every inverse-time unit is a speed?
Alan Horowitz
for example: baud, radian frequency. any others? the more obscure,
the better. by the way, didja ever notice that even hardcore metric
countries still quote aircraft and wind-at-sea speeds in knots.
again by the way, is there any usenet newsgroup devoted to
information-theory ?
Apropos of nothing else, is TWX still used anywhere for
communications?
(Hildo) news multikabel
"Alan Horowitz" <alan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e3670a7.03021...@posting.google.com...
A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If you
were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the
halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle
into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute
of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile. This unit of measurement is
used by all nations for air and sea travel.
A knot is a unit of measure for speed. If you are traveling at a speed of 1
nautical mile per hour, you are said to be traveling at a speed of 1 knot.
It's a handy unit when your navigating because of its direct relation to the
size of the earth.
There's no such justification for the "standard" mile.
Hildo
Traveler
alan...@yahoo.com (Alan Horowitz) wrote:
>is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
It's a rate of change. Time is an invariant "evolution" parameter. The
evolution does not have to involve a change of position. It can be a
change in anything.
Louis Savain
-------------------------------------------------
Temporal Intelligence:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
The Silver Bullet:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Paul Cardinale
> is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
>
No. For example, impulse has dimensions of: mass * distance / time.
Paul Cardinale
Randy Poe
> A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If you
> were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of the
> halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that circle
> into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A minute
> of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile.
It was originally. Now it's exactly 1852 meters.
- Randy
Randy Poe
> is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
No. It's a time rate, it's something per unit time, but
that doesn't necessarily mean a speed.
>
> for example: baud,
Oh, if bit rate is within your definition of "speed",
then I guess the answer to your question is "yes, by
definition". Your definition seems to be "any quantity
which characterizes something per unit time is a
speed". Then you ask "is any unit which is something
per unit time a speed?"
I was going to offer the example of Watts, which
is Joules per second. Power in general is energy per
unit time. I wouldn't call that a speed, but I guess
you would.
> radian frequency. any others? the more obscure,
> the better. by the way, didja ever notice that even hardcore metric
> countries still quote aircraft and wind-at-sea speeds in knots.
Yep. The nautical mile has been standardized to 1852
meters exactly. So now, in a sense, it's metric.
- Randy
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
>
No. Viscoscity (as in fluid dynamics) has units of length squared over time.
--
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
ste...@math.missouri.edu
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gc1...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Alan Horowitz wrote:
> > is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
>
> No. It's a time rate, it's something per unit time, but
> that doesn't necessarily mean a speed.
Bullshit twist crap.
rpm's is a speed
anything "per" time unit is a "speed".
You are truly a math scam artist
or truly a brainwashed fool.
> I was going to offer the example of Watts, which
> is Joules per second.
speed of power given per second.
> Power in general is energy per
> unit time. I wouldn't call that a speed, but I guess
> you would.
anyone would,
only twisted flux capacitor salesmen like you "wouldn't".
> Yep. The nautical mile has been standardized to 1852
> meters exactly. So now, in a sense, it's metric.
You are lost!
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gc4...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Not near the poles dungbrain!
In fact at the poles it is "much shorter"
Still to ignorant to see any wrongs with what you spout huh?
Spaceman
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:64050551.03021...@posting.google.com...
mass * distance is a "bullshit term"
It means nothing!
Brad McFarlane
But distance/time is velocity. Multiple velocity by mass, and you have
momentum, which is an extremely useful quantity, as people like Isaac
Newton found out.
-Brad
Spaceman
"Brad McFarlane" <brad.mc...@alcatel.com> wrote in message news:3E4BC49F...@alcatel.com...
> But distance/time is velocity. Multiple velocity by mass, and you have
> momentum,
No,
momentum alone, is the "velocity" and is the "speed"
You are speaking of "momentum energy or force"
when you use the mass amount at all with velocity or speed.
KE=1/mv^2
or
E=mc^2
or
F=ma
mass times velocity gives an energy and force reading,
not "momentum"
momentum is "motion" and is "velocity" and is "speed".
mass has nothing to do with "momentum" alone.
>which is an extremely useful quantity, as people like Isaac
> Newton found out.
Wrong.
Brad McFarlane
>
> "Brad McFarlane" <brad.mc...@alcatel.com> wrote in message news:3E4BC49F...@alcatel.com...
> > But distance/time is velocity. Multiple velocity by mass, and you have
> > momentum,
>
> No,
> momentum alone, is the "velocity" and is the "speed"
> You are speaking of "momentum energy or force"
> when you use the mass amount at all with velocity or speed.
Momentum and velocity and speed are *different* quantities, which is why
they have different names. Pick up any high-school or university intro
physics text, or head to:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci755419,00.html
for a definition of momentum.
In part, it says,
>
> Momentum is a vector quantity that is the product of the mass and the
> velocity of an object or particle.
>
If you think momentum has different definition, please provide
references (aside from your claims); a Google search of "definition of
momentum" doesn't give much beyond "p=mv".
-Brad
Jo Stoller
>A minute of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile.
