Disapproving Creation: Hypocrite Pope Lying Again!

[Budikka666]

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/pope-embarrasses-church-again-says-catholics-should-accept-the-virgin-birth/

This is the pope, right? He claims to be a Christian, yet he fails to
do a single thing his farcical Messiah told him to do. Do you see him
giving everything to the poor and following Jesus as he was instructed
to do? Or do we see him living in the lap of luxury? He's a
hypocrite

He's also a liar.

He is lying about the virgin birth: his entire claim is based on
clearly fictional NT so-called "gospels".

The earliest gospel made no mention of a virgin birth nor did it
mention a ressurection.

The Pope! What a sick joke.

Budikka

[Devils Advocaat]

On 22 Nov, 01:48, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/pope-embarrasses-c...

>
> This is the pope, right?  He claims to be a Christian, yet he fails to
> do a single thing his farcical Messiah told him to do.  Do you see him
> giving everything to the poor and following Jesus as he was instructed
> to do?  Or do we see him living in the lap of luxury?  He's a
> hypocrite
>
> He's also a liar.
>
> He is lying about the virgin birth: his entire claim is based on
> clearly fictional NT so-called "gospels".
>
> The earliest gospel made no mention of a virgin birth nor did it
> mention a ressurection.
>
> The Pope!  What a sick joke.
>
> Budikka

The Pope doesn't own or possess any of the artifacts or regalia or
buildings associated with his position as head of the Roman Catholic
Church.

Even if everything associated with the Vatican and the Papal office
were sold off the money obtained wouldn't go far or last very long.

And once it was all gone, poverty would still exist.

There are many multi-millionaires in the world who have personal
fortunes that they could easily give away a significant portion of and
still live in comfort to a degree none of us could ever achieve.

Yet they never offer the smallest iota of that wealth to help anyone.

Seems odd that you should be critical of one man who possesses
nothing, yet fail to deal with those truly wealthy people in the same
way.

[duke]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:20:42 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 22 Nov, 01:48, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/pope-embarrasses-c...
>>
>> This is the pope, right?  He claims to be a Christian, yet he fails to
>> do a single thing his farcical Messiah told him to do.  Do you see him
>> giving everything to the poor and following Jesus as he was instructed
>> to do?  Or do we see him living in the lap of luxury?  He's a
>> hypocrite
>>
>> He's also a liar.
>>
>> He is lying about the virgin birth: his entire claim is based on
>> clearly fictional NT so-called "gospels".
>>
>> The earliest gospel made no mention of a virgin birth nor did it
>> mention a ressurection.
>>
>> The Pope!  What a sick joke.
>>
>> Budikka
>
>The Pope doesn't own or possess any of the artifacts or regalia or
>buildings associated with his position as head of the Roman Catholic
>Church.
>
>Even if everything associated with the Vatican and the Papal office
>were sold off the money obtained wouldn't go far or last very long.
>
>And once it was all gone, poverty would still exist.

Da dud is too stupid to understand that.

>There are many multi-millionaires in the world who have personal
>fortunes that they could easily give away a significant portion of and
>still live in comfort to a degree none of us could ever achieve.
>
>Yet they never offer the smallest iota of that wealth to help anyone.
>
>Seems odd that you should be critical of one man who possesses
>nothing, yet fail to deal with those truly wealthy people in the same
>way.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Ken]

The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan
is proof you can't fix stupid.

[duke]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 07:33:51 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:

>The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan
>is proof you can't fix stupid.

Yes, I keep pointing my finger at you and you are still stupid.

[Ken]

"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
that you can't fix stupi

[Budikka666]

Budikka writes:

> On 22 Nov, 01:48, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/pope-embarrasses-
c...
>>
>> This is the pope, right?  He claims to be a Christian, yet he fails to
>> do a single thing his farcical Messiah told him to do.  Do you see him
>> giving everything to the poor and following Jesus as he was instructed
>> to do?  Or do we see him living in the lap of luxury?  He's a hypocrite
>>
>> He's also a liar.
>>
>> He is lying about the virgin birth: his entire claim is based on
>> clearly fictional NT so-called "gospels".
>>
>> The earliest gospel made no mention of a virgin birth nor did it
>> mention a ressurection.
>>
>> The Pope!  What a sick joke.
>>
>> Budikka
>
> The Pope doesn't own or possess any of the artifacts or regalia or
> buildings associated with his position as head of the Roman Catholic
> Church.

