Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #553795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-17 07:58 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-02-22 18:59 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 309 — 14 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.
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-17 07:58 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-17 19:31 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-17 11:55 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-17 14:04 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-17 12:11 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-18 07:25 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 01:44 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 09:46 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 07:57 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-18 15:18 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 10:22 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 08:33 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-18 21:20 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:36 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-17 14:03 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-17 12:11 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-18 07:20 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-17 11:45 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-17 09:17 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-17 17:23 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-17 12:35 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-17 19:54 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-17 12:10 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-17 16:19 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-17 13:41 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-17 16:55 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-18 06:36 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-18 18:35 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-18 19:08 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 20:57 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 22:58 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-19 06:32 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-18 23:50 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2016-02-19 10:09 -0600
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-19 11:13 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-19 09:31 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-19 10:45 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-19 17:58 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-19 10:12 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-19 11:19 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2016-02-19 19:31 -0600
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-19 11:14 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-19 13:17 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-19 18:46 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-19 12:17 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-19 10:17 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2016-02-19 19:24 -0600
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-02-19 20:29 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2016-02-19 19:46 -0600
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-19 17:48 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-02-19 20:58 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-19 21:07 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-19 20:09 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2016-02-20 12:09 -0600
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 05:59 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-20 01:38 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-19 22:52 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 19:06 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-20 13:24 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-20 11:30 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-20 10:55 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-20 12:36 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 22:22 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 23:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-20 18:19 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-20 16:18 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-21 06:05 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-21 16:00 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-22 06:09 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-27 01:51 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-26 23:38 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-27 19:37 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-27 11:48 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-28 02:14 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-27 23:47 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-28 10:22 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-28 22:57 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-28 07:23 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-28 19:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:08 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 10:23 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-28 18:54 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-29 02:11 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 11:24 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-28 13:59 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-28 11:16 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-28 14:26 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-28 11:28 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-28 19:30 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-28 14:57 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-29 03:30 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:28 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-29 01:51 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 19:03 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-29 23:00 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 06:13 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-01 11:11 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-01 09:55 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 06:45 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 21:05 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 13:40 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-01 16:06 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 06:05 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-28 14:09 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:13 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-29 01:36 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 18:19 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-29 12:35 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 06:24 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 07:50 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 20:28 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 13:39 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 07:15 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "\"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> - 2016-03-01 16:16 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 08:21 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-03 07:40 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-28 13:56 -0500
Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-28 19:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-28 14:11 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:33 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-29 01:58 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 17:30 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 09:46 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:33 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 18:04 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 08:28 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 19:32 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 11:50 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-01 16:10 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb "\"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> - 2016-03-01 16:29 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIb Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 06:00 +0100
Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-28 19:30 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:13 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 23:45 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 20:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-29 23:01 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 05:41 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-01 00:08 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-29 21:33 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 07:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-01 11:24 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-01 12:25 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-01 12:51 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-01 10:38 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 21:58 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-01 16:27 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 07:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-02 01:52 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 18:59 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 20:44 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 13:38 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-01 16:17 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-01 13:50 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 15:06 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-01 16:08 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 17:13 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-01 23:37 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 06:45 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-02 01:04 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 18:16 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 06:24 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 00:26 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 18:42 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-02 12:32 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-02 11:50 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-03 06:52 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-03 07:40 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 08:05 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-01 11:26 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-01 09:59 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 19:26 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-01 13:40 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 11:55 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-01 16:02 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 06:12 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-02 00:48 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 06:12 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-02 00:48 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 19:40 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-02 14:47 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-02 15:31 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-02 15:45 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-02 12:47 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-02 16:57 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-02 17:46 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-02 21:21 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:33 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-03-02 22:54 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-02 23:48 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-02 22:31 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-02 20:47 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-02 23:52 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-03-02 20:57 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-03-03 00:15 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-03 06:41 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-03 08:54 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa "\"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> - 2016-03-03 13:17 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-04 03:44 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa liquid <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-03-03 22:29 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 11:52 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-02 06:30 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-03-01 00:14 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 20:18 +0100
Fakey see's the light. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-03-01 13:34 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 05:46 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 08:44 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-03 06:46 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-03-01 06:45 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part IIa Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:33 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-22 06:19 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-27 01:55 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-26 23:48 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-27 04:41 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-27 04:10 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-27 07:23 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-27 12:57 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-27 21:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-27 19:48 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-27 19:15 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-27 11:41 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-27 20:48 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-27 13:07 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-28 19:00 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 11:22 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-28 11:13 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-28 19:16 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:23 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-28 14:14 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-28 14:17 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-28 11:26 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-29 12:38 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 07:23 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-29 01:46 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 17:20 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-29 12:00 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-29 18:19 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-29 10:47 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-29 11:13 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-29 19:41 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-03-01 04:06 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-28 02:17 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-28 19:58 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part I Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-28 12:13 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-22 05:30 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-02-21 16:42 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-22 05:47 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-17 20:05 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-17 22:39 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-17 20:17 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-18 06:47 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 09:19 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 07:57 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-18 21:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 15:27 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 05:37 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:28 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-18 18:39 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 18:44 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 06:20 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-18 17:20 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 02:26 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-18 09:53 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-18 18:14 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 10:19 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-18 15:22 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 08:33 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 06:28 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 11:29 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-18 16:33 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 09:45 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-19 01:18 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-18 18:45 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-19 03:52 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-18 18:55 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 22:04 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 06:09 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-20 01:04 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-20 01:00 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 05:20 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-19 20:36 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-19 21:40 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-19 22:44 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 05:48 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-19 23:43 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:11 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-19 04:32 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-18 13:41 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-18 15:41 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-18 19:02 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:06 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-19 05:53 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-19 00:57 -0500
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-20 05:37 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-21 18:32 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-22 05:49 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-22 15:04 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-22 07:37 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 00:48 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2016-02-22 09:20 +0000
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-22 02:29 -0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-22 09:04 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-22 18:54 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-22 11:23 -0700
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-02-23 02:35 +0800
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-23 07:10 +0100
Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-22 18:59 +0100
Page 4 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 16 Next page →
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56chcb9lfq2mqlnfd3h6r1ufhjmq0b3o3h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #554981 |
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:24:33 -0500, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> wrote: >No, I mean the one where I ever mentioned "489 F". Inconvenient for you >that it doesn't exist, hmm? Hence why you first tried to substitute a >dizum MID that was probably one of your *own* posts, and then, >reluctantly, a MID for one of my articles, but not one where I ever made >such a claim. A fakey biography.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 10:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31325680bb61ab5598c82d@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #554985 |
In article <56chcb9lfq2mqlnfd3h6r1ufhjmq0b3o3h@4ax.com>, skeet@invalid.invalid says... > > On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:24:33 -0500, kensi > <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> wrote: > > >No, I mean the one where I ever mentioned "489 F". Inconvenient for you > >that it doesn't exist, hmm? Hence why you first tried to substitute a > >dizum MID that was probably one of your *own* posts, and then, > >reluctantly, a MID for one of my articles, but not one where I ever made > >such a claim. > > > A fakey biography. It's what he does... like when he invented the story that *I* challenged him to a race for pink slips. He pulled that one out of his ass too. Fakey likes to gradually slip extra "facts" into a story, then build on them. When you ask The Custodian of MIDs to produce one, he resorts to claiming he "already did a long time ago," and that you have to "do your own homework". Pathetically, he still thinks these tactics go unnoticed be people a lot smarter than he is. Bullshit and Bluffery... that's all Fakey's made of. -- Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote (Post-Burnore) Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame Copyright © 2016 all rights reserved
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 12:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <41ghcbdkmfa4st523dv26tuun4mm7ei8t6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #554996 |
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:55:35 -0800, "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: >In article <56chcb9lfq2mqlnfd3h6r1ufhjmq0b3o3h@4ax.com>, >skeet@invalid.invalid says... > > >> >> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 13:24:33 -0500, kensi >> <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >> >No, I mean the one where I ever mentioned "489 F". Inconvenient for you >> >that it doesn't exist, hmm? Hence why you first tried to substitute a >> >dizum MID that was probably one of your *own* posts, and then, >> >reluctantly, a MID for one of my articles, but not one where I ever made >> >such a claim. >> >> >> A fakey biography. > >It's what he does... like when he invented the story that *I* challenged >him to a race for pink slips. He pulled that one out of his ass too. >Fakey likes to gradually slip extra "facts" into a story, then build on >them. When you ask The Custodian of MIDs to produce one, he resorts to >claiming he "already did a long time ago," and that you have to "do your >own homework". Pathetically, he still thinks these tactics go unnoticed >be people a lot smarter than he is. Bullshit and Bluffery... that's all >Fakey's made of. Lot of free space below, fakey will fill it up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 22:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <04dced130bc6653873299dd1dbd6f38a@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #554996 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Jim "Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon" Gorman (aka Chimpy the Coin-Slot
Operated SuckMonkey, aka Checkmate The PickleTickler), in
<news:MPG.31325680bb61ab5598c82d@news.altopia.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
> It's what he does... like when he invented the story that *I* challenged
> him to a race for pink slips. He pulled that one out of his ass too.
> Fakey likes to gradually slip extra "facts" into a story, then build on
> them. When you ask The Custodian of MIDs to produce one, he resorts to
> claiming he "already did a long time ago," and that you have to "do your
> own homework". Pathetically, he still thinks these tactics go unnoticed
> be people a lot smarter than he is. Bullshit and Bluffery... that's all
> Fakey's made of.
Awww, look at Chimpy bleat out his butthurt historical revisionist
lies. Except I can back up my "stories" with verifiable facts, whereas
all you've got is kookblather. LOL
Some silly faggot lisped:
Message-ID: <l8ogd5$1cd$3@news.mixmin.net>
================================================================
> Finally posted some pics of a couple of my fine British motorcars...
> http://tinyurl.com/pqe9def
> Either one of these would beat Fakey's imaginary Lotus!
================================================================
Some silly faggot lisped:
Message-ID: <l8psgv$m7d$2@news.mixmin.net>
================================================================
> my other V8 Midget would kick the crap out of it
================================================================
Some silly faggot lisped:
Message-ID: <57fbfe661fa7c11a2850df3089c29faf@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Yup. I invited him to come to Washington and put his money where his
> mouth was, but he apparently already had a cock in there.
========================================================
What's that say, Chimpy, you pathetic lying piece of shit?
Backpedal, Chimpy, Backpedal! LOL
Message-ID: <57fbfe661fa7c11a2850df3089c29faf@dizum.com>
=========================================================
=========================================================
You made the challenge, you cowardly turd, the onus is upon you to
travel to make good on it.
So air up your Walmart tires, gas up with 87 octane, throw your
4-foot-long 6-inch diameter squirming diesel-turbo strap-on dildo with
jackhammer attachment and your Antonio Banderas blow-up love doll in
the trunk, twist the crank on the front of your shitty British
fagmobile to get her started, wait for the clattering to die down and
hope to gawd she doesn't backfire and belch flames up through her
carburetor, buckle yourself in with your single lap belt, slip it into
first and ease out gently on the clutch so as not to kill that
underpowered 50 year old piece of shit engine, and get to
rattle-wheezing your way southward, Chimpy. Pray it doesn't rain or
the electricals will short out and strand you by the side of the road.
Take plenty of extra oil... a quart every 1000 miles, right? LOL
Your failure to do so stands as your tacit admission of defeat.
Meanwhile, my fire-breathing direct-injected twin-turbo
nitrous-boosted 492 RWHP monster with more than double the
power-to-weight ratio of your clownmobile will be waiting. As will the
car crusher.
<snicker>
Remember your last meltdown over this?
Message-ID: <ef2309b8fe0ac0c91a0d8524546b957a@dizum.com>
=========================
I ran a best 9.567 ET at 142.626 MPH. It's a good thing it wasn't open
street legal racing, and instead was club racing... they have a
minimum 10 second ET rule for open street legal racing. I'd have been
red-flagged. I could shave a bit more off in my '0 MPH racing'... I
don't race often enough to perfect my reaction time.
Message-ID: <l9o07e$ldc$2@news.mixmin.net>
Of course, Chimpy melted down badly over the incident.
He starts melting down:
MID: <l9t90u$4rc$3@news.mixmin.net>
But puts a screeching halt to that by preparing to run away to Teh
Flonk, using a whinging "this place is boring" mewl to cover up his
getting spanked out of AUK. He fake-plonks everyone who's pointing out
that he's a deluded retard, later responding to them and uncovering
just what a kook he is:
MID: <l9tgp9$ebj$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9tmkc$kjc$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9utte$1rb$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9uttd$1rb$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9uttd$1rc$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9uttg$1rb$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9utti$1rb$4@news.mixmin.net>
But he still manages to burble out a bit of froth before he runs away
to the arms of the admitted gay man who's offered to save him from his
predicament by "inviting" him to Teh Flonk... conveniently right at
the time that Chimpy's getting spanked hardest:
MID: <l9utth$1rc$3@news.mixmin.net>
And then the coward is gone to Teh Flonk, snuggled safely in the warm
embrace of the gay man who played the part of his savior:
MID: <l9uvg2$49u$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9utte$1rb$2@news.mixmin.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 17:12:15 +0000 (UTC)
"I'm getting tired of this cesspool anyway, and my work here is
pretty-much done."
The parting words of a spankard. Of course, just as all kooks do, he
announced his departure, and was back in a short while.
