Re: Faulty Sham Is A "Climate Denier" And A Right-Wing Moron..

Steve

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 6:46:28 AM4/14/13

to

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:57:00 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/13/2013 4:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:48:41 -0500, Man of Mind was taunting:
>>>
>>> On 4/13/2013 7:58 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered, again:
>>>>
>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2013 7:27 PM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>......
>>>>>>> When you're reduced to repeatably
>>>>>
>>>>> Repeatedly..
>>>>>
>>>>> See subject header for details..
>>>>
>>>> People in glass houses
>>>
>>> Yet, you keep throwing stones..
>>>
>>> "It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately
>>> reaching for some minor misquote, to pursue yet another personal
>>> attack, instead of defending their political opinions and beliefs.."
>>>
>>> Quite true, it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck..
>>
>> <CHUCKLE> It's pretty amusing watching Lochner suffer under the
>> belief that anything needs defending from an ignorant alcoholic loser
>> like him.
>
>Thank you..

I heard that Iris want's Curt out. She's tired of supporting him. Of
course, Curt can't find a job. Nobody will hire an uneducated,
alcoholic, dead beat dad with a history of domestic abuse.

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 9:30:32 AM4/14/13

to

On 4/14/2013 5:46 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:57:00 -0500, Man of Mind was heckling:

>>
>> On 4/13/2013 4:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:48:41 -0500, Man of Mind was taunting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/13/2013 7:58 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered, again:

.....

>>>>> People in glass houses
>>>>
>>>> Yet, you keep throwing stones..
>>>>
>>>> "It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately
>>>> reaching for some minor misquote, to pursue yet another personal
>>>> attack, instead of defending their political opinions and beliefs.."
>>>>
>>>> Quite true, it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck..
>>>
>>> <CHUCKLE> It's pretty amusing
>>

>> Thank you for proving my point..

>
> I heard that Iris want's Curt out. She's tired of supporting

Still with your unimaginative and immature grade-school insults?

Of course, if you had anything besides your impotent, cowardly
personal attacks, you might be able to actually support your
vapid claims about man-made climate changes..

But, since you're so defensive about your ambitiously ignorant
'bluster and fume', I suppose that's not going to happen.. It's
like I said above, to paraphrase:

It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately

searching for some minor point, to pursue your endless personal
attacks and pseudo-scientific 'conspiracy theories', instead of
defending your political opinions and regurgitated pabulum.

And, it's very much like watching a slow-motion train wreck..

--
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source

"Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <h0lob6dote71d0u9j...@4ax.com>

"In a capacitor, attraction of unlike charges build up
across the dielectric. as a result of the electromagnetic
force."

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that exists
in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."

Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."

Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to prove anything.."

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to back anything up

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>

"I have no need to demonstrate what I know

Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:20:02 -0400
news: <3b5a84t0b9fanulr3...@4ax.com>

"I never had any friends on Usenet.. I never needed any
friends on Usenet.."

Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:44:19 -0500
news: <tour941biih7br0kr...@4ax.com>

"It's actually quite satisfying to be hated and despised"

Steve

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 10:21:04 AM4/14/13

to

On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:30:32 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/14/2013 5:46 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:57:00 -0500, Man of Mind was heckling:
>>>
>>> On 4/13/2013 4:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:48:41 -0500, Man of Mind was taunting:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/13/2013 7:58 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered, again:
>.....
>>>>>> People in glass houses
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet, you keep throwing stones..
>>>>>
>>>>> "It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately
>>>>> reaching for some minor misquote, to pursue yet another personal
>>>>> attack, instead of defending their political opinions and beliefs.."
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite true, it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck..
>>>>
>>>> <CHUCKLE> It's pretty amusing
>>>
>>> Thank you for proving my point..
>>

>> I heard that Iris want's Curt out. She's tired of supporting him. Of
>> course, Curt can't find a job. Nobody will hire an uneducated,
>> alcoholic, dead beat dad with a history of domestic abuse.
>>

>Still with-
-out a job, eh?

Curt is into middle age but still has his momma taking care of him.

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 10:25:55 AM4/14/13

to

On 4/14/2013 9:21 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:30:32 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>
>> On 4/14/2013 5:46 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:57:00 -0500, Man of Mind was heckling:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/13/2013 4:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:48:41 -0500, Man of Mind was taunting:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/13/2013 7:58 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered, again:

.......

>>>>>>> People in glass houses
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet, you keep throwing stones..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately
>>>>>> reaching for some minor misquote, to pursue yet another personal
>>>>>> attack, instead of defending their political opinions and beliefs.."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite true, it's like watching a slow-motion train wreck..
>>>>>
>>>>> <CHUCKLE> It's pretty amusing
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for proving my point..
>>>
>>> I heard that Iris want's Curt out. She's tired of supporting
>>

>> Still with your unimaginative and immature grade-school insults?
>>
>> Of course, if you had anything besides your impotent, cowardly
>> personal attacks, you might be able to actually support your
>> vapid claims about man-made climate changes..
>>
>> But, since you're so defensive about your ambitiously ignorant
>> 'bluster and fume', I suppose that's not going to happen.. It's
>> like I said above, to paraphrase:
>>

>> It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately

>> searching for some minor point, to pursue your endless personal
>> attacks and pseudo-scientific 'conspiracy theories', instead of
>> defending your political opinions and regurgitated pabulum.
>>

>> And, it's very much like watching a slow-motion train wreck..
>
> Curt

Who?

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 14, 2013, 11:06:12 PM4/14/13

to

The irony is that he fancies himself a scientist, yet almost all of his
posts consist of ad hominem attacks, devoid of any facts or logic.

--
---
Truth is the cure for liberalism.
---

Steve

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 10:24:20 AM4/15/13

to

You.. Kurt Lochner Harrington, mama Iris's little unemployed, middle
aged, alcoholic, loser.

http://www.google.com/search?q=kurt+lochner+harrington&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=YfZqUdLaFoj89gSyqoHIBw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1012&bih=559#imgrc=l5s94PQKl9fIpM%3A%3BWBsjiLsNt-R2eM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fs3.amazonaws.com%252Fpics.fandalism.com%252F550x550-98B76263-3CB5-4D19-B061A5230B8B51BC.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ffandalism.com%252Fcaptioned%252FJPC%3B550%3B550

I see the UC Davis site still says "according to Faraday's law, a
changing magnetic field can create an electric field." Lochner
stupidly claimed that he'd make them change that, see below:

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner harrington about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field..

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK...

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

...and here's Lochner claiming he's going to correct the University's lectures.

"I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, "
Kurt Licknob challenging ucdavis.edu knowledge of Faraday's law.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e3f66eb534b82eae?hl=en

...and then Lochner will have to correct Princeton, too..

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html

...and now LOchner admits that I was right and he was wrong all along.

Lochner:"Steve, what you found on Google is a common misconception
about Faraday's Law of Induction, that "magnetic fields"
somehow 'create' an electric field..

They don't, except in the presence of a conductor."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/de6447da602e27d2?hl=en

<GUFFAW> Looks like I successfully tricked Lochner into admitting
that even he knows that magnetic fields do create an electric field..

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
he can't get drunk. He can't, you know... EXCEPT when alcohol is
present.

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 10:35:37 AM4/15/13

to

On 4/15/2013 9:24 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled again:
>
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:25:55 -0500, Man of Mind was still laughing at:

>>
>> On 4/14/2013 9:21 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:30:32 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/14/2013 5:46 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:

.....

>>>>> I heard that Iris want's Curt out. She's tired of supporting
>>>>
>>>> Still with your unimaginative and immature grade-school insults?
>>>>
>>>> Of course, if you had anything besides your impotent, cowardly
>>>> personal attacks, you might be able to actually support your
>>>> vapid claims about man-made climate changes..
>>>>
>>>> But, since you're so defensive about your ambitiously ignorant
>>>> 'bluster and fume', I suppose that's not going to happen.. It's
>>>> like I said above, to paraphrase:
>>>>
>>>> It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately
>>>> searching for some minor point, to pursue your endless personal
>>>> attacks and pseudo-scientific 'conspiracy theories', instead of
>>>> defending your political opinions and regurgitated pabulum.
>>>>
>>>> And, it's very much like watching a slow-motion train wreck..
>>>
>>> Curt
>>
>> Who?
>
> You..

Still with your grade-school antics, little man?

Transcript of Man of Mind schooling Steve Canyon, a synopsis:

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing

magnetic field 'creates' an electrical field..

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

But, I keep forgetting, you don't even know what an
electric charge is, despite you're having 'googled' it..

From one of your own cites, little crybaby..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."

Now, what is the difference between a magnetic and electric field?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.

A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,
and thatï¿½s precisely the reason why they are associated with each
other."

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field.

So, wither Faraday, and which of his laws would you be ranting about?

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faradayï¿½s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,
an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

So, one last time, "steve", magnetic fields do not 'create'
anything, especially an 'electric field', because in order
to 'create' an 'electric field', you have to have electrons
present for the magnetic field to 'induce' into moving..

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

But nooooo, you had to go an whine like a frustrated right-winger
who just had your premises, your pompous pronouncements and
primate posturings debunked in a public forum..

Sucks to be you, no?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 15, 2013, 10:30:54 PM4/15/13

to

On 4/15/2013 12:46 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>
>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>
>>> On 4/15/2013 10:13 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 15, 10:43 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/15/2013 9:29 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
.....
>>>>> Hell, even your half-assed attempts at freshman-level problems
>>>>> betrayed your ineptitude, so let's not go through that again..
>>>>
>>>> Are you referring to the physics problems
>>>
>>> That you bungled? What system of measurements did you forget?
>>>
>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>
>>> *>LOL!<*

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>>>>> posts consist of ad hominem attacks, devoid of any facts or logic.
>>>>>

>>>>> That would be your own, including several sock-puppets that have
>>>>> disappeared after I torched their straw-man pseudologia..
>>>>
>>>> Oh., really?
>>>
>>> Yes, really..
>>>
>>>>>>> Alcoholics have problems with facts
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, that sounds just like "steve"..

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>>> Ex-alcoholic, he's been on the wagon for years
>>>>>
>>>>> Over nine years now, and enjoying it immensely..
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you and "steve" should give it a try?
>>>>
>>>> Never been an alcoholic
>>>
>>> Oh, really? So those shambling excuses and evasions of yours
>>> are symptomatic of an even more difficult problem for you to
>>> overcome, is that what you're saying?
>>>
>>>> and also I never feel so desperate that I had
>>>> to collect and post typo's of my opponents.
>>>
>>> No, because your poor writing would betray you, as it has
>>> with several of your sock-puppets. So, instead, you attempt
>>> to embarrass others with your lack of intellectual prowess,
>>> and hilariously fail from time to time..
>>>
>>> The recent excuses about 'global warming' being caused by
>>> the sun, or temperatures actually being in decline are just
>>> a couple of examples of this, and since those were debunked,
>>> all you've been doing is casting aspersions about my degree
>>> and education..
>>>
>>> I noticed that you're still avoiding that subject.. *>LOL!<*
>>
>> The subject of

Man-made climate changes, as in anthropocentric global warming..

--
"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

"I can't help but notice how it seems liberals' posts are full
of grammar and spelling mistake, as if they can't write above
a fifth-grade level."

"Liberlism, like all leftist movements, is based on hate, ignorance, and
envy, and relies on violence, deception, and the suppression of basic
human rights, including free speech."

"when you've been beated in an argument, or had some of your
errors corrected in public, the best thing to do to admit your
mistake and move on."

"when you've been proved wrong in an argument, the best thing
to do to admit yit and move on. Instead you just paint yourself in
a corner, over and over again."