You're missing the point. They are all supposedly Christians in the
Catholic church. Someone, somewhere, or some Christian group owns all of
that. Some Christian, somewhere, or some Christian group could elect to
sell it all and give the proceeds to the poor instead of living in luxury
whilst children starve.

I'm sorry but I don't buy your evident philosophy that if we can't help
them all then it's pointless to offer any help even those we can.

But none of this is relevant to the hypocrisy of these scum. According
to NT fiction, Jesus expressly instructed them to give up everything and
follow him, and hardly any so-called Christians actually do that: that's
why they're all hypocrites. They are making up their own religion to
suit them, instead of following the religion they hypocritically urge us
to adopt!

Budikka

[duke]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:

>"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>that you can't fix stupi

A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.

[Caranx latus]

On 11/24/2012 7:52 AM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>> that you can't fix stupi
>
> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.

True if your frame of reference is the ball itself, but false if your
frame of reference is the universe. Either the universe rotates around
the ball or the ball rotates within the universe. There are no other
options. Which do you think is more likely to match reality?

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>> >that you can't fix stupi
> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.

So how does the ball remain attached to the string as IT rotates?


--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[duke]

Let's keep it simple, stupid. When I swing a ball on a string around my head,
the ball is circling me, but it isn't rotating me. There are no rotation
vectors on the ball relative to me.

[duke]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 07:29:26 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>> >that you can't fix stupi
>> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>
>So how does the ball remain attached to the string as IT rotates?

That's why I said "NO ROTATION". That's what "rotation vectors are NOT present"
means.

[Ken]

On Nov 24, 7:29 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> duke wrote:

> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flakey...@aol.com>  wrote:
>
> >> >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
> >> >that you can't fix stupi
> > A ball on a string is not rotating.  Rotation vectors are not present.
>
> So how does the ball remain attached to the string as IT rotates?
>

He's too fucking stupid to understand.
Besides the Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
that you can't fix stupid!

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:58:13 -0500, Caranx latus<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >On 11/24/2012 7:52 AM, duke wrote:
>>> >>On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >>>"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>> >>>that you can't fix stupi
>>> >>
>>> >>A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>> >True if your frame of reference is the ball itself, but false if your
>> >frame of reference is the universe. Either the universe rotates around
>> >the ball or the ball rotates within the universe. There are no other
>> >options. Which do you think is more likely to match reality?
> Let's keep it simple, stupid. When I swing a ball on a string around my head,
> the ball is circling me, but it isn't rotating me. There are no rotation
> vectors on the ball relative to me.

Did you really go to college, Duke?

If you did, you would know that the Earth actually rotates once in 23
hours, 56 minutes, and 4.09 seconds relative to the distant stars, but
its rotation around the sun during that time (called revolution to avoid
confusion) makes the sun appears to shift its position relative to the
Earth, requiring an extra nearly four minutes of rotation to bring the
sun back to the reference point (usually taken as the zenith), thus
resulting in a solar day of exactly 24 hours? So we have two "rotation
vectors" as you put it, one with an axis through the Earth, involving
its own bulk, and another with an axis through the sun, involving the
Earth.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
> >that you can't fix stupi
>
> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.

And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
completely rejects reality.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[linuxgal]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,
> duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>>> > >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>> > >that you can't fix stupi
>> >
>> >A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
> And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
> completely rejects reality.

Because he thinks all of reality rotates around him.

[Caranx latus]

On 11/24/2012 1:53 PM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:58:13 -0500, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2012 7:52 AM, duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>> that you can't fix stupi
>>>
>>> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>
>> True if your frame of reference is the ball itself, but false if your
>> frame of reference is the universe. Either the universe rotates around
>> the ball or the ball rotates within the universe. There are no other
>> options. Which do you think is more likely to match reality?
>
> Let's keep it simple, stupid. When I swing a ball on a string around my head,
> the ball is circling me, but it isn't rotating me. There are no rotation
> vectors on the ball relative to me.

"isn't rotating me..." What?

Are you turning to continue facing the ball at all times? If so, then
you're right. In that frame of reference, the universe is spinning very
rapidly around you such that material parts of it not all that far away
are moving many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light.
That's conceptually possible but physically impossible.

If you aren't turning to face the ball, then it most certainly does have
rotation vectors with respect to you and everything else in the
universe. That's conceptually possible and physically possible as well.

