Re: Sniveling Crayon Is A "Climate Denier" And A Shambling Right-Wing Moron..

[Man of Mind]

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..

--
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]

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 � which shows a warming of approximately
0.6�-0.8�C over the last century (depending on precisely
how the warming trend is defined) � 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 (0.70�C/century) and full set of station
temperature trends (actually less at 0.65�C/century). This
and other information lead the IPCC to conclude that the
UHI effect makes at most a contribution of 0.05�C 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]

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..

[Man of Mind]

On 4/17/2013 9:05 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>
> Man of Mind was exposing the immature sneering/jeering exhibited by:
> >
>> On 4/16/2013 8:35 PM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>
>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined in harmony with:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 16, 7:35 am, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> <LOL> Kurt, if you can't handle problems in simple mechanics
>>
>> Like yourself?
>>
>> "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"
>>
>> "Accelertion units are length divided by time squared."
>>
>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>
> Yes, I'm still waiting for your answer to that problem.

Well, seeing that you're still unable to solve it yourself,
using the correct system of measurements in your constant
for gravity, I may take it upon myself to 'school' you, again..

It just depends on how cooperative you are, and how my work
day turns out. So far, it's not looking very good for you today..

>>>> Oh, maybe he's thinks he's clever enough for it
>>
>> Oh, maybe I've studied it a while longer than you..
>>
>>> I'm trying really hard, to imagine Kurt working on problems
>>> in Relativity without laughing out loud.
>>
>> Ahh, the sound of grade school level jeering and sneering
>> from the most ambitiously ignorant right-wing zealots that
>> have ever sullied the Usenet..
>>
>> Thanks for owning up to it, you've just been "pwned", again..
>
> Yeah, right.

*>LOL!<* Try not to sulk and pout too much about it. It
would be best if you admitted your mistakes and moved on
towards improving yourself..

And, like I said earlier, you've got your work cut out for you..

--
"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"

"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]

On 4/17/2013 9:57 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>
> On Apr 17, 10:40 am, Man of Mind was again schooling the ignorance of:

>>
>> On 4/17/2013 9:05 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was exposing the immature sneering/jeering exhibited by:
>>> >
>>>> On 4/16/2013 8:35 PM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>
>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined in harmony with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 16, 7:35 am, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <LOL> Kurt, if you can't handle problems in simple mechanics
>>>>
>>>> Like yourself?
>>>>
>>>> "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"
>>>>
>>>> "Accelertion units are length divided by time squared."
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm still waiting for your answer to that problem.
>>
>> Well, seeing that you're still unable to solve it yourself,
>> using the correct system of measurements in your constant
>> for gravity, I may take it upon myself to 'school' you, again..
>

> I'm pretty sure he did, because I remember improving upon it

You remember 'improving upon it'? Really, so how did you
manage to 'improve' the wrong answer?

Just curious.. And, keep in mind, I see that you're still avoiding
anything regarding how I debunked your 'looneytarian' pseudo-science
regarding man-made climate changes..

[Cragar]

On 4/17/2013 4:24 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Good luck

Pound sand, little mind.

[Cragar]

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]

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]

On 4/17/2013 7:40 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
>
> *>LOL!<* Try not to sulk and pout too much about it. It
> would be best if you admitted your mistakes and moved on
> towards improving yourself..

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


You could start by joining a gym...pipe cleaner arms...

[Cragar]

On 4/17/2013 8:36 AM, Man of Mind tried to evade scrutiny by munging the
followups list again:

> Really, so how did you
> manage to 'improve' the wrong answer?

Simple answer - by mocking YOU for being wrong so many times, lol.

Little mind, you're such a child.

[Man of Mind]

On 4/17/2013 12:24 PM, "steve" ,senile...@yahoo.com> whined again:
>
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:23:20 -0500, Man of Mind was exploiting:
>>
>> 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"
>

> CHUCKLES> Indeed, that's what I said that's what a number of
> university physics websites also said...

Those that you could find, using Google, that is..

However, that's just the freshman level stuff you've cited..

There's a more complete story to be learned once you've mastered
the basic skills and proceed into the upper-level classes, such
that I pointed out, using your own cites:

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 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..

That's why it's referred to as Faraday's Law of Induction,
to distinguish it from several other "laws" that Faraday
discovered..