<snicker>
Chimpy proclaims 'victolly' despite him being the one who melted down,
frothed in the wee hours, socked up, lied, cried, fake-plonked
everyone pointing out he was being a retard, desperately clung to his
faggoty belief that a picture of a vagina was actually a guy's balls
and asshole, and the delusion that the track I race at is closed. So
he gets spanked out of Teh Flonk and back into AUK for further
humiliation. By now, he's reduced to cut-n-paste screeding, and
posting tribute love videos to his Usenet Lord and Master:
MID: <laaqg9$7ci$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqgf$7cj$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqgl$7ci$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqgs$7cj$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqh4$7ci$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqhe$7cj$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqhn$7ci$5@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqhu$7cj$5@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqia$7ci$6@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqii$7cj$6@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqj2$7ci$7@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqjl$7cj$7@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laaqmk$7cj$8@news.mixmin.net>
Chimpy starts bleating out his butthurt even louder, in a top-posted
1:40 AM screed spammed to 12 groups that got him dumped in the spam
bin at both E-S and Mixmin... while fucking up the Newsgroups: line
because he was so flustered from receiving continual spankage:
MID: <lacomr$ljo$5@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lacpig$mm8$1@news.mixmin.net>
And Chimpy runs away (again):
MID: <lac06c$kfq$2@news.mixmin.net>
Chimpy returns in full froth, only to be caught in several lies:
MID: <laegrr$ugi$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laegrc$ugi$2@news.mixmin.net>
Then Chimpy runs away (again):
MID: <laihus$sc5$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laihuk$sc4$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laihua$sc4$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <laihtn$sc5$1@news.mixmin.net>
Checkmate can't help but snipe at his Usenet Lord and Master from the
snubbery, as all cowards do. But he's discouraged, defeated, broken...
and making noises like he's gonna give up Usenet for good:
MID: <laqgl2$t26$1@news.mixmin.net>
And to think, I'd told Chimpy two weeks prior about my racing at
Pomona on the 28th... and he only started melting down and doing his
"I have a fast car so I can't be gay!" routine because he'd been
caught repeatedly insisting that a picture of a vagina was actually an
asshole and balls... he's gay like that.
That picture was of Chimpy's lost love that he'd been discussing...
MID: <31e4747ee7179064b1fdd5266cd08d72@dizum.com>
so while I posted a picture of a woman and her gaping vagina because
at the time I'd assumed Chimpy had been pursuing a ragged out crack
whore because that'd be the absolute best he could ever hope to
attract, his insistence that the "one who got away" had balls may
actually be true, given his admissions to being uber-gay, as detailed
in his own unedited words in the MIDs in my .sig.
So this whole episode was just Chimpy yet again trying to tell
everyone that he's really, really gay.
<snicker>
=========================
That's a SPANKY-SPANKY! on Chimpy the cowardly lying cockhog. LOL
Melt, Chimpy, melt.
Froth, Chimpy, froth.
Dance, Chimpy, dance!
Muahahaha, etc.
<snicker>
--
FNVWe:
"The Man Who Spanked Chimpy Checkmate The Cowardly CockSmoker Out Of
AUK, Then Out Of The Flonk, Then Into Insanity, Then Made Him Run Away
Like A Little Spankard Bitch. Again."
In which Checkmate admits to being a faggot and fantasizing about men:
MID: <feb093af883d0bf288e85863264900ed@dizum.com>
MID: <ab050c692202f7d955f7d2876fd39d56@dizum.com>
In which Checkmate says he wants to spank guys all night long:
MID: <k3m5ls$3pr$1@news.mixmin.net>
In which Checkmate confesses his desire to fuck who he claims is a
guy:
MID: <k3oolf$cpe$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k9nj0v$u4a$2@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <l8ogd6$1cd$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lclrtd$eei$4@news.mixmin.net>
In which Checkmate admits he'd definitely fuck a male dog:
MID: <k2h0j1$6ll$5@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k4dsc7$l32$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <k5m8o5$vmq$5@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
In which Checkmate admits to having a golden showers fetish:
MID: <k79p80$9ps$3@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9l0$nf0$5@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k8t9kv$nev$5@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k994eg$77l$1@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <k9i8is$sna$3@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <lf3noh$sqv$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <76b587bf03232be29596c7a5e11f8eef@dizum.com>
MID: <d1590e1490afb94915166440ceb1190f@dizum.com>
MID: <4c614669bd9da0e2ab54c7a8618864f2@dizum.com>
In which Checkmate asks a guy for a blowjob (again):
MID: <ka4m1r$8rs$2@newsfeed.x-privat.org>
MID: <knd50p$7ni$2@news.albasani.net>
MID: <knnmme$3a4$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kp77db$rqk$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8t$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <kvvjjb$a8u$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l069qt$g3j$9@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l1b6g1$qqv$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l65hh2$jpd$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l9b7ha$ret$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfe72e$q0s$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lffimp$k2f$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <13de9e018d33aa5c02a89f8acfd8c2f8@dizum.com>
MID: <ddfe5035129d525fb2c441289a7b3c1b@dizum.com>
MID: <8352c247386df60552fec12941ad0c47@dizum.com>
MID: <863c1b2a4221005e6d5252e4b2f955b1@dizum.com>
MID: <9d7e6e672aa61c16813ade0f2815d0bf@dizum.com>
MID: <aacd887c22128680f39ec3ca7f7e1613@dizum.com>
MID: <372519cc110e5acf0d73268cb1a697e9@dizum.com>
MID: <1b8820753ce4e2da87b17874d123f783@dizum.com>
Checkmate's got a thing about tickling guy's asses with random
objects:
MID: <l8rapt$rfm$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <lfm4f8$3jb$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <li2ao1$3rf$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <37fb49820eaf36d0a45e91ce73d37d44@dizum.com>
MID: <13badb999438389ea8894228e51614a3@dizum.com>
MID: <2ce704d96dbf41ca89fd9eda221cb83c@dizum.com>
MID: <f9b10e223db85839d004420449391270@dizum.com>
MID: <184091e3de3a10096805606ec6dc5866@dizum.com>
MID: <ee740ba6bc409af0d2b4a66170b4e4d7@dizum.com>
MID: <d1d62217afbcbf98470365178072415a@dizum.com>
MID: <ac96244a69bc75dd3a60e8defda0b966@dizum.com>
MID: <9f02c35ef6d67ac06ee55f90199c3aaa@dizum.com>
MID: <3e4b3a8bb953839b7d2658130dcb927e@dizum.com>
MID: <9ec2ad3439122a906207c9f74c4a3a06@dizum.com>
MID: <761ef52f7fc54d46dd50e2692e160d92@dizum.com>
MID: <8ef71d83a5af476e6e275ea23b984323@dizum.com>
Checkmate's so gay he repeatedly insists that a picture of a vagina is
actually an asshole and balls... he went on and on about assholes and
balls... couldn't shut up about them... come to find out, he was just
trying to tell us that his lost love was actually a man:
MID: <l84jo7$cnd$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l84oip$icu$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l85ste$ao$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l87aud$saf$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l88ptv$nlj$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8dvdt$tj2$4@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8kl20$91i$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8psgt$m7d$1@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l8rapv$rfm$3@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <l98brg$6hp$6@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <ldg914$pel$2@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <31e4747ee7179064b1fdd5266cd08d72@dizum.com>
MID: <4dba3edb9556cb8d94bc7b90f3b0c8f0@dizum.com>
Chimpy the neurotic overwrought hysterical hissy-fit ninny escalates
his prescription drug abuse to "calm the fuck down" (Chimpy's words):
MID: <512f192b17a529cc6d490a55c43ac1be@dizum.com> - Oxy, Neurontin
MID: <kjucol$ckr$3@newsfeed.x-privat.org> - Oxy, Vicodin
MID: <kmqoip$cg3$8@news.albasani.net> - Norco
MID: <knc9l2$e66$2@news.albasani.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6lnn79.ppd.17.10@news.alt.net> - Oxycodone, Vicodin
MID: <6lo0dt.b7.17.4@news.alt.net> - Xanax
MID: <krt925$u63$3@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <6o9mv7.7ra.17.1@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6os03j.f3.19.2@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6p12vg.of8.19.2@news.alt.net> - Marijuana
MID: <6pg2lv.v27.17.2@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <kuqmlq$mi7$1@news.mixmin.net> - Amphetamine (!)
MID: <6qprvj.ndm.17.1@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6r26ti.ju0.19.2@news.alt.net> - Vicodin
MID: <6stbk8.pbh.19.43@news.alt.net> - Ecstasy
MID: <l1b6g2$qr0$2@news.mixmin.net> - Vicodin
MID: <l5kd53$8kd$1@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <lanvc8$f06$2@news.mixmin.net> - Norco
MID: <larrim$lft$1@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <lcckii$mue$3@news.mixmin.net> - N2O
MID: <e7848d7ebc7f0b52e126bc35d82a65cf@dizum.com> - Hydrocodone,
Alprazolam
MID: <MPG.2eb9f496c779fc2998a54c@news.alt.net> - Percocet
Chimpy Checkmate's Famous Faggotisms:
=====================================
Chimpy tries enticing a straight man who lives with a woman to join
him in his lonely faggoty lifestyle:
Message-ID: <b1ae7a665b08a82e652e819482238fbd@dizum.com>
"How about I put the squirrel up your ass to keep your gerbil
company?"
Chimpy's desperate plea to a dude:
MID: <5b690abba10d04da8f7675d278f2c2b8@dizum.com>
"Diddle me!"
MID: <07b50fac74279fabaf78a605899b7934@dizum.com>
"Trojans are a condiment."
Chimpy discusses his new boyfriend, Dave "SnuhWolf" Norris:
MID: <c565ada4723ca2e5cd1259cf8a1d86df@dizum.com>
"Snuhbaby makes a good cock warmer."
MID: <ffd2a514115a20cb3122e71b81907a1f@dizum.com>
"Pack your donut hole, any time, anywhere!"
Chimpy discussing the relative merits of 4 inches versus 10 inches:
MID: <b62ad5949e43f36901836bb59898426a@dizum.com>
"Plus, I suppose it doesn't hurt as much when they stuff it up your
butt."
MID: <MPG.2a5ec5516fc9605298b5ac@news.alt.net>
"Best you keester a kielbasa."
Message-ID: <kvvjjb$a8t$3@news.mixmin.net>
"Brag about it to my dick."
"My dick can't quite hear you, could you come a little closer?"
MID: <knnmmb$3a4$1@news.mixmin.net>
"If you see a dick, suck it."
MID: <6qft9a.g1f.19.1@news.alt.net>
"The Winchester 1892 would make a damned-good dildo."
MID: <l61jjg$tth$1@news.mixmin.net>
"Pump a rump."
MID: <l9d76m$k1v$4@news.mixmin.net>
"You gerbils are always in the dark."
MID: <lal84d$g2u$5@news.mixmin.net>
MID: <97bfaeca4f3abe27b5f6683e319cdb18@dizum.com>
"I gotta gay named Guido from Jersey"
MID: <lamgt8$b2d$1@news.mixmin.net>
"If they're soft, yer probably blowin' it all wrong."
MID: <lchub0$q96$5@news.mixmin.net>
"Hitler would have made a damned good Queen."
MID: <lcsgjb$obk$2@news.mixmin.net>
"Don't get slapped by the cocks you crave."
MID: <b068d280517a2d6c831d4a43f2cc8d31@dizum.com>
To a nearly toothless man:
"I wouldn't pay you to suck my dick if your last tooth fell out."
So Chimpy prefers paying *nearly* toothless men for blowjobs, but not
*fully* toothless men. LOL
MID: <afe97a65ff77e7382ad77cf18ea63e85@dizum.com>
"If I send you some money, will you suck Greg's dick?"
Chimpy likes to watch. LOL
MID: <9d7e6e672aa61c16813ade0f2815d0bf@dizum.com>
"Suck my clit."
Chimpy's proposition to a tranny sucking faggot who gets around being
gay by claiming tranny cocks are 'huge dangling clits'. LOL
Chimpy is confused again: "giant ball-like labia". LOL
MID: <4dba3edb9556cb8d94bc7b90f3b0c8f0@dizum.com>
=====================================
What a FAG!
Melt, Chimpy, melt.
Froth, Chimpy, froth.
Dance, Chimpy, dance!
<snicker>
/\ Properly known as Bill
\ /\ The Monster You Kooks Can't Handle
\ / \ THERE IS NO CABAL - LONG LIVE THE NEW CABAL
\/ The AUK coup is complete. The Old Cabal is no more.
Accept no substitutes...
if it's from Databasix, it's a sure bet it's from a kook.
databasix.com / PacketDerm, LLC / COTSE:
all branches of the same malignant tree.