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

"And to pour salt in the wound, I got the answer right the right time"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

"You don't don't the difference between a typo and a grammar mistake?"

"Sigh, there are other people are smarter than you. Get over it."

"There were trying to obstruct the re-election of President Obama."

"They represent the better, more intelligent section of the populous."

"You do know that your it is a quadratic equation, not linear, don't you."

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 7:38:41 PM4/16/13

to

On 4/16/2013 11:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:

>
> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>

>> On 4/16/2013 8:18 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2:53 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2013 11:51 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 15, 12:19 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 10:13 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
......

>>>>>> The recent excuses about 'global warming' being caused by
>>>>>> the sun, or temperatures actually being in decline are just
>>>>>> a couple of examples of this, and since those were debunked,
>>>>>> all you've been doing is casting aspersions about my degree
>>>>>> and education..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed that you're still avoiding that subject.. *>LOL!<*
>>>>>

>>>>> You have proof of this?
>>>>
>>>> Oh yeah.. In fact, there are several web-sites that carry a
>>>> rather full listing of common right-wing talking points debunked..
>>>
>>> Yet you didn't post a single one...
>>
>> Yes, because you've already retreated from that discussion
>> and have been backpedaling and dissembling into personal
>> attacks ever since I debunked your right-wing 'talking points'..
>
> Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

Really? So, the "reuters' article mentions which study that
this article is based upon? Or, were you lured by the glittering
generalities as you looked for something to justify your 'conclusion'?

> (Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate
> change

No, there's a series of studies from back in 2007 to present
regarding the ocean heat content, and the previous models that
predicted 'more warming' were in error. By the way, in case you
haven't read your own 'reuter's' article, there is no mention
of any particular study..

I'll dig that out for you later tonight..

Cragar

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 8:00:49 PM4/16/13

to

On 4/16/2013 4:38 PM, Man of Little Mind stripped this group off the
original reply-to list:

> On 4/16/2013 11:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>
>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2013 8:18 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 15, 2:53 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/15/2013 11:51 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered
>>>>> at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 15, 12:19 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 10:13 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
> ......
>>>>>>> The recent excuses about 'global warming' being caused by
>>>>>>> the sun, or temperatures actually being in decline are just
>>>>>>> a couple of examples of this, and since those were debunked,
>>>>>>> all you've been doing is casting aspersions about my degree
>>>>>>> and education..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I noticed that you're still avoiding that subject.. *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have proof of this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah.. In fact, there are several web-sites that carry a
>>>>> rather full listing of common right-wing talking points debunked..
>>>>
>>>> Yet you didn't post a single one...
>>>
>>> Yes, because you've already retreated from that discussion
>>> and have been backpedaling and dissembling into personal
>>> attacks ever since I debunked your right-wing 'talking points'..
>>
>> Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown
>
> Really?

Really.

In fact:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

"...that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in
global greenhouse gas emissions."

> So, the "reuters' article mentions which study that
> this article is based upon?

Why don't you try actually _reading _ it for content next time, little man?

"A study by Dutch experts this month sought to explain why there is now
more sea ice in winter. It concluded melted ice from Antarctica was
refreezing on the ocean surface - this fresh water freezes more easily
than dense salt water.

Some experts challenged the findings.

"The hypothesis is plausible I just don't believe the study proves it to
be true," said Paul Holland, an ice expert at the British Antarctic Survey."

> Or, were you lured by the glittering
> generalities as you looked for something to justify your 'conclusion'?

Or are you incapable of actually admitting that maybe Reuters has a
better grasp of things than you do?

>> (Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in
>> climate change
>
> No,

Yes.

Deal with it.

> there's a series of studies from back in 2007 to present
> regarding the ocean heat content, and the previous models that
> predicted 'more warming' were in error. By the way, in case you
> haven't read your own 'reuter's' article, there is no mention
> of any particular study..

That's a lie, read it again for content:

"A study by Dutch experts this month sought to explain why there is now
more sea ice in winter."

> I'll dig that out for you later tonight..

Dig your way out of your own hole, little man.

"Some experts say their trust in climate science has declined because of
the many uncertainties. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) had to correct a 2007 report that exaggerated the pace of
melt of the Himalayan glaciers and wrongly said they could all vanish by
2035.

"My own confidence in the data has gone down in the past five years,"
said Richard Tol, an expert in climate change and professor of economics
at the University of Sussex in England."

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 16, 2013, 10:33:20 PM4/16/13

to

On 4/16/2013 7:00 PM, canker <so...@koch-suckers.nut> whined:
>
> On 4/16/2013 4:38 PM, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:

>>
>> On 4/16/2013 11:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2013 8:18 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 15, 2:53 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 11:51 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 12:19 pm, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 10:13 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:

........

>>>>>>>> The recent excuses about 'global warming' being caused by
>>>>>>>> the sun, or temperatures actually being in decline are just
>>>>>>>> a couple of examples of this, and since those were debunked,
>>>>>>>> all you've been doing is casting aspersions about my degree
>>>>>>>> and education..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I noticed that you're still avoiding that subject.. *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have proof of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh yeah.. In fact, there are several web-sites that carry a
>>>>>> rather full listing of common right-wing talking points debunked..
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you didn't post a single one...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, because you've already retreated from that discussion
>>>> and have been backpedaling and dissembling into personal
>>>> attacks ever since I debunked your right-wing 'talking points'..
>>>
>>> Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown
>>

>> Really? So, the "reuters' article mentions which study that
>> this article is based upon? Or, were you lured by the glittering

>> generalities as you looked for something to justify your 'conclusion'?
>>

>>> (Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change
>>

>> No, there's a series of studies from back in 2007 to present

>> regarding the ocean heat content, and the previous models that
>> predicted 'more warming' were in error. By the way, in case you
>> haven't read your own 'reuter's' article, there is no mention
>> of any particular study..
>>

>> I'll dig that out for you later tonight..
>

> Really.

Yes, really..

> Why don't you try actually _reading _ it for content

Just did, no citation, references or much 'content' at all..

Now, where did all this come from?

Glad you asked:

http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20121214/ipccs-draft-2013-climate-report-leaked-skeptics

"A draft of the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) has been leaked on climate skeptic
websites.

The 14-chapter draft report was posted on a US-based blog
site called stopgreensuicide and then posted on another
site critical of climate science.

The leaker and other climate sceptics have isolated one
section of the draft to suggest that cosmic rays such as
those of the Sun may have a greater influence on warming
than had been claimed."

Oh, look! Faux News even carried this:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/

"A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.ï¿½s Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month,
and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years
of overstated global warming."

And again, entirely devoid of any real numbers or published
works that actually states any of what the "reuters" article
'reports'..

> That's a lie, read it again for content:

*>LOL!<* You first, Koch-sucker..

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 7:34:14 AM4/17/13

to

On 4/16/2013 1:53 PM, canker <so...@koch-sucker.nut> whined impotently:
>
> On 4/15/2013 7:30 PM, Man of Mind restored:

>>
>> On 4/15/2013 12:46 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>
>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/15/2013 10:13 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:

.....

>>>>> The recent excuses about 'global warming' being caused by
>>>>> the sun, or temperatures actually being in decline are just
>>>>> a couple of examples of this, and since those were debunked,
>>>>> all you've been doing is casting aspersions about my degree
>>>>> and education..
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that you're still avoiding that subject.. *>LOL!<*
>>>>
>>>> The subject of
>>
>> Man-made climate changes, as in anthropocentric global warming..
>

> Urban heat island, micro-scale.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island/

"Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly
and simply found to have a negligible effect on temperature
trends. Real Climate has a detailed discussion of this here."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

"There are quite a few reasons to believe that the surface
temperature record ï¿½ which shows a warming of approximately
0.6ï¿½-0.8ï¿½C over the last century (depending on precisely
how the warming trend is defined) ï¿½ is essentially
uncontaminated by the effects of urban growth and the
Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These include that the land,
borehole and marine records substantially agree; and the
fact that there is little difference between the long-term
(1880 to 1998) rural (0.70ï¿½C/century) and full set of station
temperature trends (actually less at 0.65ï¿½C/century). This
and other information lead the IPCC to conclude that the
UHI effect makes at most a contribution of 0.05ï¿½C to the
warming observed over the past century."

Further reading at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 7:41:16 AM4/17/13

to

On 4/16/2013 1:57 PM, canker <so...@koch-sucker.nut> whimpered at:
>
> On 4/16/2013 5:08 AM, Man of Mind restored:
>>
>> On 4/16/2013 6:38 AM, flapsjaw <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>
>>> canker <so...@koch-sucker.nut> whimpered reflexively when:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2013 9:19 AM, Man of Mind restored the bitch-slappings of:

>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/15/2013 10:13 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
.....

>>>>> Oh, really? So those shambling excuses and evasions of yours
>>>>> are symptomatic of an even more difficult problem for you to
>>>>> overcome, is that what you're saying?
>>>>>
>>>>>> and also I never feel so desperate that I had
>>>>>> to collect and post typo's of my opponents.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, because your poor writing would betray you, as it has
>>>>> with several of your sock-puppets. So, instead, you attempt
>>>>> to embarrass others with your lack of intellectual prowess,
>>>>> and hilariously fail from time to time..
>>>>>

>>>>> The recent excuses about 'global warming' being caused by
>>>>> the sun, or temperatures actually being in decline are just
>>>>> a couple of examples of this, and since those were debunked,
>>>>> all you've been doing is casting aspersions about my degree
>>>>> and education..
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that you're still avoiding that subject.. *>LOL!<*
>>

>> *>cricket.wav<*
>>
>>> Hmmm,
>>
>> Still avoiding how you've been caught regurgitating falsehoods
>> about man-made climate changes, hunh? How predictable..
>
> Still conflating the urban heat island with actual global climate

Nope. Perhaps you should educate yourself a little better..

Steve

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 10:20:21 AM4/17/13

to

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:24:27 -0500, Curt Lochner, Iris's little
disappointment <baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/15/2013 1:45 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined:

>>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:35:37 -0500, Curt Lochner, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/15/2013 9:24 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled again:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:25:55 -0500, Curt Lochner, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/14/2013 9:21 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:30:32 -0500, Curt Lochner, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/14/2013 5:46 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:

>.......

>>>>>>>> I heard that Iris want's Curt out. She's tired of supporting
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still with your unimaginative and immature grade-school insults?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course, if you had anything besides your impotent, cowardly
>>>>>>> personal attacks, you might be able to actually support your
>>>>>>> vapid claims about man-made climate changes..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, since you're so defensive about your ambitiously ignorant
>>>>>>> 'bluster and fume', I suppose that's not going to happen.. It's
>>>>>>> like I said above, to paraphrase:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately
>>>>>>> searching for some minor point, to pursue your endless personal
>>>>>>> attacks and pseudo-scientific 'conspiracy theories', instead of
>>>>>>> defending your political opinions and regurgitated pabulum.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, it's very much like watching a slow-motion train wreck..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Curt
>>>>>
>>>>> Who?
>>>>
>>>> You..
>>>
>>> Still
>>

>> Yeah, still
>
>Good

Transcript of Lochner admitting to being an alcoholic and a
dead-beat dad which leads to him being desperate to
manufacture unsupported nonsense (ie, <chuckle>)"something,
anything to attack me personally."

His problem here, of course, is that I have proof
whereas he has nothing.

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:30:55 -0600

Canyon: "did the court let you settle for pennies on the
dollar?"

Lochner "Not that I'm aware of.. Did you have any other
petty remarks? "

Canyon: "did they see that your kids were better off if
you weren't in the picture? "

Lochner "Why don't you go and find out for yourself, cartoon
hero..
Oh, that's right, you can't find anything past that, no
child custody filings, no further hearings on the
settled account and discontinuence.. Poor little
cartoon hero..
You really are looking for something, anything to
attack me personally, with malice aforethought..
That'll be just another in a long series of mistakes
you've made today.."

Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"

Lochner "Sure am, anything else you'd like to desperately try to
attack me personally with, or would you prefer to stop
now before you get into much more trouble?
--Or, do you just have nothing left to lose?"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7171c5a4bd29de81?hl=en

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 10:44:47 AM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 9:20 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined, again:
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:24:27 -0500, Man of Mind was still laughing at:

>>
>> On 4/15/2013 1:45 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined:
>>>

>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:35:37 -0500, Man of Mind was still laughing at:

>>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2013 9:24 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled again:
>>>>>

>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:25:55 -0500, Man of Mind was still laughing at:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 4/14/2013 9:21 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:30:32 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 4/14/2013 5:46 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> sniveled at:

.........

>>>>>>>>> I heard that Iris want's Curt out. She's tired of supporting
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still with your unimaginative and immature grade-school insults?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, if you had anything besides your impotent, cowardly
>>>>>>>> personal attacks, you might be able to actually support your
>>>>>>>> vapid claims about man-made climate changes..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, since you're so defensive about your ambitiously ignorant
>>>>>>>> 'bluster and fume', I suppose that's not going to happen.. It's
>>>>>>>> like I said above, to paraphrase:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's almost painful, watching the 'frightie-righties' desperately
>>>>>>>> searching for some minor point, to pursue your endless personal
>>>>>>>> attacks and pseudo-scientific 'conspiracy theories', instead of
>>>>>>>> defending your political opinions and regurgitated pabulum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, it's very much like watching a slow-motion train wreck..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Curt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who?
>>>>>
>>>>> You..
>>>>

>>>> Still with your grade-school antics, little man?
>>>

>>> Yeah, still
>>
>> Good luck with that..
>
> Transcript of Lochner

Who?

Oh, and did you ever get any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet?

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 10:54:03 AM4/17/13

to

On Apr 17, 10:20 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:24:27 -0500, Curt Lochner, Iris's little
>

>ss

>
> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:30:55 -0600
>
> Canyon: "did the court let you settle for pennies on the
> dollar?"
>
> Lochner "Not that I'm aware of.. Did you have any other
> petty remarks? "
>
> Canyon: "did they see that your kids were better off if
> you weren't in the picture? "
>
> Lochner "Why don't you go and find out for yourself, cartoon
> hero..
> Oh, that's right, you can't find anything past that, no
> child custody filings, no further hearings on the
> settled account and discontinuence.. Poor little
> cartoon hero..
> You really are looking for something, anything to
> attack me personally, with malice aforethought..
> That'll be just another in a long series of mistakes
> you've made today.."
>
> Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"
>
> Lochner "Sure am, anything else you'd like to desperately try to
> attack me personally with,

Whoa, touchy...

> or would you prefer to stop
> now before you get into much more trouble?
> --Or, do you just have nothing left to lose?"
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7171c5a4bd29...

Kurtie, just wondering about something. If a changing magnetic field
cannot create an electric current, as you claim, then how do
generators produce electricity?

Steve

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 11:04:49 AM4/17/13

to

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:54:03 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
<wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 17, 10:20áam, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:24:27 -0500, Curt Lochner, Iris's little
>>
>>ss
>>
>> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:30:55 -0600
>>
>> Canyon: "did the court let you settle for pennies on the

>> á á á á ádollar?"
>>
>> Lochner "Not that I'm aware of.. áDid you have any other
>> á á á á ápetty remarks? "

>>
>> Canyon: "did they see that your kids were better off if

>> á á á á áyou weren't in the picture? "

>>
>> Lochner "Why don't you go and find out for yourself, cartoon

>> á á á á áhero..
>> á á á á áOh, that's right, you can't find anything past that, no
>> á á á á áchild custody filings, no further hearings on the
>> á á á á ásettled account and discontinuence.. áPoor little
>> á á á á ácartoon hero..
>> á á á á áYou really are looking for something, anything to
>> á á á á áattack me personally, with malice aforethought..
>> á á á á áThat'll be just another in a long series of mistakes
>> á á á á áyou've made today.."

>>
>> Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"
>>
>> Lochner "Sure am, anything else you'd like to desperately try to

>> á á á á attack me personally with,
>
>Whoa, touchy...

Did you notice Curt's reaction when I brought up the subject of
"domestic abuse."

>> or would you prefer to stop

>> á á á á now before you get into much more trouble?
>> á á á á --Or, do you just have nothing left to lose?"

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 11:23:20 AM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 9:54 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

> If a changing magnetic field cannot create an electric current

That's not what "steve" initially claimed..

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source

"Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"

> then how do generators produce electricity?

What part of "Faraday's Law of Induction" did you not understand?

So, one last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not
'create' an 'electric field', because in order to 'create'

an 'electric field', you have to have electrons present for
the magnetic field to 'induce' into moving..

Got it that time? Good..

--
"Did you know that Rush listener are on average, better education
and more intelligence that the population at large?"

"I can't help but notice how it seems liberals' posts are full
of grammar and spelling mistake, as if they can't write above
a fifth-grade level."

"Liberlism, like all leftist movements, is based on hate, ignorance, and
envy, and relies on violence, deception, and the suppression of basic
human rights, including free speech."

"when you've been beated in an argument, or had some of your
errors corrected in public, the best thing to do to admit your
mistake and move on."

"when you've been proved wrong in an argument, the best thing
to do to admit yit and move on. Instead you just paint yourself in
a corner, over and over again."

"your inability to grasp complex concepts confirm that you simply
don't have the competence to don't warrant a serious debate."

"Well, not exactly, my income is a business expenses, and it's deductable."

"And to pour salt in the wound, I got the answer right the right time"

Cragar

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:06:26 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/16/2013 7:33 PM, Man of little Mind defaced the reply to list of
groups again:

>> Why don't you try actually _reading _ it for content
>
> Just did, no citation, references or much 'content' at all..
>
> Now, where did all this come from?

-snip-

You're lying...again...which is NO surprise at all...

Now everyone who reads the groups you deleted from the followups will
know you are a liar too.

Enjoy, little mind.

Cragar

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:15:04 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 4:34 AM, Man of Mind heedlessly munged the followup groups
list yet again, and to no rel effect, climatic or otherwise:

>> Urban heat island, micro-scale.
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island/
>
>
> "Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly
> and simply found to have a negligible effect on temperature
> trends.

Yes, little mind, it's more of a localized phenomenon than a large scale
climatic one, as I reminded you.

So it goes when you begin assigning blame to mankind for global climatic
variation.

It's time that you accepted that, child.

Cragar

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:17:31 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 4:41 AM, Man of Mind munged the followup groups once more:

>> Still conflating the urban heat island with actual global climate
>
> Nope.

Of course you are, little mind.

Now take your decades long tantrum and go pound sand, child.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/pics.fandalism.com/550x550-B480FF05-37A6-4819-A65C3C92CAB87F22.jpg

Cragar

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:21:11 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 7:44 AM, Man of Mind munged the followups yet again:

> Oh, and did you ever get any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet?

Did you need some in your inbox, little mind?

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090141423

A parallel plate magnetic capacitor (Mcap) includes two first pillar
electrodes, two second pillar electrodes and a dielectric layer. The two
first pillar electrodes electro-connect with each other and are located
at right corner of a first plane and left corner of a second plane
respectively. The two second pillar electrodes electro-connect with each
other and are located at left corner of the first plane and right corner
of the second plane respectively. The dielectric layer is located
between the first pillar electrodes and the second pillar electrodes,
such that the first pillar electrodes and the second pillar electrodes
form capacitances therebetween.

Cragar

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:22:58 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 8:23 AM, Man of Mind defaced the followup groups yet again:

>> If a changing magnetic field cannot create an electric current
>
> That's not what "steve" initially claimed..

No one gives a flying rat's ass, little mind.

That's your _sole obsession_ here, and only yours, child.

Learn to know when your compulsions have control of you, OK?

Cragar

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:32:13 PM4/17/13

to

By burning gasoline?

;-)

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 12:42:43 PM4/17/13

to

Now, now, let's not confuse him.

Cragar

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 1:16:43 PM4/17/13

to

I know, I know, he might get "steamed" you know...

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 4:07:26 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 10:36 AM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:

>
> On Apr 17, 11:23 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/17/2013 9:54 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>
>>> If a changing magnetic field cannot create an electric current
>>
>> That's not what "steve" initially claimed..
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>> "Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
>> a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"
>

> I'm not talking about Steve's claims, I'm taking about YOUR claim.

I did not claim what you've stated, either..

"If a changing magnetic field cannot create an electric current"

Here's what I stated, read it carefully, again..

Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?

Cragar

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 4:52:11 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 1:07 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?

Let's start you out with show and tell, eh little mind?

http://www.faqs.org/patents/img/20090141423_01.png

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 17, 2013, 9:12:41 PM4/17/13

to

On 4/17/2013 3:24 PM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>
> On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, Man of Mind was laughing, at the expense of:

>>
>> On 4/17/2013 10:36 AM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>>>

>>> On Apr 17, 11:23 am, Man of Mind was laughing, at the expense of:

> [..] - isn't it true that all matter has electrons?

That doesn't make 'all matter' susceptible to a magnetic
field, faulty sham. You didn't know that? Go back to the
part that explains what a conductor is, and start again..

> Where are you thinking there are no electrons? Outer space?

Nope, just pointing out an example that falsified "steve's"
bogus pronouncements and primate posturing that followed..

>> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>

> Why don't you try one

I don't need to, faulty sham.. But you, on the other hand..

Steve

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 5:50:36 AM4/18/13

to

>>> and that’s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

>>> other."
>>>
>>> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
>>> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
>>> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
>>> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
>>> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
>>> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
>>> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
>>> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
>>> field.
>>>
>>> So, wither Faraday, and which of his laws would you be ranting about?
>>>
>>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf
>>>
>>> 10.3 Induced Electric Field
>>>

>>> "Faraday’s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,

>>> an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
>>> to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
>>> unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
>>> as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
>>> charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
>>> situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
>>> of a conservative field must vanish."
>>>
>>> So, one last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not
>>> 'create' an 'electric field', because in order to 'create'
>>> an 'electric field', you have to have electrons present for
>>> the magnetic field to 'induce' into moving..

<LOL> You have to have liquor present for Curt to get drink, so will
Curt claim that he cannot get drunk?

>>> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>>
>> [..] - isn't it true that all matter has electrons?
>
>That doesn't make 'all matter' susceptible to a magnetic
>field, faulty sham. You didn't know that? Go back to the
>part that explains what a conductor is, and start again..
>
>> Where are you thinking there are no electrons? Outer space?
>
>Nope, just pointing out an example that falsified "steve's"
>bogus pronouncements and primate posturing that followed..

<CHUCKLE> As always, poor dumb Curt tries to play word games and move
the goal posts to cover up his earlier blunder in claiming that a
magnetic field cannot create an electrical field. Fact is that none
of Curt's cites verifies his claim that a magnetic field cannot create
an electrical field. On the other hand, the following university web
sits say Curt is wrong.