You might want to look into that before embarrassing yourself further..

[Cragar]

On 4/17/2013 12:02 PM, Man of Mind destroyed the followups again like
the child he is:

> You might want to look into that before embarrassing yourself further..

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.

[Salty Stan]

...and the U.S.S. DumbKurt is shot down in a ball of flames.

[Cragar]

He has a certain _capacity_ for self-spank, doesn't he?

[Man of Mind]

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?

[Man of Mind]

On 4/17/2013 11:01 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>
> Man of Mind was again schooling the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:

>>
>> On 4/17/2013 9:57 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>
>>> On Apr 17, 10:40 am, Man of Mind was again schooling the ignorance of:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2013 9:05 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was exposing the immature sneering/jeering exhibited by:
>>>>> >
>>>>>> On 4/16/2013 8:35 PM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined in harmony with:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 7:35 am, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exploiting the sociopathy exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <LOL> Kurt, if you can't handle problems in simple mechanics
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like yourself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "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"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Accelertion units are length divided by time squared."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm still waiting for your answer to that problem.
>>>>
>>>> Well, seeing that you're still unable to solve it yourself,
>>>> using the correct system of measurements in your constant
>>>> for gravity, I may take it upon myself to 'school' you, again..
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure he did, because I remember improving upon it
>>
>> You remember 'improving upon it'? Really, so how did you
>> manage to 'improve' the wrong answer?
>

> [..] - but my answer was accurate enough

Really, including that

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b93ccbfc87dafb61?hl=en&dmode=source

"Integrating we get a value of about 75 million"

..comment I have of yours? And the units on that value were?

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

You're not very good with math or physics, are you?

>> Just curious.. And, keep in mind, I see that you're still avoiding
>> anything regarding how I debunked your 'looneytarian' pseudo-science
>> regarding man-made climate changes..
>

> Kurt

Who?

> The problem with Kurt is I can't tell if he's blatantly lying

Your intermediate answers told me all I needed to know
about your ability to convert measurements from miles
to kilometers, and your sloppy combinations of terms
was confirmed by my intermediate answers today..

> Considering what Steve said

Oh, you're citing 'what Steve said'? *>LOL!<*

>> Just curious.. And, keep in mind, I see that you're still avoiding
>> anything regarding how I debunked your 'looneytarian' pseudo-science
>> regarding man-made climate changes..
>

> I see you haven't addressed any of the sites

Must be nice to have your head stuck where you can't read, cupcakes..

[Cragar]

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

[Cragar]

On 4/17/2013 1:23 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>>
>> Kurt
>
> Who?

You:



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

[Man of Mind]

On 4/17/2013 3:56 PM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> bragged/sagged:

>
> Man of Mind was again schooling the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
>>
>> On 4/17/2013 11:01 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was again schooling the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2013 9:57 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 17, 10:40 am, Man of Mind was again schooling the ignorance of:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 9:05 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was exposing the immature sneering/jeering exhibited by:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> On 4/16/2013 8:35 PM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined in harmony with:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 16, 7:35 am, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:

...........

>>>>>>>>>>> <LOL> Kurt, if you can't handle problems in simple mechanics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like yourself?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "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"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Accelertion units are length divided by time squared."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I'm still waiting for your answer to that problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, seeing that you're still unable to solve it yourself,
>>>>>> using the correct system of measurements in your constant
>>>>>> for gravity, I may take it upon myself to 'school' you, again..
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure he did, because I remember improving upon it
>>>>
>>>> You remember 'improving upon it'? Really, so how did you
>>>> manage to 'improve' the wrong answer?
>>>
>>> [..] - but my answer was accurate enough
>>
>> Really, including that
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b93ccbfc87dafb61?hl=en&dmode=source
>>
>> "Integrating we get a value of about 75 million"
>>
>> ..comment I have of yours? And the units on that value were?
>>
>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>
>> You're not very good with math or physics, are you?
>

> Thanks for finding that

I see that you deleted your mistakes again.. *>LOL!<*

> For those of you that may not know, Kurt

Who?

> used to brag about his having a degree in physics

Nope, just expressed that I was more learned than you and Moffitt..

By the way, he still owes me $5,000.00..

> (or psychics, as he called it)

Nope, that was yourself..