Message-ID: <l7m8ig$1ld$7@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8jh$1le$8@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8lh$1le$9@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8ne$1ld$8@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8pc$1le$10@news.mixmin.net>
Message-ID: <l7m8rb$1ld$9@news.mixmin.net>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 23:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9c83f8e146e04a890890ddfb46582505@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #554981 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Ko0O0oki kensi the LunkHeaded LibTard, in <news:naab1k$g2m$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On 20/02/2016 1:06 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler > Emeritus wrote: >>>> temperature of 489 F via Wien's Displacement Law. >>>> >>>> SPNAK! >>> <crickets> on the AIOE MID. >> You mean the one you cowardly snipped out? LOL > No, I mean the one where I ever mentioned "489 F". Nicely backpedaled, Spankard. LOL I said: "most infrared thermometers utilize a band of infrared from 5.5 to 14 microns, most of which is outside the 11 micron atmospheric window" Kensi said "so is most of the blackbody radiation from a patch of winter snow". That's *you*, k'laming that snow is giving off blackbody radiation from 5.5 microns to 14 microns, most of it outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. An utter spankard babbled: "IOW, I said most of it is outside the 11 micron atmospheric window." That's *you*, reiterating your retarded k'lame that most of the blackbody radiation from snow is outside the window at ~10 to ~12.5 micron, and from ~8 to ~9 micron. that leaves 5.5 to 8 micron and 12.5 to 14 micron, Spankard. Let's plug in those numbers, shall we? Wien's Displacement Law: Displacement_max = b/T Where: T = absolute temperature in Kelvin b = Wien's displacement constant, 2900 um K Given that: 32 F = freezing point of water 32 F = 273.15 K So, plugging in 14 micron, we come up with a temperature of 207.1428 K or -86.8128 F. Plugging in 12.5 micron, we come up with 232 K or -42.07 F. So you k'lame that snow mostly resides at a temperature of -86.2128 to -42.07 F. Now we plug in 5.5 microns, we come up with a temperature of 527.2727 K or 489.4209 F. And we plug in 8 microns to arrive at 362.5 K or 192.83 F. So you k'lame that snow mostly resides at a temperature of 192.83 F to 489.4209 F. So you're k'laming that most snow is at either -86.2128 to -42.07 F, and at 192.83 to 489.4209 F. That's a strange world you live in, LunkHead. SPNAK! > Inconvenient for you that it doesn't exist, hmm? Lying as you backpedal, LunkHead? LOL > Hence why you first tried to substitute a > dizum MID that was probably one of your *own* posts, and then, > reluctantly, a MID for one of my articles, but not one where I ever made > such a claim. Oh, I've got LunkHead so butthurt over proving he's an anti-science nitwit that he's lying his stoooopid head off. LOL I wrote: ======================================================= Message-ID: <a56f36549e06183d9cbf20e4f756bc5d@dizum.com> Most infrared thermometers utilize a band of infrared from 5.5 to 14 microns, therefore it's measuring outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. ======================================================= ======================================================= Ko0Ooki kensi the lunkheaded libtard, in <news:n92saj$1dp3$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: So is most of the blackbody radiation from a patch of winter snow, kOok. ======================================================= ======================================================= Ko0O0oki kensi the lunkheaded libtard, in <news:n95q3a$1k43$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: IOW, I said most of it is outside the 11 micron atmospheric window. ======================================================= I wrote: ======================================================= Message-ID: <a56f36549e06183d9cbf20e4f756bc5d@dizum.com> Lunkhead doesn't know that atmospheric absorption in the infrared range rises rapidly below ~8 micron, reaching ~100% absorption at ~6 micron. On the opposite side, atmospheric absorption rises rapidly at ~12.5 micron, reaching ~100% at ~14.2 micron. So there's a very narrow window at ~10 to ~12.5 micron, and from ~8 to ~9 micron which constitutes the infrared atmospheric window. Water and ice emit at ~11 micron. Right in the center of the atmospheric infrared window, thus that energy is radiated straight out to space unimpeded, without heating the atmosphere, even if clouds are present. Moron. LOL So the infrared thermometer used in that high school-level experiment would have been picking up reflected IR from ~5.5 to ~8 microns and from ~12.5 to ~14 microns, which is outside the infrared atmospheric window and thus reflecting the heat of the infrared laser diode, thus skewing the results. ======================================================= SPNAK! >>> Meanwhile, I never claimed that the *peak* >>> of the distribution was at 5.5 microns, and I don't recall making *any* >>> claim about 5.5 microns. So that'd be a second AIOE MID you'll be >>> needing to supply, ko0ky. >> Lying backpedaling spankard. Not only did you deny that snow emitted >> the vast majority of radiation directly in the middle of the >> ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, you k'lamed that snow emitted >> mostly *outside* the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, which >> only leaves you a few select radiation frequencies (and thus >> temperatures) to choose from. S<MACKAK00K!> > I see you *still* don't understand that blackbody spectra are broad, I see that you *still* don't understand that snow cannot emit above it's melting point, nor above the temperature of the atmosphere into which it's emitting, LunkHead. Which means the Laws of Thermodynamics continue to confuse you. LOL Wien's Displacement Law: Displacement_max = b/T Where: T = absolute temperature in Kelvin b = Wien's displacement constant, 2900 um K Given that: 32 F = freezing point of water 32 F = 273.15 K 2900 um K / 273.15 K = 10.6168 micron blackbody radiation from snow, which is as close as one can get to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Any temperature higher (and thus wavelength shorter) than that won't work for snow, LunkHead. Now we plug in 5.5 microns, which you k'lamed snow emits at, we come up with a temperature of 527.2727 K or 489.4209 F. You ever know of snow to exist at 489 F, LunkHead? No? Why? Oh, because it would melt at 32 F. You moron. So, plugging in 14 microns, we come up with a temperature of 207.1428 K or -86.8128 F. How often does temperature reach -86 F, LunkHead? Not very often. Let's go with a more sane number, how about -50 F? That gives us a wavelength of 12.7419 micron. So 10.6168 to 12.7419 micron for the overwhelming majority of the temperatures experienced. Or a very narrow band of 2.1251 micron, which lays right at the ~11 micron infrared atmospheric window. SPNAK! > roughly bell-shaped curves with a fat tail to the right (longer > wavelengths). And the lower the temperature, the lower and broader the > spectrum in question, as well as the peak shifting to longer wavelengths. Are... are you going to try to k'lame (again) that a body can emit heat to a warmer surrounding? LOL Or are you going to k'lame (again) that snow can exist above 32 F? LOL Moron. SPNAK! > Most of the emission from any low temperature blackbody is outside of > *any* narrow window, ko0ky. Wrong. Wien's Displacement Law *proves* you wrong. Again. SPNAK! > To get most of the emission in a narrow > window the emitter needs to be damn hot, with a tall narrow distribution > as a result, and the window needs to be around its peak (in much shorter > wavelengths than infrared, by the way). Even then there'll be a fat tail > of substantial emissions at longer wavelengths. Then why did you try to backpedal and k'lame that snow is giving off most of its heat via blackbody radiation, you pathetic moron, given that it can only give off that radiation in a narrow 2.1251 micron window that is right at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window? Oh, that's right, because you got caught stoooopidly trying to k'lame that cloud cover over snow, water or ice caused warmer temperatures, and got SPNAK!d by reality. Again. So you backpedaled with "blackbody radiation", which you intimated those clouds were absorbing, and for which you got SPNAK!d. Again. LOL SPNAK! >>>>> That may well be a MID for a k'lame that the window doesn't exist, but >>>>> it is not *my* k'lame, as I do not post through the dizum remailer. >>> <crickets on this MID as well> >> Lying kook, you again cowardly snipped it out. Restored, >> because drop-kicking a moron across Usenet is fun. LOL > Lying kOok, you never posted it. K'laming that I "snipped out" an AIOE > MID that wasn't actually in the parent article is a particularly > desperate move. Your back is against the wall. You snipped it out again, Cowardly Backpedaling Spankard. Why do you do that, knowing it only makes you look all the more pathetic? LOL Restored: >>> ============================================================== >>> I've booted LunkHead so hard I've scratched the 78 RPM record he calls >>> a brain. Now he's skipping. Somebody put a penny on his forehead, >>> maybe he'll stop. LOL >>> >>> Remember, you're the moron who k'lames snow emits primarily outside >>> the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, said k'lame I've already >>> demolished. Thus, given that I've demolished your kooky k'lame, you >>> must now be stating that the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window >>> doesn't exist, because you persist in k'laming that cloud cover over >>> snow will reflect that 12.7419 micron to 10.6168 micron radiation, >>> when in fact snow emits primarily *in* the ~11-micron infrared >>> atmospheric window, and the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window >>> allows ~94% of that energy through to space without absorption. >>> >>> SPNAK! >>> >>> Message-ID: <cd8a619da336dee5cec7c75f5c1ef6a6@dizum.com> >>> ======================================================== >>> Ko0O0oki kensi the lunkheaded libtard, in >>> <news:n945me$1143$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into >>> the wood chipper again: >>> >>> > That you seem to be disputing that (and then using selective >>> > quoting, which I corrected above, to "support" your k'lames) >>> > means that *you* have now just k'lamed that the blackbody >>> > radiation from winter snow comes out in a single narrow >>> > emission line at 11 microns, >>> >>> It's a very narrow range, obviously bordered on the shorter >>> wavelengths by the temperature reached, and bordered on the longer >>> wavelengths by the melting point of snow, whereupon that snow would >>> melt away, exposing the land beneath, which emits at longer >>> wavelengths. So at the predominant temperatures of, let's say -50 F to >>> 32 F, we get wavelengths of from 12.7419 micron to 10.6168 micron. >>> >>> Now, if you'll remember, I'd earlier said: >>> ========================================== >>> Lunkhead doesn't know that atmospheric absorption in the infrared >>> range rises rapidly below ~8 micron, reaching ~100% absorption at ~6 >>> micron. On the opposite side, atmospheric absorption rises rapidly at >>> ~12.5 micron, reaching ~100% at ~14.2 micron. So there's a very narrow >>> window at ~10 to ~12.5 micron, and from ~8 to ~9 micron which >>> constitutes the infrared atmospheric window. >>> ========================================== >>> >>> So for all but the most severe cold, snow emits in the wavelength >>> range of the infrared atmospheric window, you backpedaling spankard. >>> ======================================================== >>> ============================================================== SPNAK! >> It's a very narrow range, obviously bordered on the shorter >> wavelengths by the temperature reached, and bordered on the longer >> wavelengths by the melting point of snow, > Oh, look, kOoky here thinks that the blackbody emission from a chunk of > some solid below its melting point is not smooth, but rather has a cut > off at the wavelength that *would* be the peak of the emission were it > heated to its melting point. And that this cut off is on the *long* > wavelength side of the actual peak, to boot. Wien's Displacement Law proves you're a moron, yet again, LunkHead: Wien's Displacement Law: Displacement_max = b/T Where: T = absolute temperature in Kelvin b = Wien's displacement constant, 2900 um K Given that: 32 F = freezing point of water 32 F = 273.15 K 2900 um K / 273.15 K = 10.6168 micron blackbody radiation from snow, which is as close as one can get to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Any temperature higher (and thus wavelength shorter) than that won't work for snow, LunkHead. It'd melt, exposing the soil beneath the snow. Now we plug in 5.5 microns, which you k'lamed snow emits at, we come up with a temperature of 527.2727 K or 489.4209 F. You ever know of snow to exist at 489 F, LunkHead? No? Why? Oh, because it would melt at 32 F. You moron. So, plugging in 14 microns, we come up with a temperature of 207.1428 K or -86.8128 F. How often does temperature reach -86 F, LunkHead? Not very often. Let's go with a more sane number, how about -50 F? That gives us a wavelength of 12.7419 micron. So 10.6168 to 12.7419 micron for the overwhelming majority of the temperatures experienced. Or a very narrow band of 2.1251 micron, which lays right at the ~11 micron infrared atmospheric window, which extends from ~8 to ~9 micron and ~10 to ~12.5 micron. For the majority of the likely temperature range (32 F to -20 F), we get 10.6168 to 11.8725 micron, or a range of 1.2557 micron. And that's smack dab in the middle of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Care to take a guess *why* it works out that way, LunkHead? Or do you want to just tuck tail and slink away (again) without bothering to prove yourself an even greater moron than any of us had supposed? SPNAK! > Guffaw. What happens to snow when it melts, LunkHead? Yeah, it melts and exposes the soil beneath it, which gives off radiation at a longer wavelength. So your blather is yet again proven to be the mad rantings of a psychotic moron. SPNAK! Message-ID: <65d0f5e1ad03d42086b4a492e0eba763@dizum.com> ======================================================== ======================================================== > <http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134389570800> Kensi was "vacationing"... in Pembroke, Ontario, Canada... quite by coincidence, you understand... LunkHead was there with Nadegda, apparently. And Nadegda and Kensi most definitely were *not* there to double-team on Paul Derbyshire's mushroom-slathered meatpole. Paul Derbyshire is a life-long virgin, you see. He'll never touch anything more feminine than his hand with a Barbie-doll wig glued to it, paste-on eyes, and his mother's hooker-pink lipstick smeared between thumb and index finger knuckle. Ironically, he's named his f(e)isty lover "kensi". She's really hot in the sack... an expert in getting anal. Sometimes, she takes it so deeply it pokes out of her mouth! Oh, here's Kensi: <http://goo.gl/hdpXFC> She's Paul Derbyshire's regular Saturday night thang. Ain't she purdy? I'm sure a lot of guys have hit that. Chimpy's hit that... twice. Strangely and quite coincidentally, Paul Derbyshire calls his right thumb "Nadegda". I found a picture of Nadegda, too. <https://goo.gl/sbdRcq> You don't wanna know what she's into. *Really* kinky stuff. Suffice to say sometimes she invites along her four sisters for what she calls "sexy spelunking". You know what they say... fugly chicks gotta go kinky. LOL > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ> > P.S. How's the astrophysics coming along? Have you visited > any good telescopes lately? Ask kensi which observatories nearby have time standard control capability. That's something every astronomer should know, right? <snicker> ======================================================== ======================================================== I note you've studiously avoided answering which observatories have time standard control capability, LunkHead... only those who actually work at an observatory would even know about such a thing, let alone which observatories have that capability... but then, everyone knows lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy wannabes always out their womanly socks because they're too stoooopid to play the part of the identity they've assumed. Perhaps for your next sock, you should play the part of a mop jockey or a streetwalker... that'd be something you could handle, dude. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 18:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <naasat$1c9u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555120 |