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 7:41:11 AM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 4:50 AM, "steve" <steven...@yahoo.com> whined:
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:12:41 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>>> and thatï¿½s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

>>>> other."
>>>>
>>>> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
>>>> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
>>>> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
>>>> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
>>>> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
>>>> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
>>>> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
>>>> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
>>>> field.
>>>>
>>>> So, wither Faraday, and which of his laws would you be ranting about?
>>>>
>>>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf
>>>>
>>>> 10.3 Induced Electric Field
>>>>

>>>> "Faradayï¿½s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,

>>>> an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
>>>> to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
>>>> unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
>>>> as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
>>>> charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
>>>> situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
>>>> of a conservative field must vanish."
>>>>
>>>> So, one last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not
>>>> 'create' an 'electric field', because in order to 'create'
>>>> an 'electric field', you have to have electrons present for
>>>> the magnetic field to 'induce' into moving..
>>>>

>>>> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>>>
>>> [..] - isn't it true that all matter has electrons?
>>
>> That doesn't make 'all matter' susceptible to a magnetic
>> field, faulty sham. You didn't know that? Go back to the
>> part that explains what a conductor is, and start again..
>>
>>> Where are you thinking there are no electrons? Outer space?
>>
>> Nope, just pointing out an example that falsified "steve's"
>> bogus pronouncements and primate posturing that followed..
>
> <CHUCKLE> As always

Yup, you got caught lying again. And your little buddy,
slapped_jaw tried to quibble his/her way out of it too..

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 9:22:34 AM4/18/13

to

On Apr 17, 9:12 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/2013 3:24 PM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>

s>

> >> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>
> > [..] - isn't it true that all matter has electrons?
>
> That doesn't make 'all matter' susceptible to a magnetic
> field, faulty sham. You didn't know that? Go back to the
> part that explains what a conductor is, and start again..

I'll take that for a "yes".

You know Kurt, it's OK for you to admit you were wrong.

>
> > Where are you thinking there are no electrons? Outer space?
>
> Nope, just pointing out an example that falsified "steve's"
> bogus pronouncements and primate posturing that followed..

You mean where he corrected your error?

>
> >> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>
> > Why don't you try one
>
> I don't need to, faulty sham..

No, seriously dude, try one. Trust me.

>

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 10:03:29 AM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 8:22 AM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>
> On Apr 17, 9:12 pm, Man of Mind restored the desperate quibbling of:

>>
>> On 4/17/2013 3:24 PM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>>>

>>>> and that’s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

>>>> other."
>>>>
>>>> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
>>>> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
>>>> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
>>>> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
>>>> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
>>>> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
>>>> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
>>>> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
>>>> field.
>>>>
>>>> So, wither Faraday, and which of his laws would you be ranting about?
>>>>
>>>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf
>>>>
>>>> 10.3 Induced Electric Field
>>>>

>>>> "Faraday’s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,

>>>> an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
>>>> to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
>>>> unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
>>>> as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
>>>> charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
>>>> situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
>>>> of a conservative field must vanish."
>>>>
>>>> So, one last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not
>>>> 'create' an 'electric field', because in order to 'create'
>>>> an 'electric field', you have to have electrons present for
>>>> the magnetic field to 'induce' into moving..
>>>>

>>>> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>>>
>>> [..] - isn't it true that all matter has electrons?
>>
>> That doesn't make 'all matter' susceptible to a magnetic
>> field, faulty sham. You didn't know that? Go back to the
>> part that explains what a conductor is, and start again..
>
> I'll take that for

Do neutron stars have electrons? That's but one example
of where your false generalization falls flat, faulty sham..

>>> Where are you thinking there are no electrons? Outer space?
>>
>> Nope, just pointing out an example that falsified "steve's"
>> bogus pronouncements and primate posturing that followed..
>
> You mean where he corrected your error?

What 'error' was that, again? I know you're inferring to,
but "steve" isn't entirely correct regarding how magnetic
field 'create' electric fields, past his usual 'google'
searches..

>>>> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>>>
>>> Why don't you try one
>>

>> I don't need to, faulty sham.. But you, on the other hand..
>

> No, seriously

*>LOL!<* Trust you?..

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 10:11:09 AM4/18/13

to

On 4/17/2013 11:15 AM, canker <so...@koch-sucker.nut> deleted/bleated:
>
> On 4/17/2013 4:34 AM, Man of Mind restored the original context/quotes:

>>
>> On 4/16/2013 1:53 PM, canker <so...@koch-sucker.nut> whined impotently:
>>>
>>> On 4/15/2013 7:30 PM, Man of Mind restored:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/15/2013 12:46 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 10:13 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:

.......

>>>>>>> The recent excuses about 'global warming' being caused by
>>>>>>> the sun, or temperatures actually being in decline are just
>>>>>>> a couple of examples of this, and since those were debunked,
>>>>>>> all you've been doing is casting aspersions about my degree
>>>>>>> and education..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I noticed that you're still avoiding that subject.. *>LOL!<*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The subject of
>>>>
>>>> Man-made climate changes, as in anthropocentric global warming..
>>>

>>> Urban heat island, micro-scale.
>>
>> http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island/
>>
>> "Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly
>> and simply found to have a negligible effect on temperature

>> trends. Real Climate has a detailed discussion of this here."
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43
>>
>> "There are quite a few reasons to believe that the surface
>> temperature record ï¿½ which shows a warming of approximately
>> 0.6ï¿½-0.8ï¿½C over the last century (depending on precisely
>> how the warming trend is defined) ï¿½ is essentially
>> uncontaminated by the effects of urban growth and the
>> Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. These include that the land,
>> borehole and marine records substantially agree; and the
>> fact that there is little difference between the long-term
>> (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70ï¿½C/century) and full set of station
>> temperature trends (actually less at 0.65ï¿½C/century). This
>> and other information lead the IPCC to conclude that the
>> UHI effect makes at most a contribution of 0.05ï¿½C to the
>> warming observed over the past century."
>

> Yes, [Man of Mind], it's more of a localized phenomenon than

> a large scale climatic one

And thus, averages out such that your quibbling to the contrary
is of no matter, and utterly without scientific merit, koch-sucker..

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 10:18:59 AM4/18/13

to

On 4/17/2013 11:06 AM, canker <so...@koch-suckers.nut> sniveled at::
>
> On 4/16/2013 7:33 PM, Man of Mind restored the bitch-slapping of:

>>
>> On 4/16/2013 7:00 PM, canker <so...@koch-suckers.nut> whined:
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2013 4:38 PM, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2013 11:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:

.....

>>>>> (Reuters) - Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change
>>>>
>>>> No, there's a series of studies from back in 2007 to present
>>>> regarding the ocean heat content, and the previous models that
>>>> predicted 'more warming' were in error. By the way, in case you
>>>> haven't read your own 'reuter's' article, there is no mention
>>>> of any particular study..
>>>>
>>>> I'll dig that out for you later tonight..
>>>
>>> Really.
>>
>> Yes, really..
>>

>>> Why don't you try actually _reading _ it for content
>>
>> Just did, no citation, references or much 'content' at all..
>>
>> Now, where did all this come from?
>>

>> Glad you asked:
>>
>> http://insideclimatenews.org/breaking-news/20121214/ipccs-draft-2013-climate-report-leaked-skeptics
>>
>> "A draft of the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel
>> on Climate Change (IPCC) has been leaked on climate skeptic
>> websites.
>>
>> The 14-chapter draft report was posted on a US-based blog
>> site called stopgreensuicide and then posted on another
>> site critical of climate science.
>>
>> The leaker and other climate sceptics have isolated one
>> section of the draft to suggest that cosmic rays such as
>> those of the Sun may have a greater influence on warming
>> than had been claimed."
>>
>> Oh, look! Faux News even carried this:
>>
>> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/
>>

>> "A preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental

>> Panel on Climate Change was leaked to the public this month,
>> and climate skeptics say it contains fresh evidence of 20 years
>> of overstated global warming."
>>
>> And again, entirely devoid of any real numbers or published
>> works that actually states any of what the "reuters" article
>> 'reports'..
>>
>>> That's a lie, read it again for content:
>>
>> *>LOL!<* You first, Koch-sucker..
>

> -snip-
>
>You're lying...

Keep telling on yourself, little Koch-sucker..

Cragar

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 2:12:18 PM4/18/13

to

On 4/17/2013 6:12 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> That doesn't make 'all matter' susceptible to a magnetic
> field,

Oh do shut up, you insufferably pompous, misinformed windbag.

Cragar

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 2:14:16 PM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 4:41 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Yup, you got caught lying again.

Yup, you lack the education you brag about.

Cragar

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 2:16:49 PM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 7:03 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Do neutron stars have electrons?

Is your personality a permanently toxic state?

Cragar

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 2:18:09 PM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 7:11 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> your quibbling to the contrary
> is of no matter, and utterly without scientific merit, koch-sucker..

Your vapid partisan bigotry and crude sexual innuendo renders you a
laughing stick, as always.

Cragar

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 2:20:45 PM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 7:18 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> You're lying...
>
> Keep telling on yourself, little Koch-sucker..

Keep up the partisan bigotry and crude sexual innuendo, little mind.

At the limits of your tempestuous emotional nature you have no other
cards left to play here.

Steve

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 4:37:50 PM4/18/13

to

>>>>> and that�s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

>>>>> other."
>>>>>
>>>>> "They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
>>>>> Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
>>>>> electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
>>>>> and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
>>>>> However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
>>>>> exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
>>>>> field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
>>>>> in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
>>>>> field.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, wither Faraday, and which of his laws would you be ranting about?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> 10.3 Induced Electric Field
>>>>>

>>>>> "Faraday�s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,

>>>>> an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
>>>>> to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
>>>>> unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
>>>>> as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
>>>>> charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
>>>>> situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
>>>>> of a conservative field must vanish."
>>>>>
>>>>> So, one last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not
>>>>> 'create' an 'electric field', because in order to 'create'
>>>>> an 'electric field', you have to have electrons present for
>>>>> the magnetic field to 'induce' into moving..
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>>>>
>>>> [..] - isn't it true that all matter has electrons?
>>>
>>> That doesn't make 'all matter' susceptible to a magnetic
>>> field, faulty sham. You didn't know that? Go back to the
>>> part that explains what a conductor is, and start again..
>>>
>>>> Where are you thinking there are no electrons? Outer space?
>>>
>>> Nope, just pointing out an example that falsified "steve's"
>>> bogus pronouncements and primate posturing that followed..
>>

>> <CHUCKLE> As always, poor dumb Curt tries to play word games and move
>> the goal posts to cover up his earlier blunder in claiming that a
>> magnetic field cannot create an electrical field. Fact is that none
>> of Curt's cites verifies his claim that a magnetic field cannot create
>> an electrical field. On the other hand, the following university web
>> sits say Curt is wrong.
>>
>> "According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
>> http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html
>>
>> ..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
>> www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp
>>
>> ...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" >> in a lecture summary.
>> http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...
>>
>>
>> "Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, >> and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field >> generates an electric field."
>> http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html
>>
>

>Yup

Exactly.. <LOL>

Steve

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 4:37:50 PM4/18/13

to

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:26:38 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/17/2013 4:27 PM, "steve" <steven...@yahoo.com> whined:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:07:26 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:

>>>
>>> On 4/17/2013 10:36 AM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 17, 11:23 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/17/2013 9:54 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If a changing magnetic field cannot create an electric current
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not what "steve" initially claimed..
>>>>>
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source
>>>>>
>>>>> "Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
>>>>> a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about Steve's claims, I'm taking about YOUR claim.
>>>
>>> I did not claim what you've stated, either..
>

>Still

Yes, see below:

I see the UC Davis site still says "according to Faraday's law, a
changing magnetic field can create an electric field." Lochner
stupidly claimed that he'd make them change that, see below:

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner harrington about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field..

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK...

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

...and here's Lochner claiming he's going to correct the University's lectures.

"I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, "
Kurt Licknob challenging ucdavis.edu knowledge of Faraday's law.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e3f66eb534b82eae?hl=en

...and then Lochner will have to correct Princeton, too..

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html

...and now LOchner admits that I was right and he was wrong all along.