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

"Don't you wish you wre smart enough to solve psychics problems like
me?"--"slapped_jaw"

> What I did was post a problem in mechanics, and challenged Kurt to
> solve it. When he failed,

Interestingly enough, I let you hang yourself out to dry with that,
no need to answer any 'psychics problems' of yours, for certain..

>> "S Gma/(r + x)^2 dx = potential energy. Integrating we get a

>> value of about 75 million"
>>

>> 75 million what? What were your limits, too..

And your reply was:

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

"Accelertion units are length divided by time squared."

And, what were the limits to your integration, you've never said..

> As I remember, the question was, if you were to drop an object from a
> height of 500 miles

Actually, you wrote:

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

> S Gma/(r + x)^2 dx = potential energy. Integrating we get a value of
> about 75 million

And then your 'answers' turned up after more bragging about:

> I had to solve a second order non-linear differential equation -

Sure you did, but you didn't show your work, and when I posted
the actual differential equation, you balked on my notation,
and said it was wrong, until I told you about the notation,
which you tried to dismiss as 'archaic'.. *>chuckling<*

That was priceless! You couldn't work your own 'psychics'
problem, couldn't show your work and the answers turn up
magically at the end of your posting.. Yup, seen it before..

> Am I good enough to solve problems that baffle you?

Well, it didn't 'baffle' me, and you don't appear to know
how to solve anything, except to post the answers and then brag
non-stop for years afterwards without a shred of credibility..

That's why only "Steve" and your sock-puppets agree with your bragging..

>>> The problem with Kurt is I can't tell if he's blatantly lying
>>
>> Your intermediate answers told me all I needed to know
>> about your ability to convert measurements from miles
>> to kilometers, and your sloppy combinations of terms
>> was confirmed by my intermediate answers today..
>

> !?
>
> When was I converting miles to kilometres?

That's my point, you didn't, but had kilograms and feet instead..

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

You still don't get it, do you? *>chuckling<*

>>> Considering what Steve said
>>
>> Oh, you're citing 'what Steve said'? *>LOL!<*
>

> Yes, but only because he's corrected your errors

When will he be doing that again, with something besides his
usual junior high school generalizations he looked up using Google?

C'mon, neither of you has taken a 3000-level class in electric
and magnetic field theory, nor is either of you near to understanding
the concepts past your usual "google squalorship". I even made up
an example problem that compared the relative field strength of
electric versus magnetic fields, and you couldn't solve it, or
couldn't find anything like it using google..

Just admit that you looked up stuff that fit your 'conclusions'
when you couldn't argue your pseudo-scientific bull-splatter,
when I challenged it with factual citations and links to papers,
whether it was about ballistics, electrical power distribution,
or man-made climate changes. All you and "steve" have left is
your usual juvenile name-calling and grade-school whining..

Be a man about for once, even if you are just another right-wing
tea-party jihadist.. Try it, you just might like yourself better
if you'd just once admit that you made mistakes, lied about it
and tried to gain-say your way out of your mistakes, m'kay?

>>>> Just curious.. And, keep in mind, I see that you're still avoiding
>>>> anything regarding how I debunked your 'looneytarian' pseudo-science
>>>> regarding man-made climate changes..
>>>
>>> I see you haven't addressed any of the sites
>>
>> Must be nice to have your head stuck where you can't read, cupcakes..
>

> I see you speak from experience.

That would be another of your "Gish Gallop" negative claims..

Want some fire to go with your straw arguments, flapsjaw?

See subject header for important clue, collect the whole set!

[Man of Mind]

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]

>>> 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...


"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

[Man of Mind]

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 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

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

[Man of Mind]

On 4/18/2013 6:56 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>
> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:

>>
>> On 4/17/2013 3:56 PM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> bragged/sagged:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind was again schooling the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2013 11:01 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was again schooling the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 9:57 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 10:40 am, Man of Mind was again schooling the ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 9:05 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:

.........