On 20/02/2016 5:10 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > snow cannot emit above it's melting point, nor above the > temperature of the atmosphere into which it's emitting, Eee hee hee! Meanwhile, in the real world: http://www.capgo.com/Resources/Temperature/NonContact/BlackBodyLog.GIF Note the lowest curve, conveniently labeled "0°C". Note that it peaks near 10 microns, falls off steeply to the left of that indicating not much emission at wavelengths shorter than 5 microns, but continues more broadly to the right, such that there's a fair amount emitted in the upper tens of microns. Note, indeed, that at the same horizontal position as the peak of the 200°C curve, the 0°C curve is still at about 30% of the power density that it has at its peak. Your k'lame that snow does not emit at wavelengths corresponding to the peaks for temperatures above the melting point of water is proved wrong by the fact that it emits a fair amount at the wavelength that is the peak of the curve for 200°C. SPNAK! Your k'lame that snow does not emit much outside the IR atmospheric window is proved wrong by the fact that that lowest red curve is not a narrow, near-vertical spike about the 10 micron mark. SPNAK!! Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, when in fact thermodynamics would favor radiative (and other) heat transfer from the relatively warm snow to the bitterly cold air in that situation. SPNAK!!! Of course, the *important* thing for a snowy/icy surface under cloud cover at night is that a clear night sky is a very chilly 3°K while the cloud cover may be a relatively balmy -10°C or whatever, so thermodynamics predicts a lot more radiative loss to the clear night sky than it does to the cloud cover. And indeed we observe that on a cloudy winter night it tends to be warmer than on a clear winter night. Even though the high albedo of snow makes these radiative processes relatively weak. And so, increased nighttime cloudiness over Greenland will contribute to warming of that region, and to accelerated ice mass loss. SPNAK!!!! OK, you're pretty punch-drunk now, so I'd recommend you hang up your modem for the day, ko0ky, and go catch a nap or something. You might be reeling just a little bit less in the morning. *snicker* -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-20 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3132a245c34a1aa798c836@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #555139 |
In article <naasat$1c9u$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.invalid says... > > On 20/02/2016 5:10 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > snow cannot emit above it's melting point, nor above the > > temperature of the atmosphere into which it's emitting, > > Eee hee hee! > > Meanwhile, in the real world: > > http://www.capgo.com/Resources/Temperature/NonContact/BlackBodyLog.GIF > > Note the lowest curve, conveniently labeled "0°C". Note that it peaks > near 10 microns, falls off steeply to the left of that indicating not > much emission at wavelengths shorter than 5 microns, but continues more > broadly to the right, such that there's a fair amount emitted in the > upper tens of microns. > > Note, indeed, that at the same horizontal position as the peak of the > 200°C curve, the 0°C curve is still at about 30% of the power density > that it has at its peak. > > Your k'lame that snow does not emit at wavelengths corresponding to the > peaks for temperatures above the melting point of water is proved wrong > by the fact that it emits a fair amount at the wavelength that is the > peak of the curve for 200°C. > > SPNAK! > > Your k'lame that snow does not emit much outside the IR atmospheric > window is proved wrong by the fact that that lowest red curve is not a > narrow, near-vertical spike about the 10 micron mark. > > SPNAK!! > > Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the > atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at > -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, when in fact > thermodynamics would favor radiative (and other) heat transfer from the > relatively warm snow to the bitterly cold air in that situation. > > SPNAK!!! > > Of course, the *important* thing for a snowy/icy surface under cloud > cover at night is that a clear night sky is a very chilly 3°K while the > cloud cover may be a relatively balmy -10°C or whatever, so > thermodynamics predicts a lot more radiative loss to the clear night sky > than it does to the cloud cover. And indeed we observe that on a cloudy > winter night it tends to be warmer than on a clear winter night. Even > though the high albedo of snow makes these radiative processes > relatively weak. > > And so, increased nighttime cloudiness over Greenland will contribute to > warming of that region, and to accelerated ice mass loss. > > SPNAK!!!! > > OK, you're pretty punch-drunk now, so I'd recommend you hang up your > modem for the day, ko0ky, and go catch a nap or something. You might be > reeling just a little bit less in the morning. > > *snicker* Once again, Paul smacks Fakey down! -- Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote (Post-Burnore) Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame Copyright © 2016 all rights reserved
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 06:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9b06b723a24dff34dce6e47cf3c6ab97@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #555139 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Ko0O0oki kensi the LunkHeaded LibTard, in <news:naasat$1c9u$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On 20/02/2016 5:10 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote > Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> snow cannot emit above it's melting point, nor above the >> temperature of the atmosphere into which it's emitting, > Eee hee hee! > > Meanwhile, in the real world: > > http://www.capgo.com/Resources/Temperature/NonContact/BlackBodyLog.GIF > > Note the lowest curve, conveniently labeled "0°C". Note that it peaks > near 10 microns, falls off steeply to the left of that indicating not > much emission at wavelengths shorter than 5 microns, but continues more > broadly to the right, such that there's a fair amount emitted in the > upper tens of microns. > > Note, indeed, that at the same horizontal position as the peak of the > 200°C curve, the 0°C curve is still at about 30% of the power density > that it has at its peak. > > Your k'lame that snow does not emit at wavelengths corresponding to the > peaks for temperatures above the melting point of water is proved wrong > by the fact that it emits a fair amount at the wavelength that is the > peak of the curve for 200°C. My gawd, you're fucking stupid. LOL How is snow going to emit *anything* after it's melted and run away, exposing the land beneath, which emits at a longer wavelength, LunkHead? Do you not understand the following phrase: "For a body in local thermodynamic equilibrium, the amount of thermal energy emitted *must* equal the energy absorbed; otherwise the body would heat up or cool down over time." According to you, snow is constantly getting colder, even if the atmosphere above it is warmer than the snow! Because you're the lunkheaded anti-science retard. Now, notwithstanding the blackbody radiation curves, if something physically interferes with the ability of snow to emit at a given wavelength, then it cannot emit at that wavelength. So given Wien's Displacement Law: Wien's Displacement Law: Displacement_max = b/T Where: T = absolute temperature in Kelvin b = Wien's displacement constant, 2900 um K Given that: 32 F = freezing point of water 32 F = 273.15 K 2900 um K / 273.15 K = 10.6168 micron at the freezing point of water Once snow goes above that temperature, it melts and runs away, exposing the land beneath that snow, therefore snow *cannot* emit above 273.15 K, thus it *cannot* emit shorter wavelengths than 10.6168 micron. Now, let's assume the great majority of the time that temperature will not get below -50 F. That's polar wintertime cold, and likely won't be reached very often anywhere else. 2900 um K / 227.5944 K = 12.7419 micron. Thus, given that snow *cannot* emit at a wavelength that corresponds to a temperature it cannot reach, and given that snow won't reach below -50 F very often in anyplace but the poles in winter, we can safely set the upper wavelength of emission at 12.7419 micron. Thus, snow emits at 10.6168 to ~12.7419 micron, a narrow 2.1251 micron window. This accounts for the great majority of temperatures seen. Outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, snow wouldn't even "see" the ~3K of space due to atmospheric absorption at those associated wavelengths, thus snow blackbody emission drops off outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, making your blather about "most of it is outside the 11 micron atmospheric window" especially stoooopid. LOL SPNAK! In fact, it's generally accepted that snow emits at wavelengths corresponding to 250 to 273 K: <http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40759/7/16.%20chapter-6.pdf> =================================================================== In the present study, MODIS imagery of North-West Himalaya of Indian region taken as study area. Study carried out with MODIS thermal IR band-31 (10.780 micron -11.280 micron) and band-32 (11.770 micron-12.270 micron) data were used, because 10.5 micron-12.5 micron window region has maximum transmittance and noise equivalent temperature difference is also very low (0.05Kelvin) in these channels. Snow bound area can be considered as a homogeneous surface as it consist only snow on the top surface and it can be considered as a black body as emissivity of snow/ice is approximately 0.98 or 0.99 in IR part (10.5 micron to 12.5 micron) which is close to 1. =================================================================== <http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dozier/Pubs/DozierWarren_WR018i005p01424.pdf> =================================================================== Page 3 of 11 Spectral variation of difference between brightness and thermodynamic temperatures Tb-T for emissivities from 0.90 to 0.99 and temperatures 250 and 273 K. =================================================================== Do you wonder why they don't bother to go over 273 K or below 10.5 micron in their readings, LunkHead? I'm sure you do, given that you're a moron. LOL SPNAK! on the moron who can't even understand such a simple concept. > SPN<SMACKAKOOK!> Moron. LOL > Your k'lame that snow does not emit much outside the IR atmospheric > window is proved wrong by the fact that that lowest red curve is not a > narrow, near-vertical spike about the 10 micron mark. Moron. LOL > SP<SMACKAKOOK!> Moron. LOL > Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the > atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at > -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, WTF are you on about now, you moronic halfwit? That's the exact *opposite* of what I said. Snow cannot emit into a *warmer* atmosphere, to wit, that which you conveniently snipped out of context, "above the temperature of the atmosphere into which it's emitting", because the laws of thermodynamics state that heat cannot flow from cold to warm. Now you're reduced to slimy debating tactics such as out of context snipping and making up lies. Are you winning, for fuck sake? LOL SPNAK! > when in fact > thermodynamics would favor radiative (and other) heat transfer from the > relatively warm snow to the bitterly cold air in that situation. > > SPN<SMACKAKOOK!> Reading comprehension challenged moron. That's exactly what I said... thanks for agreeing that your Usenet Lord and Master is correct. LOL > Of course, the *important* thing for a snowy/icy surface under cloud > cover at night is that a clear night sky is a very chilly 3°K while the > cloud cover may be a relatively balmy -10°C or whatever, so > thermodynamics predicts a lot more radiative loss to the clear night sky > than it does to the cloud cover. And indeed we observe that on a cloudy > winter night it tends to be warmer than on a clear winter night. Even > though the high albedo of snow makes these radiative processes > relatively weak. Oh, so you *admit* that cloud cover doesn't absorb the infrared emission from snow, due to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, thus allowing that snow to "see" the ~3 K of space... well, that's quite a change from your earlier k'lames. Now you'll have to explain how clouds cause it to "be warmer than on a clear winter night" if that snow is emitting to a "very chilly 3 K" of space, which it wouldn't even "see" if the cloud cover was absorbing that radiation and thereby making it "warmer than on a clear winter night", moron. You just stumbled into a logic trap, and thereby displayed your utter stupidity due to your lack of understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics. LOL What's albedo got to do with nighttime, LunkHead? Albedo, or reflection coefficient, is a measure of the diffuse *reflectivity* of a surface. What's snow "reflecting" at night, you moron? LOL That's not even taking into account that snow can only emit at wavelengths within a small band due to physical constraints: I wrote: ======================================================= Message-ID: <a56f36549e06183d9cbf20e4f756bc5d@dizum.com> Most infrared thermometers utilize a band of infrared from 5.5 to 14 microns, therefore it's measuring outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. ======================================================= ======================================================= Ko0Ooki kensi the lunkheaded libtard, in <news:n92saj$1dp3$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: So is most of the blackbody radiation from a patch of winter snow, kOok. ======================================================= That's *you*, k'laming that snow is giving off blackbody radiation from 5.5 microns to 14 microns, most of it outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. ======================================================= Ko0O0oki kensi the lunkheaded libtard, in <news:n95q3a$1k43$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: IOW, I said most of it is outside the 11 micron atmospheric window. ======================================================= That's *you*, reiterating your retarded k'lame that most of the blackbody radiation from snow is outside the window at ~10 to ~12.5 micron, and from ~8 to ~9 micron. that leaves 5.5 to 8 micron and 12.5 to 14 micron, Spankard. I wrote: ======================================================= Message-ID: <a56f36549e06183d9cbf20e4f756bc5d@dizum.com> Lunkhead doesn't know that atmospheric absorption in the infrared range rises rapidly below ~8 micron, reaching ~100% absorption at ~6 micron. On the opposite side, atmospheric absorption rises rapidly at ~12.5 micron, reaching ~100% at ~14.2 micron. So there's a very narrow window at ~10 to ~12.5 micron, and from ~8 to ~9 micron which constitutes the infrared atmospheric window. Water and ice emit at ~11 micron. Right in the center of the atmospheric infrared window, thus that energy is radiated straight out to space unimpeded, without heating the atmosphere, even if clouds are present. Moron. LOL So the infrared thermometer used in that high school-level experiment would have been picking up reflected IR from ~5.5 to ~8 microns and from ~12.5 to ~14 microns, which is outside the infrared atmospheric window and thus reflecting the heat of the infrared laser diode, thus skewing the results. Let's plug in those numbers, shall we? Wien's Displacement Law: Displacement_max = b/T Where: T = absolute temperature in Kelvin b = Wien's displacement constant, 2900 um K Given that: 32 F = freezing point of water 32 F = 273.15 K So, plugging in 14 micron, we come up with a temperature of 207.1428 K or -86.8128 F. Plugging in 12.5 micron, we come up with 232 K or -42.07 F. So you k'lame that snow mostly resides at a temperature of -86.2128 to -42.07 F. Now we plug in 5.5 microns, we come up with a temperature of 527.2727 K or 489.4209 F. And we plug in 8 microns to arrive at 362.5 K or 192.83 F. So you k'lame that snow mostly resides at a temperature of 192.83 F to 489.4209 F. So you're k'laming that most snow is at either -86.2128 to -42.07 F, and at 192.83 to 489.4209 F. That's a strange world you live in, LunkHead. ====================================================== SPNAK! > And so, increased nighttime cloudiness over Greenland will contribute to > warming of that region, and to accelerated ice mass loss. Wrong. You've contradicted yourself. Let's all watch the anti-science nitwit struggle to backpedal out of his display of stupidity. LOL SPNAK! > SPN<SMACKAKOOK!