Hmmm... one of these things is not like the other. If you like living in
conceptual universes which have no bearing on reality, then be my guest.
Of course, being a God-botherer, you already do, don't you?

[Caranx latus]

On 11/24/2012 8:34 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,
>> duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>>> > >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>> > >that you can't fix stupi
>>> >
>>> >A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>> And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
>> completely rejects reality.
>
> Because he thinks all of reality rotates around him.

Whereas in actuality, reality will have nothing whatsoever to do with him.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 25 Nov, 01:53, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/2012 1:53 PM, duke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:58:13 -0500, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/24/2012 7:52 AM, duke wrote:

> >>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
> >>>> that you can't fix stupi
>
> >>> A ball on a string is not rotating.  Rotation vectors are not present.
>
> >> True if your frame of reference is the ball itself, but false if your
> >> frame of reference is the universe. Either the universe rotates around
> >> the ball or the ball rotates within the universe. There are no other
> >> options. Which do you think is more likely to match reality?
>
> > Let's keep it simple, stupid.  When I swing a ball on a string around my head,
> > the ball is circling me, but it isn't rotating me.  There are no rotation
> > vectors on the ball relative to me.
>
> "isn't rotating me..." What?
>
> Are you turning to continue facing the ball at all times? If so, then
> you're right. In that frame of reference, the universe is spinning very
> rapidly around you such that material parts of it not all that far away
> are moving many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light.
> That's conceptually possible but physically impossible.
>
> If you aren't turning to face the ball, then it most certainly does have
> rotation vectors with respect to you and everything else in the
> universe. That's conceptually possible and physically possible as well.
>
> Hmmm... one of these things is not like the other.

Do they teach this kind of thing on Sesame Street? :P

[duke]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 15:14:18 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:58:13 -0500, Caranx latus<aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >On 11/24/2012 7:52 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> >>On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>>> >>>that you can't fix stupi
>>>> >>
>>>> >>A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>>> >True if your frame of reference is the ball itself, but false if your
>>> >frame of reference is the universe. Either the universe rotates around
>>> >the ball or the ball rotates within the universe. There are no other
>>> >options. Which do you think is more likely to match reality?
>> Let's keep it simple, stupid. When I swing a ball on a string around my head,
>> the ball is circling me, but it isn't rotating me. There are no rotation
>> vectors on the ball relative to me.
>
>Did you really go to college, Duke?

156 semester hours.

>If you did, you would know that the Earth actually rotates once in 23
>hours, 56 minutes, and 4.09 seconds relative to the distant stars, but
>its rotation around the sun during that time (called revolution to avoid
>confusion) makes the sun appears to shift its position relative to the
>Earth, requiring an extra nearly four minutes of rotation to bring the
>sun back to the reference point (usually taken as the zenith), thus
>resulting in a solar day of exactly 24 hours? So we have two "rotation
>vectors" as you put it, one with an axis through the Earth, involving
>its own bulk, and another with an axis through the sun, involving the
>Earth.

Rotation mandates directly opposed tangent vectors either side of the object's
centroid. You tell me.

[duke]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:53:55 -0500, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/24/2012 1:53 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 08:58:13 -0500, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/2012 7:52 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>>> that you can't fix stupi
>>>>
>>>> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>>
>>> True if your frame of reference is the ball itself, but false if your
>>> frame of reference is the universe. Either the universe rotates around
>>> the ball or the ball rotates within the universe. There are no other
>>> options. Which do you think is more likely to match reality?
>>
>> Let's keep it simple, stupid. When I swing a ball on a string around my head,
>> the ball is circling me, but it isn't rotating me. There are no rotation
>> vectors on the ball relative to me.

>"isn't rotating me..." What?

Here's a clue. You must read the whole statement first.

>Are you turning to continue facing the ball at all times? If so, then
>you're right. In that frame of reference, the universe is spinning very
>rapidly around you such that material parts of it not all that far away
>are moving many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light.
>That's conceptually possible but physically impossible.

And it's also totally wrong.

>If you aren't turning to face the ball, then it most certainly does have
>rotation vectors with respect to you and everything else in the
>universe. That's conceptually possible and physically possible as well.

No it doesn't. I'm not turning at all. I'm swinging a ball on a string around
my head, said ball totally lacking in rotation vectors reference to me just like
a plane circling (nor rotating) around the airport for landing.

>Hmmm... one of these things is not like the other. If you like living in
>conceptual universes which have no bearing on reality, then be my guest.
>Of course, being a God-botherer, you already do, don't you?