>>>>>>>>> Yes, I'm still waiting for your answer to that problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, seeing that you're still unable to solve it yourself,
>>>>>>>> using the correct system of measurements in your constant
>>>>>>>> for gravity, I may take it upon myself to 'school' you, again..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm pretty sure he did, because I remember improving upon it
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You remember 'improving upon it'? Really, so how did you
>>>>>> manage to 'improve' the wrong answer?
>>>>>
>>>>> [..] - but my answer was accurate enough
>>>>
>>>> Really, including that
>>>>
>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b93ccbfc87dafb61?hl=en&dmode=source
>>>>
>>>> "Integrating we get a value of about 75 million"
>>>>
>>>> ..comment I have of yours? And the units on that value were?
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>
>>>> You're not very good with math or physics, are you?
>>>
>>> Thanks for finding that
>>
>> I see that you deleted your mistakes again.. *>LOL!<*
>>
>>> For those of you that may not know, Kurt
>>
>> Who?
>

> Kurtie-boy

*>LOL!<* Thanks for again proving how immature you really are..

>>> used to brag about his having a degree in physics
>>
>> Nope, just expressed that I was more learned than you and Moffitt..
>

> Which I also proved false.

Nope, all you've done is proven how much you'll lie..

>> By the way, he still owes me $5,000.00..
>>
>>> (or psychics, as he called it)
>>
>> Nope, that was yourself..
>>
>> "Now, would you like me to correct your psychics mistakes?" --"slapped_jaw"
>>
>> "Don't you wish you wre smart enough to solve psychics problems like me?"--"slapped_jaw"
>

> Nope,

Yup, and you deleted your mistakes again, didn't you?

>>> What I did was post a problem in mechanics, and challenged Kurt to
>>> solve it. When he failed,
>>
>> Interestingly enough, I let you hang yourself out to dry with that,
>> no need to answer any 'psychics problems' of yours, for certain..
>

> What you did was

What I proved was that you made mistakes in your calculations,
and then bragged about how you got the answer, despite those
mistakes on your own behalf..

As follows..

>>>> "S Gma/(r + x)^2 dx = potential energy. Integrating we get a
>>>> value of about 75 million"
>>>>
>>>> 75 million what? What were your limits, too..
>>
>> And your reply was:
>>
>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>

> Yes, that's right.

Nope, that's wrong..

> If you did have knowledge of physics

I've worked hundreds of problems like yours, that's why
it was to see past all your obfuscations and lies, much
like your right-wing 'talking points' about anthropocentric
climate changes were refuted.

But, you just keep lying and projecting your own flaws..

Example follows:

>> "Accelertion units are length divided by time squared."
>>
>> And, what were the limits to your integration, you've never said..
>

> To anyone with the appropriate math skills that would be obvious

Except to you, Mr. "kg x ft^2/sec^2"..

>>> As I remember, the question was, if you were to drop an object from a
>>> height of 500 miles
>>
>> Actually, you wrote:
>>
>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>

> My typo, which I corrected.

Your sloppy thinking, which you simply cannot correct..

>>> S Gma/(r + x)^2 dx = potential energy. Integrating we get a value of
>>> about 75 million
>>
>> And then your 'answers' turned up after more bragging about:
>>
>>> I had to solve a second order non-linear differential equation -
>

> Yes I remember that. You were so impressed

Nope, you argued about my notation when I showed you how
to derive the equations you were pretending to understand,
thus proving that you understanding was limited, at best..

>> Sure you did, but you didn't show your work,
>

> Actually I posted enough to show how I solved it

Nope, you didn't..

As I said:

>> Sure you did, but you didn't show your work, and when I posted
>> the actual differential equation, you balked on my notation,
>

> LOL - what you did was copy the wrong formula you found on Goggle

Goggle? *>LOL!<* Nope, I don't use "Goggle", slapped_fraud..

As I said:

>> Sure you did, but you didn't show your work, and when I posted
>> the actual differential equation, you balked on my notation,
>> and said it was wrong, until I told you about the notation,
>> which you tried to dismiss as 'archaic'.. *>chuckling<*
>

> You mixed your notations

Nope, would you like to see how easily I can disprove your
false allegation, again? Or will you run away again pretending
that you some how gained from lying about your ineptitude?

>> That was priceless! You couldn't work your own 'psychics'
>> problem, couldn't show your work and the answers turn up
>> magically at the end of your posting.. Yup, seen it before..
>>
>>> Am I good enough to solve problems that baffle you?
>
>> Well, it didn't 'baffle' me,
>

> That's what it's called when you can't solve it

Oh, like the problem I posted for you to solve, involving
electrostatic versus magnetic forces? Yeah, you've run
away from that repeatedly, too..