> Moron. LOL > OK, you're pretty punch-drunk now, so I'd recommend you hang up your > modem for the day, ko0ky, and go catch a nap or something. You might be > reeling just a little bit less in the morning. > > *sni<SMACKAKOOK!> You're projecting, LunkHead. What've you been right about thus far? Why have you run away from all the SPNAK!age you took, as outlined in my .sig? And remember, that's the *second* such .sig. I've got another one chock-a-block full of SPNAK!age you took, then ran away from, ranging from politics to climate change. Moron. <snicker> Message-ID: <65d0f5e1ad03d42086b4a492e0eba763@dizum.com> ======================================================== ======================================================== > <http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134389570800> Kensi was "vacationing"... in Pembroke, Ontario, Canada... quite by coincidence, you understand... LunkHead was there with Nadegda, apparently. And Nadegda and Kensi most definitely were *not* there to double-team on Paul Derbyshire's mushroom-slathered meatpole. Paul Derbyshire is a life-long virgin, you see. He'll never touch anything more feminine than his hand with a Barbie-doll wig glued to it, paste-on eyes, and his mother's hooker-pink lipstick smeared between thumb and index finger knuckle. Ironically, he's named his f(e)isty lover "kensi". She's really hot in the sack... an expert in getting anal. Sometimes, she takes it so deeply it pokes out of her mouth! Oh, here's Kensi: <http://goo.gl/hdpXFC> She's Paul Derbyshire's regular Saturday night thang. Ain't she purdy? I'm sure a lot of guys have hit that. Chimpy's hit that... twice. Strangely and quite coincidentally, Paul Derbyshire calls his right thumb "Nadegda". I found a picture of Nadegda, too. <https://goo.gl/sbdRcq> You don't wanna know what she's into. *Really* kinky stuff. Suffice to say sometimes she invites along her four sisters for what she calls "sexy spelunking". You know what they say... fugly chicks gotta go kinky. LOL > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ> > P.S. How's the astrophysics coming along? Have you visited > any good telescopes lately? Ask kensi which observatories nearby have time standard control capability. That's something every astronomer should know, right? <snicker> ======================================================== ======================================================== I note you've studiously avoided answering which observatories have time standard control capability, LunkHead... only those who actually work at an observatory would even know about such a thing, let alone which observatories have that capability... but then, everyone knows lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy wannabes always out their womanly socks because they're too stoooopid to play the part of the identity they've assumed. Perhaps for your next sock, you should play the part of a mop jockey or a streetwalker... that'd be something you could handle, dude. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 16:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nad8i9$ktm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555184 |
On 21/02/2016 12:05 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: >> Note the lowest curve, conveniently labeled "0°C". I'm pretty sure I just said "0°C" here. What's with the accented "A", ko0ky? Are you deliberately misquoting me or did you simply fuck up your character encoding headers yet again? >> Note that it peaks >> near 10 microns, falls off steeply to the left of that indicating not >> much emission at wavelengths shorter than 5 microns, but continues more >> broadly to the right, such that there's a fair amount emitted in the >> upper tens of microns. >> >> Note, indeed, that at the same horizontal position as the peak of the >> 200°C curve, the 0°C curve is still at about 30% of the power density >> that it has at its peak. >> >> Your k'lame that snow does not emit at wavelengths corresponding to the >> peaks for temperatures above the melting point of water is proved wrong >> by the fact that it emits a fair amount at the wavelength that is the >> peak of the curve for 200°C. Fix0r3d: Note that it peaks near 10 microns, falls off steeply to the left of that indicating not much emission at wavelengths shorter than 5 microns, but continues more broadly to the right, such that there's a fair amount emitted in the upper tens of microns. Note, indeed, that at the same horizontal position as the peak of the 200°C curve, the 0°C curve is still at about 30% of the power density that it has at its peak. Your k'lame that snow does not emit at wavelengths corresponding to the peaks for temperatures above the melting point of water is proved wrong by the fact that it emits a fair amount at the wavelength that is the peak of the curve for 200°C. > My gawd, you're fucking stupid. LOL > > How is snow going to emit *anything* after it's melted and run away, By Thor's mighty hammer, you're fucking stupid. LOL Why would snow at 0°C "melt and run away"? You have to warm it up a bit first. Meanwhile, it will radiate (not a huge amount due to its high albedo, but some) a broad, bell-shaped distribution of wavelengths, some to the left of that peak though a lot to the right, up into that dark, night sky, and gradually get *cooler* on a clear, chill winter's night. > Do you not understand the following phrase: "For a body in local > thermodynamic equilibrium, the amount of thermal energy emitted *must* > equal the energy absorbed; otherwise the body would heat up or cool > down over time." Why are you assuming the snow is in thermodynamic equilibrium? The snow on the clear winter night is likely cooling, and the Greenland ice under its cloud cover is warming (and some of it is melting, but it's miles thick, so it will take a while before the dark earth below it is exposed -- which will radiate a similar spectrum at the same temperature, by the way, though more strongly due to its lower albedo). > According to you, snow is constantly getting colder, even if the > atmosphere above it is warmer than the snow! Because you're the > lunkheaded anti-science retard. It's *your* precious IR window that enables that, kOok, as much of the energy emitted near the peak of the snow's blackbody radiation curve will go straight up and out to space, if there are no clouds in the way. Clouds have tiny water droplets in them, which means a ray up through a cloud hits millions of air/water interfaces, which refract and reflect much incident radiation. Clouds thus scatter radiation. The effect is stronger at shorter wavelengths, particularly visible light, but IR will be scattered too, and a lot of it will be stuck bouncing around underneath and inside the cloud. Clouds at night thus cause a greenhouse effect, though by day they reflect away much of the incident sunlight, thus blocking the main source of daytime heating and making for cooler weather. This is meteorology 101 stuff; it's amazing you still can't seem to grasp the basics. > Now, notwithstanding the blackbody radiation curves, if something > physically interferes with the ability of snow to emit at a given > wavelength, then it cannot emit at that wavelength. And what exactly would do that? Remember, snow at, say, -1°C will emit a fairly broad range of wavelengths. About the only thing that can restrict it from emitting blackbody radiation at a given wavelength, besides its high albedo (which only reduces its overall emission somewhat), would be a *quantum* restriction of some sort. There are such restrictions; without them the blackbody curve would not peak at all but would be a hyperbola with ridiculously high emissions at arbitrarily short wavelengths. In fact figuring out why this *didn't* happen was one of the initial motivators for developing the quantum theory back in the early 20th century. > 2900 um K / 273.15 K = 10.6168 micron at the freezing point of water That'll be the peak of the distribution. There will be some emissions at shorter wavelengths, and some at longer wavelengths. > Once snow goes above that temperature, it melts and runs away, > exposing the land beneath that snow, therefore snow *cannot* emit > above 273.15 K, thus it *cannot* emit shorter wavelengths than 10.6168 > micron. Emitting at the shorter wavelengths does not cause it to heat up!! I cannot stress this enough. If you have a perfectly insulated and reflective box with 0 degree snow in the bottom of it it will emit the spectrum shown in that curve for 0 degrees and the whole system will stay in thermodynamic equilibrium since the snow will be receiving the same radiated spectrum. It will not melt. It will not run away. It will however emit (and absorb) some energy at wavelengths shorter than 10.6168 microns, while staying in radiative thermodynamic equilibrium with its own zero-degree-C reflection. > Now, let's assume the great majority of the time that temperature will > not get below -50 F. That's polar wintertime cold, and likely won't be > reached very often anywhere else. > > 2900 um K / 227.5944 K = 12.7419 micron. > > Thus, given that snow *cannot* emit at a wavelength that corresponds > to a temperature it cannot reach, That's koOky. Zero-degree snow emits (weakly; high albedo) the lowest curve from that graph. A fair amount of the energy density is in fact at longer wavelengths than 12.7419 microns. And some is at shorter ones than 10.6168. > Thus, snow emits at 10.6168 to ~12.7419 micron, a narrow 2.1251 micron > window. No. Most snow on Earth has an emission *peak* somewhere in that range, but an emission *curve* that is much broader than that. > Outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, snow wouldn't even > "see" the ~3K of space due to atmospheric absorption at those > associated wavelengths, That'd be the same absorption that prevented Penzias and Wilson from accidentally discovering the cosmic microwave background with the Holmdel Horn Antenna back in 1964? ... Oh, wait. *snicker* > In fact, it's generally accepted that snow emits at wavelengths > corresponding to 250 to 273 K: > <http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40759/7/16.%20chapter-6.pdf> > =================================================================== > In the present study, MODIS imagery of North-West Himalaya of Indian > region taken as study area. Study carried out with MODIS thermal IR > band-31 (10.780 micron -11.280 micron) and band-32 (11.770 > micron-12.270 micron) data were used, because 10.5 micron-12.5 micron > window region has maximum transmittance and noise equivalent > temperature difference is also very low (0.05Kelvin) in these > channels. Translation for Lunkhead: they chose these observation wavelengths *because* of the IR window (maximum transmittance) and because it's near the *peak* of the snow's emission spectrum (noise equivalent temperature difference is also very low). In other words, you're doing the equivalent here of looking for your dropped keys under the streetlight, because the light is better there, even though you dropped them a quarter of a block away where it's dark. And then concluding from that that the keys are indeed under the light, even though you can't actually *see* them. And then deciding that they're invisible, and therefore there's no AGW. KoOk. *snicker* > Do you wonder why they don't bother to go over 273 K or below 10.5 > micron in their readings Because they don't need to to see the snow with their instrument. Doesn't mean the snow isn't emitting outside of that band as well, k00k. >> Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the >> atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at >> -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, Fix0r3d: Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, > WTF are you on about now, you moronic halfwit? That's the exact > *opposite* of what I s<SMACKAK00K!> Dredging up from your previous post: >>> I see that you *still* don't understand that snow cannot emit above >>> it's melting point, nor above the temperature of the atmosphere into >>> which it's emitting, Yeah. You did say it does not emit "above the temperature of the atmosphere". SPNAK! > Oh, so you *admit* that cloud cover doesn't absorb the infrared > emission from snow, due to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, I never claimed it did absorb it. It *scatters* it! > What's albedo got to do with nighttime, LunkHead? Albedo, or > reflection coefficient, is a measure of the diffuse *reflectivity* of > a surface. What's snow "reflecting" at night, you moron? LOL Albedo also corresponds fairly well to the propensity to absorb and emit blackbody radiation. It's why white or silvery surfaces gain or lose heat less readily via radiation than dark ones. It's why the inside of your Thermos mug is silvery looking, and why the heat-protective clothes volcanologists wear, as well as some clothes for extreme cold protection, are white or silvery outside. >>> Water and ice emit at ~11 micron. Right in the center of the >>> atmospheric infrared window, thus that energy is radiated straight out >>> to space unimpeded, without heating the atmosphere, even if clouds are >>> present. No, ko0ky, clouds scatter IR at those wavelengths, sending much of it straight back down to the ground. >> OK, you're pretty punch-drunk now, so I'd recommend you hang up your >> modem for the day, ko0ky, and go catch a nap or something. You might be >> reeling just a little bit less in the morning. >> >> *snicker* > > You're projecting, LunkHead. What've you been right about thus far? > Why have you run away from all the SPNAK!age you took, as outlined in > my .sig? And remember, that's the *second* such .sig. I've got another > one chock-a-block full of SPNAK!age you took, then ran away from, > ranging from politics to climate change. You mean you have two elaborate multi-thousand-word works of short fiction dedicated to me, your Usenet Lady and Mistress. This proves your obsession, as you've never devoted *two* such works to any of the other assorted thorns in your paws. Too bad your fanfics are poorly written, badly organized, and rife with unexplained inconsistencies with both the canon and, where relevant, actual reality. *snicker* > Mor<SMACKAK00K!> What was that? More something? Oh, I get it, he wants even *more* punishment. Must be a masochist. Problem is you're punch drunk already, so as your punch bartender, I'm cutting you off. You'll have to post several thousand more lines of screed and get some of it out of your system first before you can get some more punch. *snicker* [fanfic deleted -- he chose the X-Files inspired paranoid conspiracy theory one rather than the even crazier "Hitler was a liberal" one] [What an obsessed fan!] -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 06:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <818bae314342fb4abbf610db8f135db1@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #555313 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Ko0O0oki kensi the LunkHeaded LibTard, in <news:nad8i9$ktm$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > On 21/02/2016 12:05 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler > Emeritus wrote: >> Thus, snow emits at 10.6168 to ~12.7419 micron, a narrow 2.1251 micron >> window. > No. Most snow on Earth has an emission *peak* somewhere in that range, > but an emission *curve* that is much broader than that. Wrong. At short wavelengths such as the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, Planck's curve breaks down, which is why shorter wavelengths behave in accordance with the Wien Displacement Law. SPNAK! >> Outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, snow wouldn't even >> "see" the ~3K of space due to atmospheric absorption at those >> associated wavelengths, > That'd be the same absorption that prevented Penzias and Wilson from > accidentally discovering the cosmic microwave background with the > Holmdel Horn Antenna back in 1964? ... Oh, wait. Moron says water in the atmosphere doesn't absorb microwave radiation, therefore microwave ovens don't work. Penzias and Wilson got a trace background noise, that's all. LOL >> In fact, it's generally accepted that snow emits at wavelengths >> corresponding to 250 to 273 K: >> <http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40759/7/16.