Lochner:"Steve, what you found on Google is a common misconception
about Faraday's Law of Induction, that "magnetic fields"
somehow 'create' an electric field..

They don't, except in the presence of a conductor."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/de6447da602e27d2?hl=en

<GUFFAW> Looks like I successfully tricked Lochner into admitting
that even he knows that magnetic fields do create an electric field..

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
he can't get drunk. He can't, you know... EXCEPT when alcohol is
present.

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 4:47:32 PM4/18/13

to

On Apr 18, 2:16 pm, Cragar <o...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 7:03 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> > Do neutron stars have electrons?

How many neutron stars have you seen on earth?

Steve

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 5:09:26 PM4/18/13

to

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:19:38 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/15/2013 1:31 PM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:43:19 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 4/15/2013 9:29 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 15, 10:23 am, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> writhed in denials with:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:12 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>.....
>>>>>> The irony is that he fancies himself a scientist
>>>
>>> No fancifulness to it.. How are you at General Relativity?
>>>
>>> Hell, even your half-assed attempts at freshman-level problems
>>> betrayed your ineptitude, so let's not go through that again..
>>>
>>>>>> posts consist of ad hominem attacks, devoid of any facts or logic.
>>>
>>> That would be your own, including several sock-puppets that have
>>> disappeared after I torched their straw-man pseudologia..
>>>
>>>>> Alcoholics have problems with facts
>>>
>>> Wow,
>>
>> Wow, should I remind Lochner about the domestic abuse charges
>
>Keep telling

Oh I shall... count on it. Did you smack her good? Did you hit the
kids too?

Salty Stan

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 5:23:02 PM4/18/13

to

On Apr 18, 5:09 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:19:38 -0500, Man of Mind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 4/15/2013 1:31 PM, "steve" <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> whined at:

>
> >> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:43:19 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>

> >>> On 4/15/2013 9:29 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whined with:
>
> >>>> On Apr 15, 10:23 am, "steve" <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> writhed in denials with:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:12 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjames...@gmail.com> whimpered:

> >.....
> >>>>>> The irony is that he fancies himself a scientist
>
> >>> No fancifulness to it.. How are you at General Relativity?
>
> >>> Hell, even your half-assed attempts at freshman-level problems
> >>> betrayed your ineptitude, so let's not go through that again..
>
> >>>>>> posts consist of ad hominem attacks, devoid of any facts or logic.
>
> >>> That would be your own, including several sock-puppets that have
> >>> disappeared after I torched their straw-man pseudologia..
>
> >>>>> Alcoholics have problems with facts
>
> >>> Wow,
>
> >> Wow, should I remind Lochner about the domestic abuse charges
>
> >Keep telling
>
> Oh I shall... count on it. Did you smack her good? Did you hit the
> kids too?

May heaven forgive me for defending Kurt Lochner, but that was hitting
below the belt.

If you wish to attack him, go after after his ignorance, immaturity,
hatred, or abject personality. There's plenty of opportunity there...

Cragar

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 8:05:16 PM4/18/13

to

Lol, we'd need to go supernova first, true?

Steve

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 8:06:55 PM4/18/13

to

I hit disgusting creeps like Lochner where it hurts. What's wrong
with a guy who badmouths his kids because he has to pay child support
to them?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 11:24:38 PM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 1:20 PM, canker <so...@koch-suckers.nut> sniveled:
>
> On 4/18/2013 7:18 AM, Man of Mind restored the bitch-slapping given to:

>>
>> On 4/17/2013 11:06 AM, canker <so...@koch-suckers.nut> sniveled at::
>>>
>>> On 4/16/2013 7:33 PM, Man of Mind restored the bitch-slapping of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/16/2013 7:00 PM, canker <so...@koch-suckers.nut> whined:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/16/2013 4:38 PM, Man of Mind was exploiting the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/16/2013 11:55 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered at:

.......

>>> You're lying...
>>
>> Keep telling on yourself, little Koch-sucker..
>
> Keep up the partisan bigotry

*>LOL!<* "partisan bigotry", after you ignored the cites
that I refuted your hollow-sounding chest-thumping..

> At the limits of your tempestuous emotional nature

Keep telling on yourself, Koch-sucker..

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 11:24:57 PM4/18/13

to

I'd have to agree with Steve, If the situation were reversed, do you
think Kurt would pull any punches?

Everything is fair game.

--
---
Truth is the cure for liberalism.
---

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 11:32:59 PM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 3:47 PM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>
> On Apr 18, 2:16 pm, canker <so...@koch-sucker.nut> whined impotently:
>>
>> On 4/18/2013 7:03 AM, Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings of:

>>>
>>> On 4/18/2013 8:22 AM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 17, 9:12 pm, Man of Mind restored the desperate quibbling of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/17/2013 3:24 PM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, Man of Mind was laughing, at the expense of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 10:36 AM, faulty sham had difficulties understanding:

.......

>>>>>>> So, one last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not
>>>>>>> 'create' an 'electric field', because in order to 'create'
>>>>>>> an 'electric field', you have to have electrons present for
>>>>>>> the magnetic field to 'induce' into moving..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you need a remedial course in English to help you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [..] - isn't it true that all matter has electrons?
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't make 'all matter' susceptible to a magnetic
>>>>> field, faulty sham. You didn't know that? Go back to the
>>>>> part that explains what a conductor is, and start again..
>>>>
>>>> I'll take that for
>>>
>>> Do neutron stars have electrons? That's but one example
>>> of where your false generalization falls flat, faulty sham..
>

> How many neutron stars have you seen on earth?

You stated this as "all matter", faulty sham..

You wouldn't be trying to move the goal-posts again, would you?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 18, 2013, 11:38:31 PM4/18/13

to

On 4/18/2013 3:37 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:41:11 -0500, Man of Mind explained:
..

>> Yup, you got caught lying again. And your little buddy,
>> slapped_jaw tried to quibble his/her way out of it too..
>

> Exactly.. <LOL>

Transcript of Man of Mind tutoring "steve" on electrodynamics..

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/capacitance-capacitors-energy-stored-in-capacitors/MIT8_02SC_notes10to11.pdf

5.6 Creating Electric Fields

"Electric fields are created by electric charge. If there
is no electric charge present, and there never has been
any electric charge present in the past, then there would
be no electric field anywhere [in] space."

But, I keep forgetting, you don't even know what an
electric charge is, despite you're having 'googled' it..

From one of your own cites, little crybaby..

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c3

"In fact, the forces of electric attraction and
repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the
other three fundamental forces that they can be
considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and
molecular structure. Even magnetic effects are usually
apparent only at high resolutions, and as small
corrections."

Now, what is the difference between a magnetic and electric field?

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"Magnetic fields also generate power in particles which come
in contact with it. Electric fields are generated around
particles that bear electric charge. Positive charges are
drawn towards it, while negative charges are repelled.

A moving charge always has both a magnetic and an electric field,

and thatï¿½s precisely the reason why they are associated with each

other."

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependent on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field.

So, wither Faraday, and which of his laws would you be ranting about?

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faradayï¿½s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,

an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

So, one last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not
'create' an 'electric field', because in order to 'create'
an 'electric field', you have to have electrons present for
the magnetic field to 'induce' into moving..

--

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source

"Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <h0lob6dote71d0u9j...@4ax.com>

"In a capacitor, attraction of unlike charges build up
across the dielectric. as a result of the electromagnetic
force."

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that exists
in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."

Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."

Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to prove anything.."

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to back anything up

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>

"I have no need to demonstrate what I know

Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:20:02 -0400
news: <3b5a84t0b9fanulr3...@4ax.com>

"I never had any friends on Usenet.. I never needed any
friends on Usenet.."

Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:44:19 -0500
news: <tour941biih7br0kr...@4ax.com>

"It's actually quite satisfying to be hated and despised"

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 12:23:40 AM4/19/13

to

On 4/18/2013 4:23 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>
> On Apr 18, 5:09 pm, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:19:38 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy of:
>>

>>> On 4/15/2013 1:31 PM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:

>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:43:19 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>

>>>>> On 4/15/2013 9:29 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 15, 10:23 am, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> writhed in denials with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:12 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
> .......

>>>>>>>> The irony is that he fancies himself a scientist
>>>>>
>>>>> No fancifulness to it.. How are you at General Relativity?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hell, even your half-assed attempts at freshman-level problems
>>>>> betrayed your ineptitude, so let's not go through that again..
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> posts consist of ad hominem attacks, devoid of any facts or logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be your own, including several sock-puppets that have
>>>>> disappeared after I torched their straw-man pseudologia..
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alcoholics have problems with facts
>>>>>

>>>>> Wow, that sounds just like "steve"..

>>>>
>>>> Wow, should I remind Lochner about the domestic abuse charges
>>>

>>> Keep telling on yourself, "steve"..

>>
>> Oh I shall... count on it

Oh, I'm counting on it, believe me on that account, "steve"..

>> Did you smack her good? Did you hit the kids too?

Grasping at straws again, "steve"?

Or were you admitting that you're stalking me and my family?

--

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 6:56:31 AM4/19/13

to

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:23:40 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/18/2013 4:23 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 18, 5:09 pm, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:19:38 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy of:
>>>
>
>>>> On 4/15/2013 1:31 PM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:43:19 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 9:29 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 10:23 am, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> writhed in denials with:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:12 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>> .......
>>>>>>>>> The irony is that he fancies himself a scientist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No fancifulness to it.. How are you at General Relativity?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hell, even your half-assed attempts at freshman-level problems
>>>>>> betrayed your ineptitude, so let's not go through that again..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> posts consist of ad hominem attacks, devoid of any facts or logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would be your own, including several sock-puppets that have
>>>>>> disappeared after I torched their straw-man pseudologia..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alcoholics have problems with facts
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, that sounds just like "steve"..
>>>>>
>>>>> Wow, should I remind Lochner about the domestic abuse charges
>>>>
>>>> Keep telling on yourself, "steve"..
>>>
>>> Oh I shall... count on it
>
>Oh, I'm counting on it, believe me on that account, "steve"..

>>> Did you smack her good? Did you hit the kids too?
>
>Grasping at straws again, "steve"?
>
>Or were you admitting that you're stalking me and my family?

<LOL> You really should be ashamed of yourself, Curt.

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 6:56:31 AM4/19/13

to

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:03:40 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/17/2013 12:24 PM, Steve wrote:
>
>Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field "creates"
>(not causes) an electrical field..

<LOL> So I said the same thing as the University web sites say... see
below:

LOchner is back to silly word games to try to cover up his earlier
blunder

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html

A changing magnetic ?eld makes an electric ?eld. A changing electric ?eld makes a magnetic ?eld.
www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/Electrodynamics/ChangeChange.pdf

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 6:56:31 AM4/19/13

to

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:59:27 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/18/2013 7:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> raged on:

>
>> I hit disgusting creeps like Lochner where it hurts.
>

>Really? When will you be doing that, "steve"?

Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"

Lochner "Sure am, anything else you'd like to desperately try to
attack me personally with, or would you prefer to stop
now before you get into much more trouble?
--Or, do you just have nothing left to lose?"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7171c5a4bd29de81?hl=en

>> What's wrong with a guy who badmouths his kids because he has
>> to pay child support to them?
>

>Oh, so now you're simply making it up as you go, right?

"And I'm continuing to support even my step-daughter and her two
brats," --Curt Lochner Harrington 04 Feb 2009

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 8:49:54 AM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <senile...@yhahoo.com> sniveled:
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:03:40 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>
>> On 4/17/2013 12:24 PM, "steve" <senile...@yhahoo.com> fumed:
..

>> Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field "creates"
>> (not causes) an electrical field..
>>

>> I have the quote handy, if you feel the need to have your
>> nosed rubbed in it again.. Think you're up to it this time?
>>
>> Or will you simply change the subject and run away frothing your
>> usual personal attacks and 'bluster and fume' again, chump?

>
> <LOL> So I said the same thing as the University web sites say

Nope, you admitted that you used a search engine, probably Google,
to find phrases that supported your vapid claim about Faraday's
Law of Induction, which you clearly do not understand..

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source

"Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"

In a very general sense, that's correct, but only when
there's a conductor present, as in the context of a
electrical circuit, But, the simple truth is, you don't
seem to know what causes magnetism, hence your ass-
backwards pronouncements about "magnetic capacitors", too..

Of course, you'll again again try to dismiss that..

> LOchner is back to silly word games

Nope, just pointing out how sophomoric your verbal gymnastics
are, especially after I pointed out the flaws in your blather..

You clearly are not any sort of electrical engineer, which
you also have admitted. And like most of the 'climate denier'
crowd infesting the right-wing tea-party, you're desperately
attacking anyone who disagrees with your sociopathy..

Your lack of a sense of humor regarding this is most telling..

--

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <h0lob6dote71d0u9j...@4ax.com>

"In a capacitor, attraction of unlike charges build up
across the dielectric. as a result of the electromagnetic
force."

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 05:37:55 -0400
Message-ID: <qjkqb6h5aeanvjlfq...@4ax.com>

"Anyone that thinks electromagnetic force is not the force that exists
in a charged capacitor is simply ignorant on the subject.."

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 8:50:08 AM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:23:40 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>
>> On 4/18/2013 4:23 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:

>>>
>>> On Apr 18, 5:09 pm, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:19:38 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/15/2013 1:31 PM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:43:19 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 9:29 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 10:23 am, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> writhed in denials with:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:12 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Alcoholics have problems with facts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, that sounds just like "steve"..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow, should I remind Lochner about the domestic abuse charges
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep telling on yourself, "steve"..
>>>>
>>>> Oh I shall... count on it
>>
>> Oh, I'm counting on it, believe me on that account, "steve"..
>
> <CHUCKLES>

*>LOL!<* Your pride, before the fall..

>>>> Did you smack her good? Did you hit the kids too?
>>
>> Grasping at straws again, "steve"?
>>
>> Or were you admitting that you're stalking me and my family?
>
> <LOL> You really should be ashamed of yourself

You first, Mr. 'bluster and fume'..

Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, skippy?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 8:50:22 AM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> fumed at:
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:59:27 -0500, Man of Mind laughe3d at:

>>
>> On 4/18/2013 7:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> raged on:
>>
>>> I hit disgusting creeps like Lochner where it hurts.
>>
>> Really? When will you be doing that, "steve"?
>>

>> Thanks for letting us all know what a vile disgusting creep
>> you really think of yourself as. It's quite noticeable too..

>
> Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"

Not as much, would you like to go to a meeting and try our
way of life, "steve"? I'm sure I could find you a local
chapter for help with your problem..

By the way, you keep deflecting away from how you failed and
flailed to accurately describe Faraday's Law of Induction..

Are you still determined to stick with your claim that
magnetic fields "create" electric fields, out of nothing?

And, what about all those "magnetic capacitors" you were
blustering about? I never saw anything from you regarding
how that was possible, despite my explanations to the
contrary..

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 10:18:51 AM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:49:54 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <senile...@yhahoo.com> sniveled:
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:03:40 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 4/17/2013 12:24 PM, "steve" <senile...@yhahoo.com> fumed:
>..
>>> Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field "creates"
>>> (not causes) an electrical field..
>>>
>>> I have the quote handy, if you feel the need to have your
>>> nosed rubbed in it again.. Think you're up to it this time?
>>>
>>> Or will you simply change the subject and run away frothing your
>>> usual personal attacks and 'bluster and fume' again, chump?
>>
>> <LOL> So I said the same thing as the University web sites say
>
>Nope,

<SNICKER> Yep!

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 10:18:51 AM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:56:07 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 5:59 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:38:31 -0500, Man of Mind noted the overconfidence of:

>>>
>>> On 4/18/2013 3:37 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:41:11 -0500, Man of Mind explained:

>....

>>>>> Yup, you got caught lying again. And your little buddy,
>>>>> slapped_jaw tried to quibble his/her way out of it too..
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.. <LOL>
>>>

>>> Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner harrington about Faraday's Law
>>
>> I see the UC Davis site still says "according to Faraday's law, a
>> changing magnetic field can create an electric field." Lochner
>> stupidly claimed that he'd make them change that, see below:
>

>I see

"I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, "

Kurt Lochner harrington challenging ucdavis.edu knowledge of Faraday's law.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e3f66eb534b82eae?hl=en

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 10:18:51 AM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:50:08 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:23:40 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2013 4:23 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 18, 5:09 pm, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:19:38 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 1:31 PM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:43:19 -0500, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 9:29 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 10:23 am, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> writhed in denials with:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:12 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>.........
>>>>>>>>>> Alcoholics have problems with facts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow, that sounds just like "steve"..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow, should I remind Lochner about the domestic abuse charges
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep telling on yourself, "steve"..
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh I shall... count on it
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm counting on it, believe me on that account, "steve"..
>>
>> <CHUCKLES>
>
>*>LOL!<* Your pride, before the fall..

Bring it on, Drunky..

I remember when Kurt Lochner did a trace on my post and the icon showed up
where it always did when you traced someone in the Tampa area.. Kurt
thought I lived there..

"Oh, that place over on W. Rio Vista Ave he keeps posting from?"
--Little Kurtie Lichner trying to identify where I post from
and not realizing that any IP in the Tampa area showed up on that
spot.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2ceac009efcc3592?

I told Kurt that he got me and that he should come and visit me. I
wasn't home much and he should just come on in, grab a beer and take a
swim in the pool.

Poor Kurt finally figured it out and got very angry...
I wonder if Kurt is still angry about that...

Let it go Kurt. You'll feel better...

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 10:18:51 AM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:50:22 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> fumed at:
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:59:27 -0500, Man of Mind laughe3d at:
>>>
>>> On 4/18/2013 7:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> raged on:
>>>
>>>> I hit disgusting creeps like Lochner where it hurts.
>>>
>>> Really? When will you be doing that, "steve"?
>>>
>>> Thanks for letting us all know what a vile disgusting creep
>>> you really think of yourself as. It's quite noticeable too..
>>
>> Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"
>
>Not as much,

That's what I thought.

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 10:18:51 AM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:05:43 -0700 (PDT), Salty Stan
<wsjam...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 18, 11:24 pm, "Slackjaw" <Capt...@OklahomaSpaceAlliance.com>
>wrote:

>No he wouldn't, because he is an insecure, befuddled troll.
>
>I would never stoop to his level, I like to think I'm above that.

Actually, I wouldn't stoop to Lochner's level either. However,
slapping him down about his past is not stooping to HIS level, but is
an appropriate way to deal with the snipping, reply-misdirecting
loser. He is, after all, the first one that decided that it was
appropriate to play those kind of games with me. I'm simply winning
the game.

Message has been deleted

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:21:03 PM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:53:34 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's
little disappointment wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:

>>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:50:22 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> fumed at:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:59:27 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/2013 7:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> raged on:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I hit disgusting creeps like Lochner where it hurts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? When will you be doing that, "steve"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for letting us all know what a vile disgusting creep
>>>>> you really think of yourself as. It's quite noticeable too..
>>>>
>>>> Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"
>>>

>>> Not as much, would you like to go to a meeting and try our
>>> way of life, "steve"? I'm sure I could find you a local
>>> chapter for help with your problem..
>>>
>>> By the way, you keep deflecting away from how you failed and
>>> flailed to accurately describe Faraday's Law of Induction..
>>>
>>> Are you still determined to stick with your claim that
>>> magnetic fields "create" electric fields, out of nothing?

<LOL> Lochner adds "out of nothing" in just another attempt to move
the goal posts and hope to cover up his earlier blunder....

I see the UC Davis site still says "according to Faraday's law, a
changing magnetic field can create an electric field." Lochner
stupidly claimed that he'd make them change that, see below:

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner harrington about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field..

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK...

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

...and here's Lochner claiming he's going to correct the University's lectures.

"I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, "

Kurt Licknob challenging ucdavis.edu knowledge of Faraday's law.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e3f66eb534b82eae?hl=en

...and then Lochner will have to correct Princeton, too..

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:21:03 PM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:50:59 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's

little disappointment wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>

>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:56:07 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2013 5:59 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:38:31 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/2013 3:37 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:41:11 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>......

>>>>>>> Yup, you got caught lying again. And your little buddy,
>>>>>>> slapped_jaw tried to quibble his/her way out of it too..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly.. <LOL>
>>>>>

>>>>> Transcript of Man of Mind tutoring "steve" on electrodynamics..
>>>>

>>>> I see the UC Davis site still says "according to Faraday's law
>>>

>>> I see that you're again avoiding the facts you misinterpreted
>>> to suit your immature 'gain-saying' and 'bluster and fume'..
>
>One last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not 'create'
>an 'electric field'

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:21:03 PM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:49:54 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's
little disappointment wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <senile...@yhahoo.com> sniveled:
>>

A changing magnetic field makes an electric field. A changing electric
field makes a magnetic field.
www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/Electrodynamics/ChangeChange.pdf

Steve

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:21:03 PM4/19/13

to

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:47:00 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's
little disappointment wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> raved again:

>>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:50:08 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 23:23:40 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/18/2013 4:23 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 18, 5:09 pm, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 06:19:38 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 1:31 PM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> whined at:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:43:19 -0500, Curt Lochner Harrington, Iris's little disappointment wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/15/2013 9:29 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined with:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 10:23 am, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> writhed in denials with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 03:06:12 +0000 (UTC), flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:

>...........

>>>>>>>>>>>> Alcoholics have problems with facts
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wow, that sounds just like "steve"..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow, should I remind Lochner about the domestic abuse charges
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep telling on yourself, "steve"..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh I shall... count on it
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I'm counting on it, believe me on that account, "steve"..
>>>>
>>>> <CHUCKLES>
>>>
>>> *>LOL!<* Your pride, before the fall..
>>
>> Bring it on,
>

>I'll let you do the work for me, "stevo"..

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:33:55 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/18/2013 8:24 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> At the limits of your tempestuous emotional nature
>
> Keep telling on yourself, Koch-sucker..

Keep raging on, OCD-hobbled "savant"...lol...

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:35:17 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/18/2013 8:32 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> You wouldn't be trying to move the goal-posts again, would you?

You wouldn't be the only alleged "PhD" to escape living at the
Lamplighter Trailer Court would you?

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:36:14 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/18/2013 8:38 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Transcript of Man of Mind tutoring "

-snip-

Nah, boring...

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:43:54 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/18/2013 9:23 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Or were you admitting that you're stalking me and my family?

How many routers have you hacked, "Kurt"?

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:46:04 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 5:50 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, skippy?

Denied any lately?

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090141423

Abstract:

A parallel plate magnetic capacitor (Mcap) includes two first pillar
electrodes, two second pillar electrodes and a dielectric layer. The two
first pillar electrodes electro-connect with each other and are located
at right corner of a first plane and left corner of a second plane
respectively. The two second pillar electrodes electro-connect with each
other and are located at left corner of the first plane and right corner
of the second plane respectively. The dielectric layer is located
between the first pillar electrodes and the second pillar electrodes,
such that the first pillar electrodes and the second pillar electrodes
form capacitances therebetween.

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:47:20 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 5:50 AM, Man of Mind wrote:

>> Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"
>
> Not as much,

Oh dear oh dear...that can't be a good thing...

