it was derived.
>
> His melty demonstration of his utter ineptitude is just the latest in
> a long series of DildoRider proving himself to be a moron. He has
> these flare-ups from time to time... likely a result of his tranny
> sex-change hormones driving him batty.
>
> Now that his latest sinewave spamming New Way Of Melting Down is all
> but played out, I expect DildoRider will have to come up with a New
> New Way of Melting Down... he's tried ASCII Art Made By A Retard (aka
> Word Cloud Art), a BMI graven image of his Usenet Lord and Master
> which he prays to daily, his Spamming Sinewave Psychosis, his creation
> of a book cover in tribute to his Usenet Lord and Master (note that
> DildoRider is far too untalented to actually create the book
> contents), and his running around taking photos of various parts of
> his house... such as the gables on *top* of his roof, thereby proving
> the moron doesn't know what a gable is. LOL
>
> Can't wait to see how he melts down next. Maybe he'll grow enough of a
> brain to actually complete that fucking song he promised his Usenet
> Lord and Master. It'd better be fucking fantastic, you bleatfarting
> talentless halfwitted frothmonkey... because if it's not, I'm gonna
> kick your stooopid ass so hard you'll have to reach up to wipe.
>
> <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
> Obsessed Retard. 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 Usenet History. LOL
>

was it something i said?

-- 
"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>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as  
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

   //float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
   //float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

   float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
   float_precision t=float_precision(0);    // time variable
   float_precision sum=float_precision(0);  // sum of SnickerTurd's  
ridiculous sinewave mess
   float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25);  //  
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
   float_precision PI;
   PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

   // this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
   while(sum < snickerPrediction){

     // fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:  
<db672705e57e4932eba3632562e0a941@dizum.com>
     sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(  
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*  
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +  
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))  
+  
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

     // perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh  
snickerTurds
     if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
       cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
     }
     t = t+STEP;
   }
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e3282bbe581fa525a2a8@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves  
never reaches that.  They never reach their max values at the same time.   
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8a13077ffc201e91f@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and  
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when  
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't  
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while  
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has  
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages.

*/
   cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<  
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

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>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round 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]


#561088

Fromsnipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe)
Date2016-03-10 09:44 +0000
Message-ID<1mjw2nf.180jz4bwimksoN%snipeco.2@gmail.com>
In reply to#561005
Snickerturd the Fake Neighborhood Vote Wanker Ersatzus
<FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> scribbled hastily then ran away:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
> 
> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
> socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
> <news:op.yd20v8fjtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
> into the wood chipper again:
> 
> > tha<SMACKAFAG!>

[...]


And there it is, Fakey's favoured tactic of last resort: delete the
question that he can't answer and run away, casting trite insults 
and aspersions over his shoulder as he runs.

Pffft, what a fake.

-- 
^Ï^.       Sn!pe       <snipeco.1@gmail.com>

My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.
My pet rock Gordon wants out.

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


#561177

FromFriendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx>
Date2016-03-10 18:26 +0100
Message-ID<606e8a5cef64c2f5901f2bfd6d6ae71c@dizum.com>
In reply to#561088
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
<news:1mjw2nf.180jz4bwimksoN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> squawked as he
pulled it to poultry porn:

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

>> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
>> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
>> socked up as sucksroot@127.0.0.1, in
>> <news:op.yd20v8fjtm21m2@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
>> into the wood chipper again:

>>> tha<SMACKAFAG!>

> A<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron.

<snicker>

-- 

---------------------------------------------
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker squawked, in
<news:1l9enri.1boemg21mhmo5lN%snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>:
"If you want to know about bird sex, just ask me."

Steve Hall (G8DGC, snipeco.1@gmail.com, snipeco.2@gmail.com,
snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk, snipe@notforspam.fsnet.co.uk) fucks birds.
LOL

http://i.imgur.com/f0euFil.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pR0mX95.jpg

Slow bird sex... if Tr!pe chickenfucks fast, he turns blue. LOL
Too much chickenspooge clogging up his lungs. LOL
That's why he's too stupid to do simple math. Lack of oxygen. LOL
That also explains his rampant paranoia. Hypoxic brain damage. LOL
And his segue to human penis... birds aren't enough for him now. LOL

Maths Fail:
Message-ID: <07f2598e7078240cb9a4b25fa701c861@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <444e1cce007418ec5345daa93ec0ba38@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <1aefd4d212571584185eacda6e6750d8@dizum.com>

Paranoia Will Destroy Ya:
Message-ID: <6620b273ab1a048aaaff3acbf2583ca9@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9db516a6a44943053aed3107df34af86@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0793f311af986182080222026eab9325@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <6b28ba3566b3f36fa69ff1cb311d4d89@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <aa840a32fa3dc7050cc69f1dda0de7e3@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <938a2d9957c61a788fcbfd0f613aa92d@dizum.com>

Tr!pe The Penis Obsessed Poof:
Message-ID: <48bc243b312b3999403a6ab8b26ea0b0@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0eb75ae7a93df2df718219c1ccd622a6@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9a5d3b92c9841c7e71a07f484653a125@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <a4c326b191a39afe57a747dc51e7166b@dizum.com>
---------------------------------------------

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


Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics


csiph-web