I'm the realistic one, not you.

[duke]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:28:13 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Nov 24, 7:29 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flakey...@aol.com>  wrote:
>>
>> >> >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>> >> >that you can't fix stupi
>> > A ball on a string is not rotating.  Rotation vectors are not present.
>>
>> So how does the ball remain attached to the string as IT rotates?

>He's too fucking stupid to understand.

Waiting on you to demonstrate.

[duke]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:31:54 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,
> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>> >that you can't fix stupi
>>
>> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>
>And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
>completely rejects reality.

Show me the money..............eh, rotation vectors.

[duke]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:34:06 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,
>> duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>>> > >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>> > >that you can't fix stupi
>>> >
>>> >A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>> And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
>> completely rejects reality.
>
>Because he thinks all of reality rotates around him.

No, Jesus taught me otherwise. What does tao say?

[duke]

So demonstrate to me the rotation vectors.

[Caranx latus]

You have absolutely no idea how to work with vectors, do you? The
direction that the ball faces (where it's "face" is defined as the side
of the ball where the string attachment point is at the center) changes
*constantly* with respect to the direction that you face. When the ball
is in front of you, you and the ball are facing in opposite directions.
When it is directly behind you, you are facing in the *same* direction.
When the ball is directly to one side of you or the other, you face at
right angles to one another. Why is that?

>> Hmmm... one of these things is not like the other. If you like living in
>> conceptual universes which have no bearing on reality, then be my guest.
>> Of course, being a God-botherer, you already do, don't you?
>
> I'm the realistic one, not you.

Not so much.

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:34:06 -0800, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> >Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>> >>In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,
>>> >> duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>>>> >>> >On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>> >>>> > >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>>>>> >>>> > >that you can't fix stupi
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>>> >>And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
>>> >>completely rejects reality.
>> >
>> >Because he thinks all of reality rotates around him.
> No, Jesus taught me otherwise. What does tao say?

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts
Even one thing befalleth them
As the one dieth, so dieth the other.
Yea, they have all one breath
So that a man hath no preeminence above a beast
For all is vanity.

All go unto one place
All are of the dust
And all turn to dust again.
Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward
And the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man
should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall
bring him to see what shall be after him?

[Caranx latus]

On 11/25/2012 9:43 AM, duke wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:56:13 -0500, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2012 8:34 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,
>>>> duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>>>>>> that you can't fix stupi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>>>> And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
>>>> completely rejects reality.
>>>
>>> Because he thinks all of reality rotates around him.
>>
>> Whereas in actuality, reality will have nothing whatsoever to do with him.
>
> So demonstrate to me the rotation vectors.

Certainly.

First, some terms:
F: fixed point at which string is attached
C: center of gravity of the ball
P: attachment point of the string on the surface of the ball
Q: point on the opposite side of the ball from P
b: radius of ball (distance from C to P, C to Q)
r: radius of ball's circular orbit (distance from C to F)
t: time that it takes for the ball to complete one revolution around F

The circumference of the circle that C follows is 2*pi*r. Do you understand?

The circumference of the circle that P follows is 2*pi*(r-b). The
circumference of the circle that Q follows is 2*pi*(r+b). Do you understand?

C's speed is 2*pi*r/t.
P's speed is 2*pi*(r-b)/t.
Q's speed is 2*pi*(r+b)/t.
Do you understand?

P's speed relative to C is -2*pi*b/t.
Q's speed relative to C is 2*pi*b/t.
Do you understand?

Relative to C, P and Q are moving at the same speed but in opposite
directions.

There are your rotation vectors.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 25 Nov, 16:36, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/25/2012 9:43 AM, duke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:56:13 -0500, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/24/2012 8:34 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> >>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> >>>> In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltjgf4l6uj0m560va...@4ax.com>,
> >>>>    duke<duckgumb...@cox.net>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flakey...@aol.com>

And this is the proof from mathematics of what can easily be observed
if one does the appropriate experiments.

[duke]

I'm highly familiar with vectors. A ball on a string in no way demonstrates
rotation vectors. I know the definition.

> When the ball
>is in front of you, you and the ball are facing in opposite directions.
>When it is directly behind you, you are facing in the *same* direction.
>When the ball is directly to one side of you or the other, you face at
>right angles to one another. Why is that?

The ball lacks rotation vectors.