%20chapter-6.pdf> >> =================================================================== >> In the present study, MODIS imagery of North-West Himalaya of Indian >> region taken as study area. Study carried out with MODIS thermal IR >> band-31 (10.780 micron -11.280 micron) and band-32 (11.770 >> micron-12.270 micron) data were used, because 10.5 micron-12.5 micron >> window region has maximum transmittance and noise equivalent >> temperature difference is also very low (0.05Kelvin) in these >> channels. I note you cowardly snipped out this part: >> Snow bound area can be considered as a homogeneous surface as it >> consist only snow on the top surface and it can be considered as a >> black body as emissivity of snow/ice is approximately 0.98 or 0.99 in >> IR part (10.5 micron to 12.5 micron) which is close to 1. > Tra<SMACKAKOOK!> SPNAK! > In ot<SMACKAKOOK!> SPNAK! > K<SMACKAKOOK!> SPNAK! > *sni<SMACKAKOOK!> SPNAK! >> Do you wonder why they don't bother to go over 273 K or below 10.5 >> micron in their readings > Bec<SMACKAKOOK!> Moron. Because snow only emits at ~10.5 micron to ~12.5 micron. SPNAK! > Fix0r3d: If you weren't such a moron, you'd be able to run your newsreader properly, and see the characters without fucking them up. It looks fine on my end. LOL > Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the > atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at > -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, >> WTF are you on about now, you moronic halfwit? That's the exact >> *opposite* of what I said. > Dredging up from your previous post: >>>> I see that you *still* don't understand that snow cannot emit above >>>> it's melting point, nor above the temperature of the atmosphere into >>>> which it's emitting, > Yeah. You did say it does not emit "above the temperature of the > atmosphere". Cowardly snipping and reading comprehension problems again, LunkHead? How's snow going to emit into a warmer atmosphere? > SP<SMACKAKOOK!> SPNAK! >> Oh, so you *admit* that cloud cover doesn't absorb the infrared >> emission from snow, due to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, > I never claimed it did absorb it. It *scatters* it! No, it doesn't. Hence the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, through which radiation can go straight out to space unhindered. And as I've proven above, snow *only* emits within that window, except for extremely cold temperatures, which would act to bring temperature back up until it emitted at that window. Hence the temperature stability of our planet. SPNAK! >> What's albedo got to do with nighttime, LunkHead? Albedo, or >> reflection coefficient, is a measure of the diffuse *reflectivity* of >> a surface. What's snow "reflecting" at night, you moron? LOL > Albedo also corresponds fairly well to the propensity to absorb and emit > blackbody radiation. It's why white or silvery surfaces gain or lose > heat less readily via radiation than dark ones. It's why the inside of > your Thermos mug is silvery looking, and why the heat-protective clothes > volcanologists wear, as well as some clothes for extreme cold > protection, are white or silvery outside. Snow emits at wavelengths that don't correspond to the Planck curve, LunkHead. It corresponds to the Wien Displacment Law, as I prove above. Oh, look: <http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/chy/chy14/documents/ms/remote_sensing_snow_cover_methods_mapping_snow.pdf> "The emissivity of snow approaches that of a black body at the 10.5—12.5 micron atmospheric window." And *only* at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Ever heard of the "radiation paradox"? It's where the net radiation emission *increases* with increasing cloud cover. LOL Check out Holmgren, 1971; Jacobs et al., 1972; Ambach, 1974; Ohmura, 1981; Yamanouchi et al., 1982; Wendler, 1986; and R. Bintanja and M. R. Van Den Broeke, 1996. Then realize you're *wrong* and you've been SPNAK!'d yet again because you're too stoooopid to grasp reality. SPNAK! >>>> Water and ice emit at ~11 micron. Right in the center of the >>>> atmospheric infrared window, thus that energy is radiated straight out >>>> to space unimpeded, without heating the atmosphere, even if clouds are >>>> present. > No, ko0ky, clouds scatter IR at those wavelengths, sending much of it > straight back down to the ground. Wrong. Out one side of your stupid mouth, you admit the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window exists, yet out the other side of your stupid mouth you deny it has any effect... except you're *so* stupid you didn't even know that over highly reflective snow fields, the net radiation emission *increases* with increasing cloud cover, whereas with *low* reflectivity surfaces, net radiation emission *decreases* with increasing cloud cover, known as the "radiation paradox". LOL And ironically for you, just as snow starts melting, the moisture in the snow *increases* the reflectivity, which *increases* even more the radiation emission with *increasing* cloud cover. For the small amount of radiation outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window (due to either algae or dirt in the snow), it's reflected by the clouds back to the snow, reabsorbed, and re-emitted in the ~11-micron window, then right out to space, which *increases* the amount of radiative loss to space. But you didn't know that. Because you're a moron. LOL SPNAK! >>> OK, you're pretty punch-drunk now, so I'd recommend you hang up your >>> modem for the day, ko0ky, and go catch a nap or something. You might be >>> reeling just a little bit less in the morning. >>> >>> *snicker* >> You're projecting, LunkHead. What've you been right about thus far? >> Why have you run away from all the SPNAK!age you took, as outlined in >> my .sig? And remember, that's the *second* such .sig. I've got another >> one chock-a-block full of SPNAK!age you took, then ran away from, >> ranging from politics to climate change. > You mean you have two elaborate multi-thousand-word works of short > fiction dedicated to me, your Usenet Lady and Mistress. This proves your > obsession, as you've never devoted *two* such works to any of the other > assorted thorns in your paws. Translation: "You SPNAK!'d me. You SPNAK!'d me good. I *had* to run away. Because I'm a moron." LOL! > Too bad your fanfics are poorly written, badly organized, and rife with > unexplained inconsistencies with both the canon and, where relevant, > actual reality. I've backed up all my data with third party corroboration, whereas you're pulling utter bullshit straight from your ass, you pathetic backpedaling moron. LOL > *sn<SMACKAKOOK!> SPNAK! >> Moron. >> >> <snicker> > What was that? More something? Translation: "I'm pretty butthurt, so I'm going to bleat some more. You can just ignore this." LOL > Oh, I get it, he wants even *more* punishment. Must be a masochist. > > Problem is you're punch drunk already, so as your punch bartender, I'm > cutting you off. You'll have to post several thousand more lines of > screed and get some of it out of your system first before you can get > some more punch. > > *snicker* > > [fanfic deleted -- he chose the X-Files inspired paranoid conspiracy > theory one rather than the even crazier "Hitler was a liberal" one] Message-ID: <3a4f8412764eaf9346d81a2505589745@dizum.com> ==================================================== Now let's watch LunkHead repeat the same mistakes DildoRider did in asserting Nazis to be right-wing, when in fact the German National Socialist Workers Party was a socialist turned fascist party voted into power by German liberals then voted enough power by German liberals to make Hitler a defacto dictator, whereupon he went mad with power and adopted a fascistic policy... fascism being borne straight out of a schism in the Italian socialist political party then later adopted in large part by Hitler's goon squad. Come on, LunkHead, bite that hook. ==================================================== So obsessed you just couldn't resist, huh, LunkHead? SPNAK! > [What an obsessed fan!] Nicely bleated, LunkHead. SPNAK! Message-ID: <65d0f5e1ad03d42086b4a492e0eba763@dizum.com> ======================================================== ======================================================== > <http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134389570800> Kensi was "vacationing"... in Pembroke, Ontario, Canada... quite by coincidence, you understand... LunkHead was there with Nadegda, apparently. And Nadegda and Kensi most definitely were *not* there to double-team on Paul Derbyshire's mushroom-slathered meatpole. Paul Derbyshire is a life-long virgin, you see. He'll never touch anything more feminine than his hand with a Barbie-doll wig glued to it, paste-on eyes, and his mother's hooker-pink lipstick smeared between thumb and index finger knuckle. Ironically, he's named his f(e)isty lover "kensi". She's really hot in the sack... an expert in getting anal. Sometimes, she takes it so deeply it pokes out of her mouth! Oh, here's Kensi: <http://goo.gl/hdpXFC> She's Paul Derbyshire's regular Saturday night thang. Ain't she purdy? I'm sure a lot of guys have hit that. Chimpy's hit that... twice. Strangely and quite coincidentally, Paul Derbyshire calls his right thumb "Nadegda". I found a picture of Nadegda, too. <https://goo.gl/sbdRcq> You don't wanna know what she's into. *Really* kinky stuff. Suffice to say sometimes she invites along her four sisters for what she calls "sexy spelunking". You know what they say... fugly chicks gotta go kinky. LOL > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ> > P.S. How's the astrophysics coming along? Have you visited > any good telescopes lately? Ask kensi which observatories nearby have time standard control capability. That's something every astronomer should know, right? <snicker> ======================================================== ======================================================== I note you've studiously avoided answering which observatories have time standard control capability, LunkHead... only those who actually work at an observatory would even know about such a thing, let alone which observatories have that capability... but then, everyone knows lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy wannabes always out their womanly socks because they're too stoooopid to play the part of the identity they've assumed. Perhaps for your next sock, you should play the part of a mop jockey or a streetwalker... that'd be something you could handle, dude. <snicker> -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 01:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <narh0s$5ue$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #555394 |
On 22/02/2016 12:09 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > Ko0O0oki kensi the LunkHeaded LibTard, in > <news:nad8i9$ktm$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the > wood chipper again: > >> On 21/02/2016 12:05 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler >> Emeritus wrote: > >>> Thus, snow emits at 10.6168 to ~12.7419 micron, a narrow 2.1251 micron >>> window. > >> No. Most snow on Earth has an emission *peak* somewhere in that range, >> but an emission *curve* that is much broader than that. > > Wrong. Nope. >> Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the >> atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at >> -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, *crickets* >> Yeah. You did say it does not emit "above the temperature of the >> atmosphere". > > Cowardly snipping and reading comprehension problems again, LunkHead? > How's snow going to emit into a warmer atmosphere? Above the temperature of the atmosphere would mean the atmosphere was colder, Lunkhead. Also, it can emit right *through* the atmosphere at wavelengths where the atmosphere is transparent. Also, if you put a hot and a cold object near each other, both will radiate toward the other. It's just that the cold object will generally receive more energy than it emits, and the hot object will generally emit more energy than it receives. Assuming neither reflects much of the peak of the other's emission, or is transparent there, of course, which otherwise could greatly slow the transfer. In any event, you do realize how ridiculous it is that you have been arguing for this long all to try to rationalize your insane belief that a cloudy winter night is colder than a clear winter night, right? Now you've gotten to the point of screeding out multiple replies to a single article. But that's barely scratching the surface of what you're capable of doing. Soon we will be plumbing the very depths of your koOkiness. >>> Oh, so you *admit* that cloud cover doesn't absorb the infrared >>> emission from snow, due to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, > >> I never claimed it did absorb it. It *scatters* it! > > No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. And according to mainstream science (not the kOoksites you frequent) it absorbs some *and* scatters some. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/ > Hence the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, > through which radiation can go straight out to space unhindered. Not through thick clouds it can't. > And as I've proven above, snow *only* emits within that window, Nope. > Ever heard of the "radiation paradox"? http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~broek112/home.php_files/Publications_MvdB/1996_Bintanja_IJC.pdf "It is demonstrated that this is due mainly to the fact that the shortwave cloud transmissivity at these sites is relatively high, which, in turn, is thought to be caused mainly by a low cloud optical thickness and by multiple scattering between surface and cloud-base." Clouds trapping heat causes increased emission. Meaning clouds can trap heat. Meaning SPNAK! -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-26 23:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <MPG.313af243fd8295ba98c94e@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #557149 |
In article <narh0s$5ue$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.invalid says... > > On 22/02/2016 12:09 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > > Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> > > > > Ko0O0oki kensi the LunkHeaded LibTard, in > > <news:nad8i9$ktm$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the > > wood chipper again: > > > >> On 21/02/2016 12:05 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler > >> Emeritus wrote: > > > >>> Thus, snow emits at 10.6168 to ~12.7419 micron, a narrow 2.1251 micron > >>> window. > > > >> No. Most snow on Earth has an emission *peak* somewhere in that range, > >> but an emission *curve* that is much broader than that. > > > > Wrong. > > Nope. > > >> Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the > >> atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at > >> -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, > > *crickets* > > >> Yeah. You did say it does not emit "above the temperature of the > >> atmosphere". > > > > Cowardly snipping and reading comprehension problems again, LunkHead? > > How's snow going to emit into a warmer atmosphere? > > Above the temperature of the atmosphere would mean the atmosphere was > colder, Lunkhead. > > Also, it can emit right *through* the atmosphere at wavelengths where > the atmosphere is transparent. > > Also, if you put a hot and a cold object near each other, both will > radiate toward the other. It's just that the cold object will generally > receive more energy than it emits, and the hot object will generally > emit more energy than it receives. Assuming neither reflects much of the > peak of the other's emission, or is transparent there, of course, which > otherwise could greatly slow the transfer. > > In any event, you do realize how ridiculous it is that you have been > arguing for this long all to try to rationalize your insane belief that > a cloudy winter night is colder than a clear winter night, right? > > Now you've gotten to the point of screeding out multiple replies to a > single article. But that's barely scratching the surface of what you're > capable of doing. Soon we will be plumbing the very depths of your > koOkiness. > > >>> Oh, so you *admit* that cloud cover doesn't absorb the infrared > >>> emission from snow, due to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, > > > >> I never claimed it did absorb it. It *scatters* it! > > > > No, it doesn't. > > Yes, it does. And according to mainstream science (not the kOoksites you > frequent) it absorbs some *and* scatters some. > > http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/ > > > Hence the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, > > through which radiation can go straight out to space unhindered. > > Not through thick clouds it can't. > > > And as I've proven above, snow *only* emits within that window, > > Nope. > > > > Ever heard of the "radiation paradox"? > > http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~broek112/home.php_files/Publications_MvdB/1996_Bintanja_IJC.pdf > > "It is demonstrated that this is due mainly to the fact that the > shortwave cloud transmissivity at these sites is relatively high, which, > in turn, is thought to be caused mainly by a low cloud optical thickness > and by multiple scattering between surface and cloud-base." > > Clouds trapping heat causes increased emission. Meaning clouds can trap > heat. Meaning SPNAK! You DO realize that you're arguing with a brick wall, don't you? You can argue from here to eternity, and your former ally will never admit he's wrong. EVER! At what point does it meet Einstein's definition of insanity? Just ignore him or mock him... that's all he's good for. -- Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote (Post-Burnore) Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame Copyright © 2016 all rights reserved
