Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old March 2nd, 2013 #321
Trevor Dermott
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode View Post
Does your bathroom scale read 6.2 slugs when you step on it, Dermott?
No, but that's because when a scale reads in pounds it's telling you the force and not the mass, as I've tried to explain to you. If you wanted the scale to tell you your mass in Imperial units and you weighed 200 pounds, then indeed it would read about 6.2 slugs and NOT 200 slugs, as you keep insisting. You put the 200 on the wrong side of the equation for god's sake.

You have got to be the most depressing but also hilarious example of the Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever encountered on the internet. Usually people as incompetent as you are at least aware that they are confused and can admit they don't know what they're talking about. It looks like you did finally admit being wrong about the 200 slugs. A+ for having some humility.

Quote:
And again, since you haven't zeroed in on some other posters here with several posts, I assume you, too, disagree that velocity figures into energy.
Why yes, that's an excellent assumption. The fact that I haven't responded to a few thousand other posters with muddled ideas about physics and reality on this forum or elsewhere on the internet must mean I agree with them too. Great reasoning. You really have a handle on this thinking stuff.

Since you're particularly dense and it looks like I can't take any chances with you, I'm going to go to the effort to point out that I'm being sarcastic.

Quote:
dx/dt - dx/dt = dx/dt(x - 1), x a constant

has meaning.
That is YOUR equation after a few operations, not his. You're quoting it out of context.

Are you going to learn to read? A. Ryan wrote that to demonstrate how you were wrong. He wasn't writing that to prove anything, but rather to disprove what you stated. He derived that from your initial equation to demonstrate the absurdity of what you wrote. Stop hammering on about this. That is YOUR equation after a few operations, not his. Can you get that through your thick skull?

"Look at how stupid and absurd this is, everyone!" you say. "Yes, we agree. Why did you write it?" everyone replies.

This is why I keep responding. You're either a pretty good troll or an amazing fool.

Quote:
I assume this because you have not told these posters they are confusing people, that they are wrong, etc.

I'm waiting on your detailed posts responding to these posters. Until then, I will assume that you do not care so much about math or physics, but that you have some sort of problem with me.
Have you ever heard the phrase “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” ? The only reason I'm even bothering with you is I'm assuming you're not a pig, but I'm putting 60% chances on you being a troll (if so, good job). The only reason it's not 100% is due to the fact that I've actually met people like you in academia who aren't trolls. They're just as prone to fucking simple things up, just as stubbornly incapable of seeing their very basic errors, and just as wrong in attempting to teach other people when that's the last thing they should be doing.

Quote:
How is it I can find solutions for problems such as

y'' + 2.2y' + 0.4y = 0, y(0) = 3.3, Y'(0) = -1.2

How am I able, since I have mathematical dyslexia, Dermott, to solve that problem and get

Y = 3e^-0.2x + 0.3e^-2x
Only by a miracle of GOD!
 
Old March 2nd, 2013 #322
A. Ryan
Junior Member
 
A. Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 135
Default "... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

Tintin, In re your question read Dermott # 321. He has a handle on it.

However this has me irritated enough to respond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randal Goode

dx/dt - dx/dt = dx/dt(x - 1), x a constant
Goode's claim is totally bogus. His attempt to be cunning and make it appear that I have posted a mathematically incorrect equation which I claim to be a general case is childishly transparent.

The fact is the equation that he quotes follows as a direct result of his own original stupidity
Quote:
v = x(dx/dt)
which I criticized in my # 158. Furthermore what he quotes is NOT a general identity and was NEVER claimed to be so by me.

I will reiterate:

What I wrote is a logical result of nonsense that Goode himself originally posted. I carried his stupidity to its logical conclusion with use of commonly understood techniques that are taught in elementary courses in ordinary differential equations.

And now Goode is quoting out of context.

Goode's original nonsense logically leads to a conclusion which he is now attempting to promulgate as an incorrect general identity either out of ignorance or malice.

Incidentally I notice that Goode has suddenly moved from his "energy is not a dimension" position to being quite the dimensional analysis jockey. Has he brought in a dimensional analysis expert?

And now he applies his new-found dimensional analysis superpowers to obtain the claim in his Post # 302 this thread, that:
Quote:
90 kg = 198 lbs.
WRONG.

Why? Mass is NEVER equal to weight.

Mass can weigh a certain amount due to gravitational attraction or by virtue of ---- No, never mind, not in this thread

What would be the weight of the object with the 90 kg mass if that object were in outer space far far from any large gravitating bodies?

The dog barks but the caravan moves on.
__________________
War and religion have always made a bilious sort of cocktail. ... E.T. Bell
 
Old March 3rd, 2013 #323
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
Again, how does any of this negate the fact that we are animals?
I already said we are in the physical sense, but that's not saying much.
 
Old March 4th, 2013 #324
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Thornberry View Post
I already said we are in the physical sense, but that's not saying much.
Ah, ok. I have to note, however, that it says alot for me but without endangering the thread's derailment any further we needn't dwelve deeper into that issue.
 
Old March 4th, 2013 #325
Nigel Thornberry
Ole' Cyber Crusher
 
Nigel Thornberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
Ah, ok. I have to note, however, that it says alot for me but without endangering the thread's derailment any further we needn't dwelve deeper into that issue.
Derailing it away from "Goode can't do math" and "An atom bomb would be 1/7th as strong on the moon"?
 
Old March 4th, 2013 #326
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

If kilogram(s) is a unit of mass, how can it/they be converted to pounds, as the pound as a unit of force?