>>> Hmmm... one of these things is not like the other. If you like living in
>>> conceptual universes which have no bearing on reality, then be my guest.
>>> Of course, being a God-botherer, you already do, don't you?

>> I'm the realistic one, not you.
>Not so much.

Haahaahaa. You can't even comprehend what constitutes rotation of an object.

[duke]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:36:19 -0500, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/25/2012 9:43 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:56:13 -0500, Caranx latus <aug....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/2012 8:34 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>>>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>>> In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>>>>>>> that you can't fix stupi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>>>>> And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
>>>>> completely rejects reality.
>>>>
>>>> Because he thinks all of reality rotates around him.
>>>
>>> Whereas in actuality, reality will have nothing whatsoever to do with him.
>>
>> So demonstrate to me the rotation vectors.
>
>Certainly.

ALRIGHT, a challenge.

>First, some terms:
>F: fixed point at which string is attached
>C: center of gravity of the ball
>P: attachment point of the string on the surface of the ball

That's already "F".

>Q: point on the opposite side of the ball from P

Which is already "F".

>b: radius of ball (distance from C to P, C to Q)
>r: radius of ball's circular orbit (distance from C to F)

Irrelevant.

>t: time that it takes for the ball to complete one revolution around F

Irrelevant.

>The circumference of the circle that C follows is 2*pi*r. Do you understand?
>
>The circumference of the circle that P follows is 2*pi*(r-b). The
>circumference of the circle that Q follows is 2*pi*(r+b). Do you understand?

Of course.

>C's speed is 2*pi*r/t.
>P's speed is 2*pi*(r-b)/t.
>Q's speed is 2*pi*(r+b)/t.
>Do you understand?

Absolutely.

>P's speed relative to C is -2*pi*b/t.
>Q's speed relative to C is 2*pi*b/t.
>Do you understand?

>Relative to C, P and Q are moving at the same speed but in opposite
>directions.

Not for a ball on a string. Vectors P and Q are in the same direction as is the
C direction, not opposite directions.

>There are your rotation vectors.

You're dead in the water.

[duke]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:08:57 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You just can't hide from the demonstrated fact of yours that the P and Q vectors
are both in the same direction. For rotation, they must be diametrically
opposed.

[duke]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 07:56:14 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 17:34:06 -0800, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>>> >>In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltj...@4ax.com>,
>>>> >> duke<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> >On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flak...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>>>> >>>> > >"ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
>>>>>>>> >>>> > >that you can't fix stupi
>>>>>> >>> >
>>>>>> >>> >A ball on a string is not rotating. Rotation vectors are not present.
>>>> >>And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
>>>> >>completely rejects reality.
>>> >
>>> >Because he thinks all of reality rotates around him.
>> No, Jesus taught me otherwise. What does tao say?
>
>For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts
>Even one thing befalleth them
>As the one dieth, so dieth the other.
>Yea, they have all one breath
>So that a man hath no preeminence above a beast
>For all is vanity.

The bible clearly reveals that man has dominion over all other living things.

>All go unto one place
>All are of the dust
>And all turn to dust again.
>Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward
>And the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Christianity says that.

>Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man
>should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall
>bring him to see what shall be after him?

What works?

[Devils Advocaat]

On 26 Nov, 13:36, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:08:57 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

Do you recall the videos I provided?

One involving rotation.

The other no rotation.

Do you?

[Ken]

The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is loving proof you can't fix
Ball-on-a-String stupid.

[Ken]

On Nov 26, 5:25 am, puke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote this crtap

> I'm highly familiar with vectors.

The Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan

You don't even know shit about shit!!

[Devils Advocaat]

On 26 Nov, 13:32, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 11:36:19 -0500, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/25/2012 9:43 AM, duke wrote:

> >> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 20:56:13 -0500, Caranx latus <aug.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/24/2012 8:34 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> >>>> Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> >>>>> In article<mng1b81n4ht94eltjgf4l6uj0m560va...@4ax.com>,
> >>>>>    duke<duckgumb...@cox.net>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:07:32 -0800 (PST), Ken<flakey...@aol.com>

> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> "ball on a string" Pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is living proof
> >>>>>>>>> that you can't fix stupi
>
> >>>>>>> A ball on a string is not rotating.  Rotation vectors are not present.
> >>>>> And dukie proves conclusively that he lives in a fantasy world that
> >>>>> completely rejects reality.
>
> >>>> Because he thinks all of reality rotates around him.
>
> >>> Whereas in actuality, reality will have nothing whatsoever to do with him.
>
> >> So demonstrate to me the rotation vectors.
>
> >Certainly.
>
> ALRIGHT, a challenge.
>
> >First, some terms:
> >F: fixed point at which string is attached
> >C: center of gravity of the ball
> >P: attachment point of the string on the surface of the ball
>
> That's already "F".