As I was saying:

>> Well, it didn't 'baffle' me, and you don't appear to know
>> how to solve anything, except to post the answers and then brag
>> non-stop for years afterwards without a shred of credibility..
> >
>> That's why only "Steve" and your sock-puppets agree with your bragging..
>

> Still pissed at me for putting a stopper in your bragging

What 'bragging' was that, again? And, when did this alleged
bragging 'stop', as you've been trying to pretend? And when
will you and "steve" stop bragging about how little you know?

>>>>> The problem with Kurt is I can't tell if he's blatantly lying
>>>>
>>>> Your intermediate answers told me all I needed to know
>>>> about your ability to convert measurements from miles
>>>> to kilometers, and your sloppy combinations of terms
>>>> was confirmed by my intermediate answers today..
>>>
>>> !?
>>>
>>> When was I converting miles to kilometres?
>>
>> That's my point, you didn't, but had kilograms and feet instead..
>>
>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>
>> You still don't get it, do you? *>chuckling<*
>

> Right, you were lying

Nope, that was yourself, like the desperate little right-winger
you truly are. When the facts don't fit your preconceptions,
you simply make up details that don't exist, and then pretend
that your childish whimpering and name-calling will cover that
up, sorta like Karl Rove and the outcome of the Ohio results..

Confusion, excuses and abject denial, while the 'sewer servers'
got firewalled off from altering the voting results.. *>LOL!<*

>>>>> Considering what Steve said
>>>>
>>>> Oh, you're citing 'what Steve said'? *>LOL!<*
>>>
>>> Yes, but only because he's corrected your errors
>>
>> When will he be doing that again, with something besides his
>> usual junior high school generalizations he looked up using Google?
>>
>> C'mon, neither of you has taken a 3000-level class in electric
>> and magnetic field theory, nor is either of you near to understanding
>> the concepts past your usual "google squalorship". I even made up
>> an example problem that compared the relative field strength of
>> electric versus magnetic fields, and you couldn't solve it, or
>> couldn't find anything like it using google..
>>
>> Just admit that you looked up stuff that fit your 'conclusions'
>> when you couldn't argue your pseudo-scientific bull-splatter,
>> when I challenged it with factual citations and links to papers,
>> whether it was about ballistics, electrical power distribution,
>> or man-made climate changes. All you and "steve" have left is
>> your usual juvenile name-calling and grade-school whining..
>>
>> Be a man about for once, even if you are just another right-wing
>> tea-party jihadist.. Try it, you just might like yourself better
>> if you'd just once admit that you made mistakes, lied about it
>> and tried to gain-say your way out of your mistakes, m'kay?

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>>> Just curious.. And, keep in mind, I see that you're still avoiding
>>>>>> anything regarding how I debunked your 'looneytarian' pseudo-science
>>>>>> regarding man-made climate changes..
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you haven't addressed any of the sites
>>>>
>>>> Must be nice to have your head stuck where you can't read, cupcakes..
>>>
>>> I see you speak from experience.
>>
>> That would be another of your "Gish Gallop" negative claims..
>>
>> Want some fire to go with your straw arguments, flapsjaw?
>

> Still waiting

Still can't solve that simple electrostatics problem, eh?

[Salty Stan]

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]

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]

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 � which shows a warming of approximately
>> 0.6�-0.8�C over the last century (depending on precisely
>> how the warming trend is defined) � 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 (0.70�C/century) and full set of station
>> temperature trends (actually less at 0.65�C/century). This
>> and other information lead the IPCC to conclude that the
>> UHI effect makes at most a contribution of 0.05�C 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..

[Cragar]

On 4/17/2013 6:04 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Want some fire to go with your straw arguments, flapsjaw?

Want some derisive laughter to go with your pathetic flailing here,
little mind?

[Cragar]

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]

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]

On 4/18/2013 6:03 AM, Man of Mind wrote:

> Still can't solve that simple electrostatics problem, eh?

Still moving the goalposts, eh?

[Cragar]

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

Is your personality a permanently toxic state?

[Cragar]

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.