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:54:32 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 7:50 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Sorry to burst your childish bubble of 'goggling' the answers
> you think will refute my experience and education, "steve"..

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:57:42 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 8:03 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> I didn't see you show your work,

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:58:45 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 8:16 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> why I should be bothered with your mistakes?

Given the proliferation of your own, you ought not to be, true...

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 1:59:19 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 8:18 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> So, are you going to try and pay attention better next time?
>
> --

So are you going to be paranoid all day?

Matt

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 2:39:52 PM4/19/13

to

Cragar <o...@invalid.net> wrote in news:kkrvn8$9c7$1...@dont-email.me:

<chuckle> Nothing quite like using the Patent Office to prove something.

Here you go, try this patent:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=oH2bAAAAEBAJ&zoom=4&pg=PA1
#v=onepage&q&f=false

If, for some obscure reason, you can't determine what the man is patenting,
it is a time machine.

Matt

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 3:08:17 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 10:44 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>
> On Apr 19, 11:32 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sloppy evasions of:
>>
>> On 4/19/2013 10:24 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>> >
>>> On 4/19/2013 10:24 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 11:16 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sloppy evasions of:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/19/2013 10:11 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered::
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:03 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the idiocy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 9:09 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:07 am, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2013 10:14 PM, slapped fraud commiserated with:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> faulty sham was whimpering about something or other..
...........
>>>>>>>>>>> I solved that question too
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't see your work, just like slapped fraud..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you still can't work my example question, hunh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So is my answer correct or not?

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't see you show your work,
>>>>>

>>>>>> That's because I didn't post my work
>>>>>
>>>>> My point entirely..

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>>>> And you still can't work my example question, hunh?
>>>>>
>>>>>> ...and why would I want to do that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Conversely, why I should be bothered with your mistakes?

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>>>> You 'believe' in a lot of fallacy arguments, particularly the
>>>>>>> failed right-wing political ideologies of the Tea Party..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep evading the facts that I point out
>>>>> that clearly falsify your right-wing primate posturings?
>>>>
>>>> So are my answer right or wrong?
>>>
>>> *>LOL!<* The word you should've used was "answers"..
>>>
>>>> I predict you will run away like a coward.
>>>
>>> Keep telling on yourself..
>>
>> So are my answers right

Your 'answers' appear plausible, however, your intermediate work
is the question. Here, after many years of embarrassing yourself
with your immature 'gain-saying' and insinuations about my degree,
my overall experience and the veracity of my cites, you're again
left twisting in the wind by your own words..

You'd like to be able to cast aspersions about me and my educationm,
but when you posted your own 'answers', and pretended to actually
be able to 'solve' your own 'mechanics problem', you didn't show
your own work. You don't want it to be inferred that maybe you
just copied what little of the equations you could grasp and then
put the 'answers' where you thought it would look right, no?

I mean, you wouldn't want to be caught cheating and lying while
you were casting aspersions and smears about my personal integrity,
right?

>> I predict you will run away like a coward.

I predict that you'll try to evade what I know to be the truth
about how you solved your little 'psychics problem'..

--
"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

"Integrating we get a value of about 75 million"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

"Now, would you like me to correct your psychics mistakes?"

Cragar

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 3:54:55 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 12:08 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> I mean, you wouldn't want to be caught cheating and lying while
> you were casting aspersions and smears about my personal integrity,
> right?

I mean you weren't the one denying that there ARE magnetic capacitors,
were you, Kurt?

http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20100826ptan20100214718.php

Abstract: A magnetic capacitor comprises a dielectric layer having a
first surface and a second surface opposed to the first surface, a first
electrode disposed on the first surface of the dielectric layer and a
second electrode disposed on the second surface of the dielectric layer.
The first electrode has a plurality of first magnetic dipoles with a
same first direction, and the first direction of the first magnetic
dipoles is perpendicular to the dielectric layer. ...

Agent: North America Intellectual Property Corporation - Merrifield, VA, US
Inventor: Chia-Fu Yeh
USPTO Applicaton #: #20100214718 - Class: 361305 (USPTO) - 08/26/10 -
Class 361

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 3:58:19 PM4/19/13

to

About your what?

> my overall experience and the veracity of my cites, you're again
> left twisting in the wind by your own words..
>
> You'd like to be able to cast aspersions about me and my educationm,

Your "educationm"?

> but when you posted your own 'answers', and pretended to actually
> be able to 'solve' your own 'mechanics problem', you didn't show
> your own work.

Well, I showed my work, but all it did was confuse you.

> You don't want it to be inferred that maybe you
> just copied what little of the equations you could grasp

You mean, what you did?

> and then
> put the 'answers' where you thought it would look right, no?
>

So why don't you solve it Kurt, and be sure to show your work.

> I mean, you wouldn't want to be caught cheating and lying while
> you were casting aspersions and smears about my personal integrity,

your personal what?

> right?
>
> > > I predict you will run away like a coward.
>
> I predict that you'll try to evade what I know to be the truth
> about how you solved your little 'psychics problem'..

Let's compare my solution with your solution, when you post it. It's
been years now, do you still need more time?

--
---
Truth is the cure for liberalism.
---

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 4:30:04 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 2:58 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> wheedled:

>
> Man of Mind was exploiting the sloppy evasions of:
>>
>> On 4/19/2013 10:44 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>
>>> On Apr 19, 11:32 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sloppy evasions of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2013 10:24 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>> >
>>>>> On 4/19/2013 10:24 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:16 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sloppy evasions of:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 10:11 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered::
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:03 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the idiocy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 9:09 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:07 am, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2013 10:14 PM, slapped fraud commiserated with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> faulty sham was whimpering about something or other..

.............

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I solved that question too
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't see your work, just like slapped fraud..
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And you still can't work my example question, hunh?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So is my answer correct or not?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I didn't see you show your work,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's because I didn't post my work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point entirely..

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>>>>>> You 'believe' in a lot of fallacy arguments, particularly the
>>>>>>>>> failed right-wing political ideologies of the Tea Party..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep evading the facts that I point out
>>>>>>> that clearly falsify your right-wing primate posturings?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So are my answer right or wrong?
>>>>>
>>>>> *>LOL!<* The word you should've used was "answers"..
>>>>>
>>>>>> I predict you will run away like a coward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep telling on yourself..
>>>>
>>>> So are my answers right
>>
>> Your 'answers' appear plausible, however, your intermediate work
>> is the question. Here, after many years of embarrassing yourself
>> with your immature 'gain-saying' and insinuations about my degree,

>> my overall experience and the veracity of my cites, you're again
>> left twisting in the wind by your own words..

"If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"

"Anyway, I didn't even bother to out in the units in the equation"

"Integrating we get a value of about 75 million"

"Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"

"Now, would you like me to correct your psychics mistakes?"

>> You'd like to be able to cast aspersions about me and my education,

>> but when you posted your own 'answers', and pretended to actually
>> be able to 'solve' your own 'mechanics problem', you didn't show

>> your own work. You don't want it to be inferred that maybe you
>> just copied what little of the equations you could grasp and then

>> put the 'answers' where you thought it would look right, no?
>>

>> I mean, you wouldn't want to be caught cheating and lying while
>> you were casting aspersions and smears about my personal integrity,

>> right?
>>
>>>> I predict you will run away like a coward.
>>
>> I predict that you'll try to evade what I know to be the truth
>> about how you solved your little 'psychics problem'..
>
> Let's compare my solution with your solution

Good, let's see you show your own work, first..

I mean, you wouldn't it to become known that you've simply been
lying about taking that one freshman physics course at the
junior college for your IT 'degree', right?

Slackjaw

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 4:43:56 PM4/19/13

to

I've posted mine, let's see yours.

If mine is incorrect as you say, then this is your opportunity to show
the proper way to do it.

There's no reason you can't post your solution, is there?

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 5:45:58 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 3:43 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> quibbled:
>
> Man of Mind was hilariously exploiting the sloppy evasions of:

> >
>> On 4/19/2013 2:58 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> wheedled:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sloppy evasions of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2013 10:44 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:32 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sloppy evasions of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 10:24 AM, faulty sham <wsjames...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 10:24 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:16 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the sloppy evasions of:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 10:11 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered::
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 11:03 am, Man of Mind was exploiting the idiocy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 9:09 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:07 am, Man of Mind was laughing at:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/18/2013 10:14 PM, slapped fraud commiserated with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faulty sham was whimpering about something or other..

..............

Of course, you could clear that all up by showing your work,
you know, like you would have to if you had you taken an actual
university-level physics class..

>>>> You'd like to be able to cast aspersions about me and my education,
>>>> but when you posted your own 'answers', and pretended to actually
>>>> be able to 'solve' your own 'mechanics problem', you didn't show
>>>> your own work. You don't want it to be inferred that maybe you
>>>> just copied what little of the equations you could grasp and then
>>>> put the 'answers' where you thought it would look right, no?
>>>>
>>>> I mean, you wouldn't want to be caught cheating and lying while
>>>> you were casting aspersions and smears about my personal integrity,
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>>>> I predict you will run away like a coward.
>>>>
>>>> I predict that you'll try to evade what I know to be the truth
>>>> about how you solved your little 'psychics problem'..
>>>
>>> Let's compare my solution with your solution
>>
>> Good, let's see you show your own work, first..
>>
>> I mean, you wouldn't it to become known that you've simply been
>> lying about taking that one freshman physics course at the
>> junior college for your IT 'degree', right?
>
> I've posted mine, let's see yours.

Posted your what? "Answer"? What about your work?

> If mine is incorrect as you say

I said that you didn't show your work, the units and
constants you chose, and your intermediate 'answer'
looked wrong as a direct result of your blustering
and pompous primate posturings..

Now, you wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you
skipped all those steps and posted just the answer to
your own 'psychics problem' because you're too lazy and
dishonest, would you?

What was that about "glass houses"?

--

Isky

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 11:35:57 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 1:30 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> you've simply been
> lying about taking that one freshman physics course at the
> junior college for your IT 'degree', right?

What year did you achieve your PhD at the University of Oklahoma?

Isky

unread,

Apr 19, 2013, 11:37:26 PM4/19/13

to

On 4/19/2013 2:45 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> I said that you didn't show your work

No one here gives a fig what you "said", little mind.

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 10:09:46 AM4/20/13

to

On 4/19/2013 12:21 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:50:59 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>>

>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:56:07 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2013 5:59 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:

....

>>>> I see that you're again avoiding the facts you misinterpreted
>>>> to suit your immature 'gain-saying' and 'bluster and fume'..
>>
>> One last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not 'create'

>> an 'electric field', because in order to 'create' an 'electric
>> field', you have to have electrons present for the magnetic field
>> to 'induce' a 'potential difference' with..

>>
>> Sorry to burst your childish bubble of 'goggling' the answers
>> you think will refute my experience and education, "steve"..
>>

>> Better luck next time with your 'bluster and fume"?

>
> "According to Faraday's law,

It appears that your comprehension of 'induction' is just as
faulty as your understanding of capacitors, skippy..

From one of your own 'cites'..

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faraday’s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,
an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

You don't want people to get the idea that you're a liar
and petty little Tea-Party Koch-sucker, do you?