No, F is the fixed point at the centre of the circle.

>
> >Q: point on the opposite side of the ball from P
>
> Which is already "F".

Wrong.

[Aldo Morow]

On Nov 21, 8:48 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/11/21/pope-embarrasses-c...
>
> This is the pope, right?  He claims to be a Christian, yet he fails to
> do a single thing his farcical Messiah told him to do.  Do you see him
> giving everything to the poor and following Jesus as he was instructed
> to do?  Or do we see him living in the lap of luxury?  He's a
> hypocrite
>
> He's also a liar.
>
> He is lying about the virgin birth: his entire claim is based on
> clearly fictional NT so-called "gospels".
>
> The earliest gospel made no mention of a virgin birth nor did it
> mention a ressurection.


What earliest gospel are you talking about and how do you know fool?


>
> The Pope!  What a sick joke.
>
> Budikka

[duke]

But I know a ball on a string is not rotating.

[duke]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:35:46 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Do you recall the sketches I provided? There are no rotation vectors on a ball
on a string.

>One involving rotation.
>The other no rotation.
>Do you?

[Ken]

The pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is absolute proof that you can't
fix ball-on-a-string stupid.

[duke]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:17:01 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I accept that.

>> >Q: point on the opposite side of the ball from P
>> Which is already "F".
>Wrong.

We've already established that F is the person providing the motion of the ball.

>> >b: radius of ball (distance from C to P, C to Q)
>> >r: radius of ball's circular orbit (distance from C to F)
>> Irrelevant.

>> >t: time that it takes for the ball to complete one revolution around F
>> Irrelevant.

>> >The circumference of the circle that C follows is 2*pi*r. Do you understand?
>> >The circumference of the circle that P follows is 2*pi*(r-b). The
>> >circumference of the circle that Q follows is 2*pi*(r+b). Do you understand?

>> Of course.

>> >C's speed is 2*pi*r/t.
>> >P's speed is 2*pi*(r-b)/t.
>> >Q's speed is 2*pi*(r+b)/t.
>> >Do you understand?
>> Absolutely.

>> >P's speed relative to C is -2*pi*b/t.
>> >Q's speed relative to C is 2*pi*b/t.
>> >Do you understand?
>> >Relative to C, P and Q are moving at the same speed but in opposite
>> >directions.

>> Not for a ball on a string.  Vectors P and Q are in the same direction as is the
>> C direction, not opposite directions.

Don't you get it yet? Movement vectors for P & Q are in the same direction, P
velocity slightly less than C and Q due to the radius differential. But all 3
are in the same direction, and hence no rotation.

[duke]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:47:07 -0800 (PST), Ken <flak...@aol.com> wrote:

>The pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is absolute proof that you can't
>fix ball-on-a-string stupid.

That's because I'm correct.

[Ken]

On Nov 27, 11:26 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 05:47:07 -0800 (PST), Ken <flakey...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The pukester, AmeriKKKan - AmeriKKKan is absolute proof that you can't
> >fix ball-on-a-string stupid.
>
> That's because I'm correct.
>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************

You are correct.... that you're ball-on-a-string stupid

[Devils Advocaat]

On Nov 27, 4:40 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 08:17:01 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

But you are wrong in assuming P and F are the same location.

[duke]

Gotcha.

[duke]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:35:04 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Nope, your clarification corrected that. Velocities F, C and P are all in the
same direction => no rotation.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Nov, 16:49, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:35:04 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

Excuse me, F is the fixed point in the centre of the ball's orbit, it
isn't going anywhere.

[Alan Ferris]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:53:44 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >> We've already established that F is the person providing the motion of the ball.
>>
>> >But you are wrong in assuming P and F are the same location.
>>
>> Nope, your clarification corrected that.  Velocities F, C and P are all in the
>> same direction => no rotation.
>>
>Excuse me, F is the fixed point in the centre of the ball's orbit, it
>isn't going anywhere.

Any idiot knows that which is why Earl cannot understand it. He did his so
called engineering degree at a useless tech college.