Why, right here we have a handy-dandy conversion calculator which converts mass to force (Kg to lbs):

http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-to-pounds.htm

 
Old March 4th, 2013 #327
Delusions Demise
American Patriot
 
Delusions Demise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 43
jewsign

I tend to assume he is just a Jew who so happens to be Intelligent or at least cunning enough to have been able to steal relevant information.
__________________
Neither women nor children shall be spared from my unwarranted introspection. -Vive La Liberté
 
Old March 5th, 2013 #328
Randal Goode
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 495
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Dermott View Post
No, but that's because when a scale reads in pounds it's telling you the force and not the mass, as I've tried to explain to you. If you wanted the scale to tell you your mass in Imperial units and you weighed 200 pounds, then indeed it would read about 6.2 slugs and NOT 200 slugs, as you keep insisting. You put the 200 on the wrong side of the equation for god's sake.

You have got to be the most depressing but also hilarious example of the Dunning-Kruger effect I've ever encountered on the internet.
I made a mistake, a quite embarrassing one in fact, made me look stupid. I plead one-hundred percent guilty.

I got confused about slugs, don't work with them much, and it had been awhile. In my mind I knew you had to divide by acceleration, and I misread a conversion factor in a physics textbook...got screwed up. At first I even did it right and came out with 6.2 slugs, but it seemed too low at the moment. Like I said, I got confused and screwed up the whole ballgame. I didn't confuse force for mass, I just screwed up royally the mass, in slugs.

You said in your post that I acted like a jackass, and you were spot on, I think, looking back at it all. I plead guilty, one-hundred percent, again. I want to apologize to the readers here for that. I have thought about that a lot. I want to change that attitude from now on. Realizing that was as bad as realizing my mistake in the equation.

As I say, you were a hundred percent right on that charge, Dermott. But after reading your last post it is just as obvious that if I was acting the jackass, you continued to be, not one, but an entire herd of braying asses.

Good day, Sir.
 
Old March 6th, 2013 #329
Karl LaForce
Senior Member
 
Karl LaForce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 783
Default National Vangard Magazine

I archived something about this years ago.

http://archive.org/details/EinsteinFraud
__________________
"The family that puts the needs of the family above the whims of its children will prevail over the family that does not."
 
Old March 6th, 2013 #330
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl LaForce View Post
I archived something about this years ago.

http://archive.org/details/EinsteinFraud
Through my own research, knowledge and experience of and with the history of physics (having actually read the relevant and oft given, cited and quoted papers) I tend to disagree with most arguments asserted by snippets like the above article.
 
Old March 7th, 2013 #331
Michael St James
Junior Member
 
Michael St James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: White City
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
Through my own research, knowledge and experience of and with the history of physics (having actually read the relevant and oft given, cited and quoted papers) I tend to disagree with most arguments asserted by snippets like the above article.
Einstein was a LYING, plagiarising jew.

Jews love him and defend him ad infinitum.

Understand?
 
Old March 7th, 2013 #332
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael St James View Post
Einstein was a LYING, plagiarising jew.
I disagree.

Quote:
Jews love him and defend him ad infinitum.
So? Of course they do. There is a seriously overblown hype surrounding his name. The latter comment does not make the former one correct.
 
Old March 9th, 2013 #333
Michael St James
Junior Member
 
Michael St James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: White City
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
I disagree.



So? Of course they do. There is a seriously overblown hype surrounding his name. The latter comment does not make the former one correct.

None of your posts make anything you say correct. I am labouring under the impression that you are a person of short stature, with a very large nose and a disposition that makes you unsufferably obtuse.

Right?
 
Old March 12th, 2013 #334
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael St James View Post
None of your posts make anything you say correct.
Not true. Then again... you do not have the required knowledge of telling the difference between what is correct and what is incorrect about this matter.

Quote:
I am labouring under the impression that you are a person of short stature, with a very large nose and a disposition that makes you unsufferably obtuse.

Right?
No I'm actually 6'3, around 225 pounds, blond (allthough mostly bald these days) with steel-blue eyes. Deal with it zoggling.
 
Old March 13th, 2013 #335
Michael St James
Junior Member
 
Michael St James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: White City
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Norling View Post
Not true. Then again... you do not have the required knowledge of telling the difference between what is correct and what is incorrect about this matter.



No I'm actually 6'3, around 225 pounds, blond (allthough mostly bald these days) with steel-blue eyes. Deal with it zoggling.

"Zoggling"???? Obviously a White Nationalist term I have never heard of.

Or maybe


"Zoggle Job

A variation of the blowjob, in which the male orifice reachs all the way into the nasal cavity, sometimes resulting in an angry dragon upon completion.

If you have to ask what a zoggle job is, you can't afford it."

A dirty little piece of jewspeak, rebbe.

You abomination. ( 6'3 blue eyes you aint)
 
Old March 13th, 2013 #336
Hans Norling
Randomly mutated kveldúlfr
 
Hans Norling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael St James View Post
"Zoggling"???? Obviously a White Nationalist term I have never heard of.

Or maybe
No it is simply a term for the voluntary or involuntary purporter of arguments so poor to the extent that it can only serve the interest of Zog, i.e you.

Quote:
You abomination. ( 6'3 blue eyes you aint)
Ye, I am. Again, deal with it zoggling or just slither away to your dwarven den (either of the two will do fine).
 
Old June 29th, 2013 #337
Roy
Perception Manager
 
Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,794
Default

As you look around at the greatest physicists and scientists in the world: Gauss, Maxwell, Newton, Poincare they all made advancements to mathematics as well as physics. What's interesting about Einstein is that he made no advancements to mathematics at all. Not only did he not advance mathematics, he even took mathematical short cuts in his physics papers when he wrote, "to a first degree approximation."

He couldn't fake the mathematics.
 
Reply

Tags
albert einstein, einstein, fraud, jew fraud, jew fraud einstein, jew lies, physics

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 AM.
Page generated in 0.18123 seconds.