Approximately. The earth is not a true sphere, so unfortunately it is
not possible to have a fixed relationship between angle and distance.
The definition of a nautical mile is 1852 m.
This is stated in the brochure on the official SI website.
www.bipm.fr/enus/3_SI/si.html
Trying to help.
Spaceman
"Brad McFarlane" <brad.mc...@alcatel.com> wrote in message news:3E4BCF55...@alcatel.com...
> Momentum and velocity and speed are *different* quantities,
They are not,
only foolish brainwashed "time travel dupes" would say they are.
KeithMK
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:5ZO2a.99604$vm2.57216@rwcrnsc54...
Sorry, but you are wrong. A nautical mile is the same anywhere on the
globe. Being near the pole has nothing to do with it.
Dirk Van de moortel
"KeithMK" <Keit...@aol.com> wrote in message news:lkR2a.1023$Rx3....@news1.west.cox.net...
>
> "Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:5ZO2a.99604$vm2.57216@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:b2gc4...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > > (Hildo) news multikabel wrote:
> > > > A nautical mile is based on the circumference of the planet Earth. If
> you
> > > > were to cut the Earth in half at the equator, you could pick up one of
> the
> > > > halves and look at the equator as a circle. You could divide that
> circle
> > > > into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60 minutes. A
> minute
> > > > of arc on the planet Earth is 1 nautical mile.
> > >
> > > It was originally. Now it's exactly 1852 meters.
> >
> > Not near the poles dungbrain!
> > In fact at the poles it is "much shorter"
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong.
Spacemoron is *never* wrong.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
Hildo was talking about "minutes in degrees" as lengths (naut-miles)
Randy referring to a degree minute being a nautical mile at all.
Is what is wrong.
That is what I was referring to.
A mile can not coincide with "minutes" nor degrees of Earth.
OK?
Get it now?
Sorry for any confusion there.
Spaceman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pqR2a.48235$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> Spacemoron is *never* wrong.
No Dirk de Jerk,
It is you who is "always Mr perfect".
I have admitted faults.
It is you that "refuses to" ever.
Poor Mr perfect.
<LOL>
Randy Poe
I'm hoping everybody else understood that I was talking
about the nautical mile, not one minute of longitude.
The original definition of the nmi was 1 minute of longitude
at the equator. The modern definition is "exactly 1852 m",
which is a slightly different number.
By the way, near the poles one minute of great circle arc
is very close to the same as at the equator. A great
circle is not a latitude line.
- Randy
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gc1...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>meters exactly. So now, in a sense, it's metric.
>
>
> You are lost!
> <LOL>
What do you think a nautical mile is?
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gn3...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> I'm hoping everybody else understood that I was talking
> about the nautical mile, not one minute of longitude.
I was making sure they did.
You hate that huh?
> The original definition of the nmi was 1 minute of longitude
> at the equator. The modern definition is "exactly 1852 m",
> which is a slightly different number.
I agree too!
but you did not make that point clear.
You acted as if the "minute of degree" was that.
> By the way, near the poles one minute of great circle arc
> is very close to the same as at the equator. A great
> circle is not a latitude line.
At the equator the minutes are not "great circles"
so
that is irrlevant.
as usual from you.
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gn8...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Nothing to do with the minute of a degree on Earth.
Just like I stated.
Peter Skelton
>> > But distance/time is velocity. Multiple velocity by mass, and you have
>> > momentum,
>>
Velocity is not distance per unit time. It is displacement per
unit time. Displacement is a vector, distance is scalar. Distance
per unit time is speed.
____
Peter Skelton
Spaceman
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:09qn4vgeo8kmotpjf...@4ax.com...
<LOL>
velocity is "distance per time"
Velocity is speed.
speed is velocity
momentum is also the same.
Sheesh!
You guys are so twisted you will never find out "why"
Vectors are your "infection" of the real speeds, velocities
and momentums.
Lew Paterson
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
,snip.
>
> mass times velocity gives an energy and force reading,
> not "momentum"
> momentum is "motion" and is "velocity" and is "speed".
>
>
> mass has nothing to do with "momentum" alone.
I take it you are an arts graduate? ie non-technical
lcp
Spaceman
"Lew Paterson" <lew.pa...@physics.org> wrote in message news:b2h2pn$vaq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I take it you are an arts graduate? ie non-technical
You take it completely wrong.
I am a technition.
otherwise known as a mechanic.
It's too bad.
you are such a bad guesser.
Or was that just a sad insult?
Hey Lew.
Can you say three words?
distance per time.
Now,
go study them.
Or stay a fool like the rest of these dungheads.
Mike Varney
"Alan Horowitz" <alan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e3670a7.03021...@posting.google.com...
> is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
No: time/time
Traveler
<var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
Is this why you believe that time dilates, moron? Is this why you and
Gregory Hansen believe that we are moving in time at 1 second per
second? Is this why your idols Kip Thorne, David Deutsch and the
little con artist in the wheelchair believe in time travel? I thought
so. Keep on kissing ass, Varnette, you racist crackpot.
Louis Savain
-------------------------------------------------
Temporal Intelligence:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
The Silver Bullet:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Jeremy
> rpm's is a speed
RPM's what is a speed?