[Man of Mind]

On 4/18/2013 10:56 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> dribbled when:
>
> On Apr 18, 9:03 am, Man of Mind exploited the ambitious ignorance of:

>>
>> On 4/18/2013 6:56 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> deleted:
>>>
>>> Man of Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>
>>>> On 4/17/2013 3:56 PM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> bragged/sagged:
>>>>>
>>>>> Man of Mind was again schooling the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 11:01 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man of Mind was again schooling the ambitious ignorance exhibited by:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 9:57 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 17, 10:40 am, Man of Mind was again schooling the ignorance of:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2013 9:05 AM, flapsjaws <wsjam...@gmail.com> whimpered:

...........

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>> As I remember, the question was, if you were to drop an object from a
>>>>> height of 500 miles
>>>>
>>>> Actually, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "If you were to ball a ball 500 miles above the Earth's surface"
>>>
>>> My typo, which I corrected.
>>
>> Your sloppy thinking, which you simply cannot correct..

*>cricket.wav<*

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>> That was priceless! You couldn't work your own 'psychics'
>>>> problem, couldn't show your work and the answers turn up
>>>> magically at the end of your posting.. Yup, seen it before..
>>>>
>>>>> Am I good enough to solve problems that baffle you?
>>>
>>>> Well, it didn't 'baffle' me,
>>>
>>> That's what it's called when you can't solve it
>>
>> Oh, like the problem I posted for you to solve, involving
>> electrostatic versus magnetic forces? Yeah, you've run
>> away from that repeatedly, too..
>>
>> As I was saying:
>>
>>>> Well, it didn't 'baffle' me, and you don't appear to know
>>>> how to solve anything, except to post the answers and then brag
>>>> non-stop for years afterwards without a shred of credibility..
>>> >
>>>> That's why only "Steve" and your sock-puppets agree with your bragging..
>>>
>>> Still pissed at me for putting a stopper in your bragging
>>
>> What 'bragging' was that, again? And, when did this alleged
>> bragging 'stop', as you've been trying to pretend? And when
>> will you and "steve" stop bragging about how little you know?

*>cricket.wav<*

>>>>>>> The problem with Kurt is I can't tell if he's blatantly lying
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your intermediate answers told me all I needed to know
>>>>>> about your ability to convert measurements from miles
>>>>>> to kilometers, and your sloppy combinations of terms
>>>>>> was confirmed by my intermediate answers today..
>>>>>
>>>>> !?
>>>>>
>>>>> When was I converting miles to kilometres?
>>>>
>>>> That's my point, you didn't, but had kilograms and feet instead..
>>>>
>>>> "Oh, the units are in energy - kg x ft^2/sec^2"
>>>>
>>>> You still don't get it, do you? *>chuckling<*
>>>
>>> Right, you were lying
>>
>> Nope, that was yourself, like the desperate little right-winger
>> you truly are. When the facts don't fit your preconceptions,
>> you simply make up details that don't exist, and then pretend
>> that your childish whimpering and name-calling will cover that
>> up, sorta like Karl Rove and the outcome of the Ohio results..
>>
>> Confusion, excuses and abject denial, while the 'sewer servers'
>> got firewalled off from altering the voting results.. *>LOL!<*

*>cricket.wav<*

> Kurt,

Who?

> if you say his solution is wrong



--
"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

[Steve]

>>>>> 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

On 4/18/2013 12:47 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
>> Kurt,
>
> Who?

You:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/pics.fandalism.com/550x550-98B76263-3CB5-4D19-B061A5230B8B51BC.jpg

[Cragar]

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

[Steve]

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?

[Slackjaw]

Cragar wrote:

> On 4/17/2013 12:25 PM, Salty Stan wrote:
> >On Apr 17, 3:09 pm, Cragar <o...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > > On 4/17/2013 12:02 PM, Man of Mind destroyed the followups again
> > > like the child he is:
> > >
> > > > You might want to look into that before embarrassing yourself
> > > > further..
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > ...and the U.S.S. DumbKurt is shot down in a ball of flames.
> >
>
> He has a certain capacity for self-spank, doesn't he?

Years of experience.

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

[Slackjaw]

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

Everything is fair game.

[Man of Mind]

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]

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 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..

--

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]

On 4/18/2013 10:21 PM, slapped fraud <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
>
> canker <sore_...@koch-suckers.com> burped up the usual pabulum:
>
>> On 4/17/2013 12:25 PM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:
...
>>> "And the U.S.S. Dumb-Kurt is shot down down in a ball of flame!"

>>
>> He has a certain capacity

For making fun of your ambitiously ignorant primate posturings..