--
Ferrit

()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")

[duke]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:53:44 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Already acknowledged - P, Q and C are all vectored in the same direction.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 28 Nov, 20:33, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:53:44 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

> >> Nope, your clarification corrected that. �Velocities F, C and P are all in the

> >> same direction => no rotation.
>
> >Excuse me, F is the fixed point in the centre of the ball's orbit, it
> >isn't going anywhere.
>
> Already acknowledged - P, Q and C are all vectored in the same direction.

Only since I pointed out to you.

[Virgil]

In article
<1582c422-9355-4f44...@dz6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

> > >> Nope, your clarification corrected that. �Velocities F, C and P are

> > >> all in the
> > >> same direction => no rotation.
> >
> > >Excuse me, F is the fixed point in the centre of the ball's orbit, it
> > >isn't going anywhere.
> >
> > Already acknowledged - P, Q and C are all vectored in the same direction.
>
> Only since I pointed out to you.

But P, Q and C have different, though parallel, velocities, which
forces the ball to be rotating, even thought the axis of that rotataion
is external to the ball.

Or does Duke claim that unless the axis of rotation is actually within a
ball it cannot be rotating?

If this were the case the a ball could not be said to roll down a hill,
as such an action would require the ball to rotate about an external
axis.
--

[duke]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:41:01 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> >> Nope, your clarification corrected that. �Velocities F, C and P are all in the

>> >> same direction => no rotation.
>>
>> >Excuse me, F is the fixed point in the centre of the ball's orbit, it
>> >isn't going anywhere.
>>
>> Already acknowledged - P, Q and C are all vectored in the same direction.
>
>Only since I pointed out to you.

Haahaahaa. Now he tries to pretend he knew what I've been telling him for at
least a few years now. Rotation requires opposed tangential velocities to be in
the opposite direction.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Nov 29, 12:42 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:41:01 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

Isn't lying a sin for you and your ilk?

[duke]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:19:02 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And you.

[Devils Advocaat]

On Nov 30, 12:15 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 11:19:02 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

Not having lied, I have no problem.

You on the other hand.

Told a blatant lie in your post.

[duke]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:48:36 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <manky...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Haahaahaa.

[linuxgal]

In the case of a boy with a ball and string, his hand is wiggling. In
the case of the sun and earth, they both revolve around a common barycentre.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Syd M.]

On Nov 30, 12:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:48:36 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>

Hysterical laughter won't cover up your constant lying, Earl.

PDW

[Alan Ferris]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:51:42 -0800 (PST), "Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com>

But it is common in those with mental disorders.

[Devils Advocaat]

On 2 Dec, 11:01, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 17:51:42 -0800 (PST), "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 30, 12:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 04:48:36 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Isn't lying a sin for you and your ilk?
>
> >> >> And you.
>
> >> >Not having lied, I have no problem.
>
> >> Haahaahaa.
>
> >Hysterical laughter won't cover up your constant lying, Earl.
>
> But it is common in those with mental disorders.

Except for psychopaths, sociopaths, schizophrenics, manic depressives,
and .... :P

[duke]

Wow, a barycentre no less. And what does hand wiggling to do with anything?
Heeheehee.

[Linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:59:02 -0800, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
>
>> >Alan Ferris wrote:
>>> >>On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:53:44 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat<manky...@gmail.com>
>>> >>wrote:
>>> >>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>We've already established that F is the person providing the motion of the ball.
>>>>>>> >>>> >>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >> >But you are wrong in assuming P and F are the same location.
>>>>>>> >>>> >>
>>>>>>> >>>> >>Nope, your clarification corrected that. Velocities F, C and P are all in the
>>>>>>> >>>> >>same direction => no rotation.
>>>>>>> >>>> >>
>>>>> >>> >Excuse me, F is the fixed point in the centre of the ball's orbit, it
>>>>> >>> >isn't going anywhere.
>>> >>Any idiot knows that which is why Earl cannot understand it. He did his so
>>> >>called engineering degree at a useless tech college.
>> >
>> >In the case of a boy with a ball and string, his hand is wiggling. In
>> >the case of the sun and earth, they both revolve around a common barycentre.
> Wow, a barycentre no less. And what does hand wiggling to do with anything?
> Heeheehee.

Try getting your ball to spin without wiggling your hand. Don't forget
the Kleenex and the Victoria's Secret catalog.

[duke]

I just never heard of it being called "wiggling". I always heard it called
"wirling" or "twirling"..

[Linuxgal]

Different strokes...

[duke]

But never wiggling.