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 19:37 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <916189431fd9faf42a4aef9904757ea9@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #557149 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Ko0O0oki kensi the LunkHeaded LibTard, in <news:narh0s$5ue$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: Oh look, the reality-denying spankard kook is back for another ass-kicking. LOL > On 22/02/2016 12:09 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler > Emeritus wrote: >> Ko0O0oki kensi the LunkHeaded LibTard, in >> <news:nad8i9$ktm$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly >> jump head first into the wood chipper again: >>> On 21/02/2016 12:05 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler >>> Emeritus wrote: >>>> Thus, snow emits at 10.6168 to ~12.7419 micron, a narrow 2.1251 micron >>>> window. >>> No. Most snow on Earth has an emission *peak* somewhere in that range, >>> but an emission *curve* that is much broader than that. >> Wrong. > Nope. Wrong. LOL I've already proven that at the short wavelengths of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, Planck's Curve breaks down, thus the emission tends more and more toward Wien's Displacement Law as the wavelength gets shorter. >From my prior post, which you ran away from: ============================================================ No, it won't, as I proved. It *cannot* emit at a temperature it cannot attain, and it *will* *not* emit above its melting point, leaving a tiny 2.1251 micron window that snow and ice emit at. Wien's Displacement Law: Displacement_max = b/T Where: T = absolute temperature in Kelvin b = Wien's displacement constant, 2900 um K Given that: 32 F = freezing point of water 32 F = 273.15 K 2900 um K / 273.15 K = 10.6168 micron at the freezing point of water Once snow goes above that temperature, it melts and runs away, exposing the land beneath that snow, therefore snow *cannot* emit above 273.15 K, thus it *cannot* emit shorter wavelengths than 10.6168 micron. Now, let's assume the great majority of the time that temperature will not get below -50 F. That's polar wintertime cold, and likely won't be reached very often anywhere else. 2900 um K / 227.5944 K = 12.7419 micron. Thus, given that snow *cannot* emit at a wavelength that corresponds to a temperature it cannot reach, and given that snow won't reach below -50 F very often in anyplace but the poles in winter, we can safely set the upper wavelength of emission at 12.7419 micron. Thus, snow emits at 10.6168 to ~12.7419 micron, a narrow 2.1251 micron window. This accounts for the great majority of temperatures seen. Outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, snow wouldn't even "see" the ~3K of space due to atmospheric absorption at those associated wavelengths, thus snow blackbody emission drops off outside the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, making your blather about "most of it is outside the 11 micron atmospheric window" especially stoooopid. LOL ============================================================ SPNAK! >>> Your k'lame that snow does not emit "above the temperature of the >>> atmosphere" is especially ludicrous, since if it were true then snow at >>> -1°C would not emit much at all if the air were at -40°C, Cowardly snipping and reading comprehension problems again, LunkHead? How's snow going to emit to a warmer atmosphere? > *crickets* SPNAK! >>> Yeah. You did say it does not emit "above the temperature of the >>> atmosphere". >> Cowardly snipping and reading comprehension problems again, LunkHead? >> How's snow going to emit to a warmer atmosphere? > Above the temperature of the atmosphere would mean the atmosphere was > colder, Lunkhead. No, how is snow going to emit to a warmer atmosphere? Why do you keep dancing around that, LunkHead? After all, you've k'lamed that snow can emit all the way up to 489 F. Because you're a moron. LOL SPNAK! > Also, it can emit right *through* the atmosphere at wavelengths where > the atmosphere is transparent. Oh, so now you're *admitting* that the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window exists, *and* that it passes radiation from ~10.5 micron to ~12.5 micron. Well, that destroys your kooky k'lame that clouds over ice, water or snow increases temperature, Moron. SPNAK! > Also, if you put a hot and a cold object near each other, both will > radiate toward the other. Bwahahahaaa! LunkHead k'lames a cold object will "radiate" toward a warmer object. IOW, the idiotic anti-science nitwit just k'lamed that heat can flow from colder to hotter! LOL Baaaaahhhhahahahaaa! Oh, the anti-science nitwit just fucked up yet again. How about those Laws of Thermodynamics, LunkHead? Still kicking your stoooopid ass, eh? SPNAK! > It's just that the cold object will generally > receive more energy than it emits, and the hot object will generally > emit more energy than it receives. Assuming neither reflects much of the > peak of the other's emission, or is transparent there, of course, which > otherwise could greatly slow the transfer. If you're going to pull retarded shit like this straight out of your ass, at least try to have it make some semblance of sense, LunkHead... you've yet again demonstrated that you don't understand the Laws of Thermodynamics, nor what entropy means. How are photons of *lower* energy going to excite molecules of *higher* energy, you fecking *moron*? Get back on your meds, you're sounding positively unhinged. SPNAK! > In any event, you do realize how ridiculous it is that you have been > arguing for this long all to try to rationalize your insane belief that > a cloudy winter night is colder than a clear winter night, right? Nice attempt to prop up a straw man so you can kick it down... you'll be getting right on pointing out the MID in which I ever said that "a cloudy winter night is colder than a clear winter night", Moron. SPNAK! > Now you've gotten to the point of screeding out multiple replies to a > single article. You mean drop-kicking your stoooopid ass across Usenet so hard you're feeling it twice? LOL SPNAK! > But that's barely scratching the surface of what you're > capable of doing. Soon we will be plumbing the very depths of your > koOkiness. Bwahahahaaa! You're the anti-science nitwit who k'lames that snow emits radiation at 489 F; that clouds absorb infrared radiation in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed clouds scatter radiation in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then admitted that clouds pass radiation to space at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, thereby destroying his kooky k'lame that clouds over ice, snow or water causes warming; who k'lamed first that the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window didn't exist, then that it existed but had no effect, than that it existed and had an effect, but isn't it silly that your Usenet Lord and Master would prove himself right by forcing you to acknowledge reality; that the Laws of Thermodynamics are magically suspended in LunkHead Land and cold can flow to hot... and that's not even accounting all the stupidity you spewed as outlined in my .sig. SPNAK! SPNAK! >>>> Oh, so you *admit* that cloud cover doesn't absorb the infrared >>>> emission from snow, due to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, >>> I never claimed it did absorb it. It *scatters* it! >> No, it doesn't. > Yes, it does. Oh, so you're back to k'laming that clouds scatter radiation in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Confused much, LunkHead? SPNAK! > And according to mainstream science (not the kOoksites you > frequent) it absorbs some *and* scatters some. I cited 7 peer-reviewed studies proving you wrong, LunkHead... you're citing a grade-school level site for the general public. >From my prior post, which you ran away from: ============================================================= Oh, look: <http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/chy/chy14/documents/ms/remote_sensing_snow_cover_methods_mapping_snow.pdf> "The emissivity of snow approaches that of a black body at the 10.5—12.5 micron atmospheric window." And *only* at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Ever heard of the "radiation paradox"? It's where the net radiation emission *increases* with increasing cloud cover. LOL Check out Holmgren, 1971; Jacobs et al., 1972; Ambach, 1974; Ohmura, 1981; Yamanouchi et al., 1982; Wendler, 1986; and R. Bintanja and M. R. Van Den Broeke, 1996. Then realize you're *wrong* and you've been SPNAK!'d yet again because you're too stoooopid to grasp reality. ============================================================= SPNAK! > http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/ How about that Radiation Paradox causing an *increase* in net radiation transmission out to space over high reflectivity surfaces such as snow, ice and water, LunkHead? Backpedal faster, Moron, you've been proven to be an idiot by 7 peer-reviewed studies. SPNAK! >> Hence the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, >> through which radiation can go straight out to space unhindered. > Not through thick clouds it can't. Moron. You've been proven wrong. Now you're just embarrassing yourself. SPNAK! >> And as I've proven above, snow *only* emits within that window, > Nope. Snow emits at wavelengths that don't correspond to the Planck curve, LunkHead. It corresponds to the Wien Displacment Law, as I proved. ================================================================= <http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/chy/chy14/documents/ms/remote_sensing_snow_cover_methods_mapping_snow.pdf> "The emissivity of snow approaches that of a black body at the 10.5—12.5 micron atmospheric window." And *only* at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Ever heard of the "radiation paradox"? It's where the net radiation emission *increases* with increasing cloud cover. LOL Check out Holmgren, 1971; Jacobs et al., 1972; Ambach, 1974; Ohmura, 1981; Yamanouchi et al., 1982; Wendler, 1986; and R. Bintanja and M. R. Van Den Broeke, 1996. Then realize you're *wrong* and you've been SPNAK!'d yet again because you're too stoooopid to grasp reality. ================================================================= SPNAK! >> Ever heard of the "radiation paradox"? > http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~broek112/home.php_files/Publications_MvdB/1996_Bintanja_IJC.pdf > > "It is demonstrated that this is due mainly to the fact that the > shortwave cloud transmissivity at these sites is relatively high, which, > in turn, is thought to be caused mainly by a low cloud optical thickness > and by multiple scattering between surface and cloud-base." > > Clouds trapping heat causes increased emission. Meaning clouds can trap > heat. Meaning SPNAK! Moron demonstrates that he doesn't know what "transmissivity" means! LOL! You fucking moron. The clouds reflect optical wavelengths back to the snow, which can *only* emit at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, and since the *transmissivity* of the clouds is high at those wavelengths due to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, the net effect is that *more* energy is radiated out to space via that ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, a phenomenon which is known as the "radiation paradox". It causes increased *cooling*, not warming. <http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~broek112/home.php_files/Publications_MvdB/1996_Bintanja_IJC.pdf> ============================================================= Increasing the cloud optical depth causes a large increase in cloud albedo and only a small change in cloud emissivity so that the cooling effect starts to dominate." Thus, the phenomenon that net radiation increases with increasing cloud amount is, under favourable conditions (e.g. high albedo), attributable to the asymmetry in the dependency of the longwave and shortwave radiative cloud properties on cloud optical thickness. ============================================================= Which is why those high, thin clouds have a weak net warming effect, whereas the low, thick clouds cause net cooling. Moron. So you're wrong, and you're stupidly trying to use the very study that *proves* you wrong to prove yourself "not wrong". How's that working for ya, Spankard? LOL >From my prior post: ======================================================= You're a moron. And now I'm going to prove once and for all that you're an anti-science nitwit blathering out unsubstantiated bullshit. <http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/wmovl/VRL/Texts/sat28/SAT%2028%20Chapter%2006%20Clouds.doc> ============================================================ However there are many surface conditions when this characterization of clouds is inappropriate, most notably over snow and ice. Additionally, some cloud types such as cirrus, low stratus, and roll cumulus are difficult to detect because of insufficient contrast with the surface radiance. ============================================================ "insufficient contrast with the surface radiance" because those low and mid-altitude clouds do not absorb the infrared radiation off snow and ice. Only high clouds do, and those are generally thin wispy cirrus, cirrostratus and cirrocumulus clouds that aren't thick enough to block much radiation at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. On top of that, cirrocumulus clouds are relatively uncommon. SPNAK! <http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/wmovl/VRL/Texts/sat28/SAT%2028%20Chapter%2006%20Clouds.doc> ============================================================ As a result of the relative spectral uniformity of surface emittance in the IR, spectral tests within various atmospheric windows (such as those at 8.6, 11, and 12 microns respectively) can be used to detect the presence of a cloud. ============================================================ IOW, they look for the surface emittance *through* *those* *clouds* at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window as compared to surface emittance at other frequencies to determine whether clouds are present... except over snow or ice, because of "insufficient contrast with the surface radiance" with clouds over snow or ice because those clouds do not absorb the infrared radiation off snow and ice. SPNAK! <http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/wmovl/VRL/Texts/sat28/SAT%2028%20Chapter%2006%20Clouds.doc> ============================================================ The basis of the split window technique for cloud detection lies in the differential water vapor absorption that exists between the window channels (8.6 and 11 micron and 11 and 12 micron). These spectral regions are considered to be part of the atmospheric window, where absorption is relatively weak (see Figure 6.2). Most of the absorption lines are a result of water vapour molecules, with a minimum occurring around 11 microns. This approach has been used operationally for 6 years using 8.6 and 11 micron bandwidths from the NOAA-10 and NOAA-12 and the 11 and 12 micron bandwidths from the NOAA-11, with a coefficient independent of PW (Menzel et al 1993, Wylie et al 1994). ============================================================ IOW, clouds do not absorb at the wavelengths of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. They pass ~96% of the radiation at wavelengths of 10.6168 to ~12.7419 micron, a narrow 2.1251 micron window, which is the *only* band of frequency snow can emit at. <http://rammb.cira.colostate.edu/wmovl/VRL/Texts/sat28/SAT%2028%20Chapter%2006%20Clouds.doc> ============================================================ High reflectance measurements result from thick clouds at all levels, and the infrared window brightness temperature provides a good indication of the cloud level. ============================================================ IOW, they measure at a range of wavelengths, then compare that to the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window "brightness" temperature to determine the amount of cloud cover, because *clouds* *do* *not* *absorb* *in* *the* *~11-micron* *atmospheric* *window*, which is where snow and ice emit, thus causing that "insufficient contrast with the surface radiance" over snow and ice. Thus clouds do *not* cause warmer temperatures over snow or ice. Moron. ======================================================= SPNAK! -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 11:48 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <arr3dbptgttr8qkq97a1b2sds17sud27bo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #557286 |