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

"think about it, it is likely that anyone can truly be that stupid?"

"I always reading this, but one posting is necessary."

"You're run that one into the ground (and "fake premise" also)"

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

"There's nothing of your intellectual capacity could ever say that
would be of any interest to me."

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

"I doubt there any way I'm ever going to get throught to someone as
dense as you."

"Most of the students are blank in many Catholic inner city schools."

[Man of Mind]

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"?

> 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?

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

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

--
Examples follow:
--

[Man of Mind]

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..

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?

--
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.."

[Man of Mind]

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]

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"..

<CHUCKLES>

>>> 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]

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]

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]

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..

--

[Man of Mind]

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]

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..

[Man of Mind]

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 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'..

[Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Man of Mind]

On 4/19/2013 9:02 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> smugly lied:
>
> On Apr 18, 4:01 pm, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> was talking to himself:
>>
>> On Apr 18, 11:56 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> blathered again:
>>>
>>> On Apr 18, 9:03 am, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
......
>>>>>>>>> Just curious.. And, keep in mind, I see that you're still avoiding
>>>>>>>>> anything regarding how I debunked your 'looneytarian' pseudo-science
>>>>>>>>> regarding man-made climate changes..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see you haven't addressed any of the sites
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Must be nice to have your head stuck where you can't read, cupcakes..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see you speak from experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be another of your "Gish Gallop" negative claims..
>>>>>
>>>>> Want some fire to go with your straw arguments, flapsjaw?
>>>>
>>>> Still waiting
>>>
>>> Still can't solve that simple electrostatics problem, eh?
>>
>> Kurt,

Who?

> if you say his solution is wrong

I said that you both worked your own 'psychics problem' incorrectly
and mixed your systems of measures, examples follow:

"Integrating we get a value of about 75 million"

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

"Don't you wish you wre smart enough to solve psychics problems like me?"

> Are you ever going to address these questions

Are you going to keep pretending that I haven't addressed
your pseudo-scientific blathering, particularly your own
'mechanics problem' and anthropocentric climate changes?

My 'prediction' would be "yes"..

--
"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"

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

[Man of Mind]

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

[Man of Mind]

On 4/19/2013 9:18 AM, "steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> raved again:
>
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 07:50:08 -0500, Man of Mind laughed at:

>>
>> 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,

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

See subject header for details..

[Man of Mind]

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:
>>>
>>> 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 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', 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"?

[Man of Mind]

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 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..

*>cricket.wav<*

[Man of Mind]

On 4/19/2013 9:50 AM, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined
> On Apr 19, 10:09 am, faulty sham <wsjam...@gmail.com> whined:

Still writing replies to yourself?

Or, did you forget which alias you were posting with, again?

Examples follow..

From: "Salty Stan" <wsjam...@gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Message-ID: <1138568119.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.57.36.150;
posting-account=pB-IzA0AAACyqifD7SDT3AKPW0Vu1Mf8
Date: 29 Jan 2006 12:55:19 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.36.150

From: "SlackJaw" <e...@lop.com>
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.15.7.4
Message-ID: <I84gf.3493$3o6.8...@twister.southeast.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:29:44 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.36.150
X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1132514984 66.57.36.150
(Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:29:44 EST)

From: "Mike Alder" <ru...@hdh.com>
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.15.7.4
Message-ID: <I84gf.3494$3o6.8...@twister.southeast.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:29:44 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.36.150
X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1132514984 66.57.36.150
(Sun, 20 Nov 2005 14:29:44 EST)

[Steve]

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

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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

-snip-

Nah, boring...

[Cragar]

On 4/18/2013 8:52 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> your ambitiously ignorant

You are unambitiously toxic in persona.

[Cragar]

On 4/18/2013 8:59 PM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Thanks for letting us all know what a vile disgusting creep
> you really think of yourself as.

Thanks for being a raging dry-drunk with a malignant personality disorder.

[Cragar]

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]

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]

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]

On 4/19/2013 5:56 AM, Man of Mind wrote:

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

[Cragar]

On 4/19/2013 7:22 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> My 'prediction' would be "yes"..

[Cragar]

On 4/19/2013 7:44 AM, Man of Mind wrote:
> Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, one-flipper?
>
> --

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]

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]

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

[Matt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Man of Mind]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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