--
"Conservatives have no ideas; just irritable mental
gestures which seek to resemble ideas"
-Lionel Trilling

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 10:18:50 AM4/20/13

to

On 4/19/2013 12:21 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:53:34 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>>

>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:50:22 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> fumed at:
>>>>>

>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:59:27 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/18/2013 7:06 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> raged on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hit disgusting creeps like Lochner where it hurts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Really? When will you be doing that, "steve"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for letting us all know what a vile disgusting creep
>>>>>> you really think of yourself as. It's quite noticeable too..
>>>>>
>>>>> Canyon: "...say, are you attending those AA meetings regularly?"
>>>>
>>>> Not as much, would you like to go to a meeting and try our
>>>> way of life, "steve"? I'm sure I could find you a local
>>>> chapter for help with your problem..
>>>>
>>>> By the way, you keep deflecting away from how you failed and
>>>> flailed to accurately describe Faraday's Law of Induction..
>>>>
>>>> Are you still determined to stick with your claim that
>>>> magnetic fields "create" electric fields, out of nothing?
>>>>

>>>> And, what about all those "magnetic capacitors" you were
>>>> blustering about? I never saw anything from you regarding
>>>> how that was possible, despite my explanations to the
>>>> contrary..

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <h0lob6dote71d0u9j...@4ax.com>

"In a capacitor, attraction of unlike charges build up
across the dielectric. as a result of the electromagnetic
force."

"Electromagnetic force is what makes current flow into
a capacitor (charging) and it's what makes current flow
out (discharging)"

*>cricket.wav<*

> <LOL> Lochner adds "out of nothing"

After you added "causes an electrical field" instead of my original
statement of the facts about "creates an electric field", 'steve'..

> in just another attempt to move the goal posts

Once again, you've been caught lying and dissembling about a
subject you clearly have but a google's eye view of..

Like I said, I'll let you do all the work in discrediting yourself..

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source

"Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faraday’s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,
an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 10:25:05 AM4/20/13

to

On 4/19/2013 12:21 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> deleted:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:49:54 -0500, Man of Mind restored:
>>
>> On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> cowardly deleted:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:49:54 -0500, Man of Mind restored:
>> ..
>>>> Nope, you admitted that you used a search engine, probably Google,
>>>> to find phrases that supported your vapid claim about Faraday's
>>>> Law of Induction, which you clearly do not understand..
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2fd3f1659c553fbf?hl=en&dmode=source
>>>>
>>>> "Electric and magnetic fields are reciprocal in that
>>>> a changing magnetic field creates an electric field"
>>>>
>>>> In a very general sense, that's correct, but only when
>>>> there's a conductor present, as in the context of a
>>>> electrical circuit, But, the simple truth is, you don't
>>>> seem to know what causes magnetism, hence your ass-
>>>> backwards pronouncements about "magnetic capacitors", too..
>>>>
>>>> Of course, you'll again again try to dismiss that..
>>>>
>>>>> LOchner is back to silly word games
>>>>
>>>> Nope, just pointing out how sophomoric your verbal gymnastics
>>>> are, especially after I pointed out the flaws in your blather..
>>>>
>>>> You clearly are not any sort of electrical engineer, which
>>>> you also have admitted. And like most of the 'climate denier'
>>>> crowd infesting the right-wing tea-party, you're desperately
>>>> attacking anyone who disagrees with your sociopathy..
>>>>
>>>> Your lack of a sense of humor regarding this is most telling..
>>>
>>> <SNICKER> Yep!
>>
>> Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, one-flipper?

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:22:30 -0400
Message-ID: <h0lob6dote71d0u9j...@4ax.com>

"In a capacitor, attraction of unlike charges build up
across the dielectric. as a result of the electromagnetic
force."

"Electromagnetic force is what makes current flow into
a capacitor (charging) and it's what makes current flow
out (discharging)"

Nope..

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Electric_Field_vs_Magnetic_Field

"They are two different fields with nearly the same characteristics.
Therefore, they are inter-related in a field called the
electromagnetic field. In this field, the electric field
and the magnetic field move at right angles to each other.
However, they are not dependant on each other. They may also
exist independently. Without the electric field, the magnetic
field exists in permanent magnets and electric fields exist
in the form of static electricity, in absence of the magnetic
field.

> ...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase

"has the phrase" shows just how 'thorough' you search-engine
expertise isn't.. *>sigh<* Google 'scholars'..

--
Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>

"I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."

Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
Canyon <steven...@nospam.yahoo.com>
news:<i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to prove anything.."

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:36:15 -0500
Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
news: <cejm945eqt2hspb4k...@4ax.com>

"I don't need to back anything up

Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers>
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>

"I have no need to demonstrate what I know

Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:20:02 -0400
news: <3b5a84t0b9fanulr3...@4ax.com>

"I never had any friends on Usenet.. I never needed any
friends on Usenet.."

Steve <steven...@yahooooooo.com>
Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:44:19 -0500
news: <tour941biih7br0kr...@4ax.com>

"It's actually quite satisfying to be hated and despised"

Steve

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 11:32:00 AM4/20/13

to

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Steve

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 11:32:00 AM4/20/13

to

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:09:46 -0500, Man of Mind
<baron.v...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/19/2013 12:21 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:50:59 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>
>>> On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:56:07 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 4/19/2013 5:59 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>....
>>>>> I see that you're again avoiding the facts you misinterpreted
>>>>> to suit your immature 'gain-saying' and 'bluster and fume'..
>>>
>>> One last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not 'create'
>>> an 'electric field', because in order to 'create' an 'electric
>>> field', you have to have electrons present for the magnetic field
>>> to 'induce' a 'potential difference' with..
>>>
>>> Sorry to burst your childish bubble of 'goggling' the answers
>>> you think will refute my experience and education, "steve"..
>>>
>>> Better luck next time with your 'bluster and fume"?
>>
>> "According to Faraday's law,
>

>It appears that..

...that Lochner doesn't understand much of anything about faraday's
law...

I see the UC Davis site still says "according to Faraday's law, a
changing magnetic field can create an electric field." Lochner
stupidly claimed that he'd make them change that, see below:

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner harrington about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field..

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK...

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

...Oh, and look, the University of Texas-Pan American has the phrase "Changing magnetic field creates electric field, and vice versa" in a lecture summary.
http://zope.cs.panam.edu/ee/faculty-staff/hfoltz/course-materials/ele...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

...and here's Lochner claiming he's going to correct the University's lectures.

"I'll be sure to write the ucdavis.edu site tomorrow, m'kay?
Rest assured that they'll be correcting that shortly, because
it's completely wrong, "
Kurt Licknob challenging ucdavis.edu knowledge of Faraday's law.
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/e3f66eb534b82eae?hl=en

...and then Lochner will have to correct Princeton, too..

"Electromagnetism manifests as both electric fields and magnetic fields. Both fields are simply different aspects of electromagnetism, and hence are intrinsically related. Thus, a changing electric field generates a magnetic field; conversely a changing magnetic field generates an electric field."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Electromagnetic_force.html

...and now LOchner admits that I was right and he was wrong all along.

Lochner:"Steve, what you found on Google is a common misconception
about Faraday's Law of Induction, that "magnetic fields"
somehow 'create' an electric field..

They don't, except in the presence of a conductor."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/de6447da602e27d2?hl=en

<GUFFAW> Looks like I successfully tricked Lochner into admitting
that even he knows that magnetic fields do create an electric field..

How long can it be before Kurt starts arguing that
he can't get drunk. He can't, you know... EXCEPT when alcohol is
present.

Steve

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 11:32:00 AM4/20/13

to

Transcript of Canyon schooling Kurt Lochner about Faraday's Law

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups&hl=en#!topic/sci.physics/...

Lochner: Steve, you made the claim that a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.. Need a cite?

Canyon: <ROTFL> Of course, that is quiet true

Lochner: Nope, and I defy you to prove otherwise..

Canyon: OK

"According to Faraday's law, a changing magnetic field can create an electric field"
http://maxwell.ucdavis.edu/~electro/faraday/overview.html

..and this Syracuse University physics dept. has a lecture with a chapter title of "Changing magnetic field creates electric field"
www.phy.syr.edu/~xxing/teaching/.../34_LectureOutline_PRS.pp

Isky

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 1:10:18 PM4/20/13

to

On 4/20/2013 7:09 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> You don't want people to get the idea that you're a liar
> and petty little Tea-Party Koch-sucker, do you?

Is that more dry-drunk rage talk, Kurt?

Isky

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 1:11:35 PM4/20/13

to

On 4/20/2013 7:18 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> Like I said, I'll let you do all the work in discrediting yourself..

Isky

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 1:13:47 PM4/20/13

to

On 4/20/2013 7:25 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>> Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, one-flipper?
>
> From:

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 2:21:11 PM4/20/13

to

On 4/20/2013 12:10 PM, pissy <t...@invalid.nut> deleted and bleated:
>
> On 4/20/2013 7:09 AM, Man of Mind restored the bitch-slappings of:

>>
>> On 4/19/2013 12:21 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:50:59 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:56:07 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 5:59 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:

......

>>>>>> I see that you're again avoiding the facts you misinterpreted
>>>>>> to suit your immature 'gain-saying' and 'bluster and fume'..
>>>>
>>>> One last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not 'create'
>>>> an 'electric field', because in order to 'create' an 'electric
>>>> field', you have to have electrons present for the magnetic field
>>>> to 'induce' a 'potential difference' with..
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to burst your childish bubble of 'goggling' the answers
>>>> you think will refute my experience and education, "steve"..
>>>>
>>>> Better luck next time with your 'bluster and fume"?
>>>
>>> "According to Faraday's law,
>>
>> It appears that your comprehension of 'induction' is just as
>> faulty as your understanding of capacitors, skippy..
>>
>> From one of your own 'cites'..
>>
>> http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf
>>
>> 10.3 Induced Electric Field
>>
>> "Faraday’s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,
>> an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
>> to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
>> unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
>> as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
>> charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
>> situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
>> of a conservative field must vanish."
>>

>> You don't want people to get the idea that you're a liar
>> and petty little Tea-Party Koch-sucker, do you?
>
> Is that more dry-drunk rage

Is that from a 'nym-shifting coward?

--
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, and whose philosophy
consists in holding humanity in contempt, is
like administering medicine to the dead, or
endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

--from Common Sense, by Thomas Paine

Isky

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 2:41:20 PM4/20/13

to

Is that the rager getting pissy?

Where's that alleged PhD from anyway?

Message has been deleted

Man of Mind

unread,

Apr 20, 2013, 9:14:10 PM4/20/13

to

On 4/20/2013 10:32 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:09:46 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:

>>
>> On 4/19/2013 12:21 PM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:50:59 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> knee-jerked:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:56:07 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/19/2013 5:59 AM, "steve" <senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:

......

>>>>>> I see that you're again avoiding the facts you misinterpreted
>>>>>> to suit your immature 'gain-saying' and 'bluster and fume'..
>>>>
>>>> One last time, climate deniers, magnetic fields do not 'create'
>>>> an 'electric field', because in order to 'create' an 'electric
>>>> field', you have to have electrons present for the magnetic field
>>>> to 'induce' a 'potential difference' with..
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to burst your childish bubble of 'goggling' the answers
>>>> you think will refute my experience and education, "steve"..
>>>>
>>>> Better luck next time with your 'bluster and fume"?
>>>
>>> "According to Faraday's law,
>>

>> It appears that your comprehension of 'induction' is just as
>> faulty as your understanding of capacitors, skippy..
>

> ...that I don't understand much of anything

That's already been established, "steve"..

From one of your own 'cites'..

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02sc-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-fall-2010/faradays-law/MIT8_02SC_notes21.pdf

10.3 Induced Electric Field

"Faradayï¿½s law shows that as magnetic flux changes with time,

an induced current begins to flow. What causes the charges
to move? It is the induced emf which is the work done per
unit charge. However, since magnetic field can do [no] work,
as we have shown in Chapter 8, the work done on the mobile
charges must be electric, and the electric field in this
situation cannot be conservative because the line integral
of a conservative field must vanish."

You don't want people to get the idea that you're a liar

and petty, sociopathic little Tea-Party Koch-sucker, do you?

--