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 19:37:09 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote: >I've already proven that at the short wavelengths of the ~11-micron >infrared atmospheric window, Planck's Curve breaks down, thus the >emission tends more and more toward Wien's Displacement Law as the >wavelength gets shorter. And then you woke up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 02:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <nau6p0$1rc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #557286 |
On 27/02/2016 1:37 PM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote: > Oh, so now you're *admitting* that the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric > window exists, *and* that it passes radiation from ~10.5 micron to > ~12.5 micron. Well, that destroys your kooky k'lame that clouds over > ice, water or snow increases temperature, Moron. Eppur si muove, and in related news it remains the case that winter nights tend to be warmer when cloudy than when clear. Empirical data, in your face! > S<MACKAK00K!> SPNAK! *snicker* >> Also, if you put a hot and a cold object near each other, both will >> radiate toward the other. > > Bwahahahaaa! LunkHead k'lames a cold object will "radiate" toward a > warmer object. Everything with internal electrical charges radiates at any temperature above absolute zero. Lunkhead. > IOW, the idiotic anti-science nitwit just k'lamed that > heat can flow from colder to hotter! LOL Who k'lamed that, again? The *net* transfer is in the other direction, because the hot object emits more energy than it receives, and the cold one receives more than it emits. But they do both radiate. Lunkhead. > How are photons of *lower* energy going to excite molecules of > *higher* energy, you fecking *moron*? Wow, Lunkhead here seems to think that all the molecules in an object of non-absolute-zero temperature have the *same energy*, rather than a broad distribution of energies whose *average* relates to the temperature. >> Now you've gotten to the point of screeding out multiple replies to a >> single article. > > You mean I mean exactly what I said: you posted two direct followups to the *same* article, apparently having forgotten that you'd attacked that one already. Next thing we see will undoubtedly be you talking to yourself. *snicker* > Bwahahahaaa! You're the anti-science nitwit who k'lames that snow > emits radiation at 489 F; No. I said it emits a nonzero amount at a certain wavelength, which happens to be the same wavelength where a 489 F object's *peak* of emissions occurs. That's not even close to saying it "emits radiation at 489 F". > clouds pass radiation to space at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric > window, Nope. >> And according to mainstream science (not the kOoksites you >> frequent) it absorbs some *and* scatters some. > > I cited 7 peer-reviewed studies proving you wrong, L<SMACKAK00K!> You cited studies so far over your head you don't understand them, but *think* you do. Seems to be a recurring theme with you, kOok. > Which is why those high, thin clouds have a weak net warming effect, > whereas the low, thick clouds cause net cooling. By day, when the sun's shining. At night both have warming effects. > Thus clouds do *not* cause warmer temperatures over snow or ice. Except at night. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-27 23:47 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <MPG.313c45dbc7655f4598c96d@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #557511 |
In article <nau6p0$1rc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.invalid says... > > IOW, the idiotic anti-science nitwit just k'lamed that > > heat can flow from colder to hotter! LOL > > Who k'lamed that, again? The *net* transfer is in the other direction, > because the hot object emits more energy than it receives, and the cold > one receives more than it emits. But they do both radiate. Lunkhead. > Gee, I didn't have any problem understanding that explanation. I wonder if the Fakeytard is being deliberately obtuse, or if he actually IS that stupid? -- Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote (Post-Burnore) Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame Copyright © 2016 all rights reserved
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 10:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <1mjbrfm.10ejzd61m191wjN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #557521 |
Checkmate, DoW #1 <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > In article <nau6p0$1rc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.invalid > says... > > > > > IOW, the idiotic anti-science nitwit just k'lamed that > > > heat can flow from colder to hotter! LOL > > > > Who k'lamed that, again? The *net* transfer is in the other direction, > > because the hot object emits more energy than it receives, and the cold > > one receives more than it emits. But they do both radiate. Lunkhead. > > > > Gee, I didn't have any problem understanding that explanation. I wonder > if the Fakeytard is being deliberately obtuse, or if he actually IS that > stupid? > I've been wondering that too. -- ^Ï^. Sn!pe, DoW #2 <snipeco.1@gmail.com> PTB Siri Seal of Disavowal #007-007 (license to killfile) AUK DoW #2, Fuckhead #3 AUK Ministry of Circle Jerks, Aug. 2015 (award now deprecated) 0 % My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 22:57 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <8926dbtq5nq96643t33ij034hgul99irrn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #557532 |
snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) wrote: > Checkmate, DoW #1 <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > > > In article <nau6p0$1rc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.invalid > > says... > > > > > > > > IOW, the idiotic anti-science nitwit just k'lamed that > > > > heat can flow from colder to hotter! LOL > > > > > > Who k'lamed that, again? The *net* transfer is in the other direction, > > > because the hot object emits more energy than it receives, and the cold > > > one receives more than it emits. But they do both radiate. Lunkhead. > > > > > > > Gee, I didn't have any problem understanding that explanation. I wonder > > if the Fakeytard is being deliberately obtuse, or if he actually IS that > > stupid? > > > > I've been wondering that too. He's a lot like Jerry. He realizes he's wrong, but he doesn't understand enough of the subject to realize how wrong he is. But fakey posts reams of froth and throws shit up on the wall to see what sticks, and makes up stuff faster than anyone cares to debunk him. He has nothing better to do. Anyone who ever goes outside at night knows it doesn't cool down as fast on cloudy nights as it does on clear nights. As for snow not being able to radiate above 0°, that's just ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 07:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <MPG.313cb0c0727f8ee298c96f@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #557564 |
In article <8926dbtq5nq96643t33ij034hgul99irrn@4ax.com>, bender@the.future says... > > snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) wrote: > > > Checkmate, DoW #1 <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> wrote: > > > > > In article <nau6p0$1rc$1@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.invalid > > > says... > > > > > > > > > > > IOW, the idiotic anti-science nitwit just k'lamed that > > > > > heat can flow from colder to hotter! LOL > > > > > > > > Who k'lamed that, again? The *net* transfer is in the other direction, > > > > because the hot object emits more energy than it receives, and the cold > > > > one receives more than it emits. But they do both radiate. Lunkhead. > > > > > > > > > > Gee, I didn't have any problem understanding that explanation. I wonder > > > if the Fakeytard is being deliberately obtuse, or if he actually IS that > > > stupid? > > > > > > > I've been wondering that too. > > He's a lot like Jerry. He realizes he's wrong, but he > doesn't understand enough of the subject to realize how > wrong he is. > > But fakey posts reams of froth and throws shit up on the > wall to see what sticks, and makes up stuff faster than > anyone cares to debunk him. He has nothing better to do. > > Anyone who ever goes outside at night knows it doesn't cool > down as fast on cloudy nights as it does on clear nights. As > for snow not being able to radiate above 0°, that's just > ignorance. Humid air holds more heat. Any fool knows that. -- Checkmate, AUK DoW #1, new FNVW of AUK, and Fakey's master AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote (Post-Burnore) Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame Copyright © 2016 all rights reserved
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-28 19:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Fakey here's both complex sine wave equations graphed. Part II |
| Message-ID | <f8b1f3c42e5a440c7cd84ffac48dd42d@dizum.com> |
| In reply to | #557564 |
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, in <news:8926dbtq5nq96643t33ij034hgul99irrn@4ax.com> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again: > He's a lot like Jerry. He realizes he's wrong, but he > doesn't understand enough of the subject to realize how > wrong he is. Oh, then you'll have no problem refuting those 7 peer-reviewed studies I've provided. Here ya go: ============================================================= Oh, look: <http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/chy/chy14/documents/ms/remote_sensing_snow_cover_methods_mapping_snow.pdf> "The emissivity of snow approaches that of a black body at the 10.5—12.5 micron atmospheric window." And *only* at the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Ever heard of the "radiation paradox"? It's where the net radiation emission *increases* with increasing cloud cover. LOL Check out Holmgren, 1971; Jacobs et al., 1972; Ambach, 1974; Ohmura, 1981; Yamanouchi et al., 1982; Wendler, 1986; and R. Bintanja and M. R. Van Den Broeke, 1996. Then realize you're *wrong* and you've been SPNAK!'d yet again because you're too stoooopid to grasp reality. ============================================================= Get to work, Kook. <snicker> > But fakey posts reams of froth and throws shit up on the > wall to see what sticks, and makes up stuff faster than > anyone cares to debunk him. He has nothing better to do. > > Anyone who ever goes outside at night knows it doesn't cool > down as fast on cloudy nights as it does on clear nights. Wrong. <http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~broek112/home.php_files/Publications_MvdB/1996_Bintanja_IJC.pdf> ============================================================= Increasing the cloud optical depth causes a large increase in cloud albedo and only a small change in cloud emissivity so that the cooling effect starts to dominate." Thus, the phenomenon that net radiation increases with increasing cloud amount is, under favourable conditions (e.g. high albedo), attributable to the asymmetry in the dependency of the longwave and shortwave radiative cloud properties on cloud optical thickness. ============================================================= Thus, with high reflectivity surfaces such as snow or ice, radiation emission *increases* to space. Cloud cover only causes warmer nights over low reflectivity surfaces such as soil or concrete. Radiation reflected from the clouds is absorbed by the snow and re-radiated in the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, going straight out to space, causing a net *cooling* as cloud cover (ie: optical depth) increases, which is the underlying basis for the Radiation Paradox, which none of you know-nothing nongs knew about. If you morons had any depth of understanding of the physical processes taking place, you'd realize the obvious, but you don't... because you're morons. Your anti-science nitwittery is why you morons believe in the fairy tale of CO2-induced AGW, despite the fact that it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics. SPNAK! > As for snow not being able to radiate above 0°, that's just > ignorance. You'll be providing the MID where I've ever said "snow is not able to radiate above 0 degrees" or you'll admit you're an idiot and a liar. I specifically said that snow cannot emit above a temperature which it cannot attain, and given that snow melts at 32 F, it cannot emit at a wavelength shorter than 10.6186 microns. I also said that because snow cannot emit below a temperature it cannot attain, and since temperature rarely gets below -50 F, it usually will not emit at a wavelength longer than ~12.7419 micron. Thus snow and ice emit infrared radiation in a very narrow ~2.1251 micron window, which is centered on the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. Because snow being a near-blackbody emitting at short wavelengths means it doesn't follow Planck's curve, it tends more toward Wien's Displacement Law. Then I proved it. And not one of you morons can dispute it, given the peer-reviewed studies I provided in proving it. SPNAK! -- Kensi the moron wrote: ================================ The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so the curvature is 4*pi ================================ Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi. Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi Therefore, r = 0.28209479176 Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the units. The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect. Kensi the moron was corrected: ================================ Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you backpedal, LunkHead. You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore = (4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original "The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*? ================================ But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry problems. Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is "science fiction" and "a howler". In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold. He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature, and thus causing gravity to *repel*. Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of magnetic attraction. Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work, and therefore a universe which could not exist. Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation". Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow at 489 F. Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of "blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how spectral absorption and emission works. Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared atmospheric window. The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same moron continues to cling to his delusions. Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite. Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a slumpy dumpy frumpy lumpy loser trying to pretend that he's intelligent... and failing badly. That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web