--
One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike and yet it is the most precious
thing we have.
-Albert Einstein
Remove pants to reply.
Jeremy
news:b2h2pn$vaq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I take it you are an arts graduate? ie non-technical
No, he's just an idiot. Probably didn't even graduate High School, based
upon his unbelievably ridiculous use of grammar, punctuation, spelling, and,
uh, well, logic in general (not that any of these are necessarily taught at
most high schools, but you should pick up at least one of these from it...)
Spaceman
"Jeremy" <cfg...@pants.attbi.com> wrote in message news:CSU2a.101720$vm2.57948@rwcrnsc54...
> "Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:3YO2a.100303$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> > rpm's is a speed
>
> RPM's what is a speed?
>
RPM's "what nothin'"
that is the speed.
Rotations Per Minute.
Jeremy
> Not near the poles dungbrain!
> In fact at the poles it is "much shorter"
>
> Still to ignorant to see any wrongs with what you spout huh?
Let me re-write he wrote, but with some words in caps...
A nautical mile is based on the CIRCUMFERENCE of the planet Earth. If you
were to cut the Earth in half AT THE EQUATOR, you could pick up one of the
halves and LOOK AT THE EQUATOR AS A CIRCLE. You could divide THAT (I.E., THE
**EQUATOR**) circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into 60
minutes [keep in mind, we're still talking about the equator, here]. A
minute of arc on the planet Earth [still at the equator...] is 1 nautical
mile. This unit of measurement is used by all nations for air and sea
travel.
I don't know about you, but it seems pretty damned clear to me, judging my
the fact that he was specifically talking about the equator that it was
defined from there! Idiot.
Spaceman
"Jeremy" <cfg...@pants.attbi.com> wrote in message news:VWU2a.102420$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> No, he's just an idiot.
and that is from a dork that asked
What RPM means!
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Jeremy" <cfg...@pants.attbi.com> wrote in message news:1%U2a.101053$HN5.3...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
<snipped ignorant moronic twisting crap I always get from time travel fools>
Jeremy.
I know what was stated,
It was not stated clearly enough so I tried to help.
so shove your stupid ass comments
back up your as where the crap came from.
Puke Off you little sack of shit idiot!
What does RPM mean moron?
Got it yet?
time units are not "speeds"
speeds,velocities, and momentums contain time units
no time unit = any distance.
MORON!
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gn3...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>I'm hoping everybody else understood that I was talking
>>about the nautical mile, not one minute of longitude.
>
>
> I was making sure they did.
> You hate that huh?
>
>
>>The original definition of the nmi was 1 minute of longitude
>>at the equator. The modern definition is "exactly 1852 m",
>>which is a slightly different number.
>
>
> I agree too!
> but you did not make that point clear.
> You acted as if the "minute of degree" was that.
>
>
>>By the way, near the poles one minute of great circle arc
>>is very close to the same as at the equator. A great
>>circle is not a latitude line.
>
>
Wow, this post was almost sane and rational.
> At the equator the minutes are not "great circles"
This minor point is incorrect, as the equator is
a great circle.
> so
> that is irrlevant.
Well, it was in response to your statement about "a minute
of arc at the poles". I'm pointing out that depending on
how you interpret it, "a minute of arc" at the poles
is the same as at the equator or at 30 degrees north.
The only difference is due to the difference between
equatorial and polar radius.
- Randy
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gn8...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>>"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gc1...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>>Yep. The nautical mile has been standardized to 1852
>>>>meters exactly. So now, in a sense, it's metric.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are lost!
>>><LOL>
>>
>>What do you think a nautical mile is?
>
>
> Nothing to do with the minute of a degree on Earth.
> Just like I stated.
The above sentence does not mention minutes or degrees.
So why is it "lost <LOL>"?
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2h6p...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Wow, this post was almost sane and rational.
Fuch off puke.
>
> > At the equator the minutes are not "great circles"
>
> This minor point is incorrect, as the equator is
> a great circle.
You are truly lost!
there is no such thing as a "great circle" moron!
There is always a greater one,
just a tiny bit outside that one.
You are truly "spacetime" bound..
Tis sad..
stuck on a Flat Universe with limited circles
and limited smalls!
<LOL>
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2h6s...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> The above sentence does not mention minutes or degrees.
Hildo's did,
Fuch off with your twisted crap Randy.
and
Seek help along with TB.
You "really" need it.
Then again,
I don't think any shrink could help you since
you are so brainwashed, you think you could
never be wrong ever.
and that alone is "real" sad.
Ron Larham
The evidence from this thread is that "Spaceman" certainly
knows what a dork is, whatever else he may or may not know.
RonL
Duane Allen
> is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
>
> the better. ...
Rather than using the word speed, the word rate may be a better
expression to describe the units with time in the denominator. If you
check out a page on units, http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html,
you will see that becquerel, the measure of activity (of a radionuclide)
is [events] per second. The page also contains many units which have
time in the denominator.
Duane Allen
Spaceman
"Ron Larham" <lar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bf77f6d2.03021...@posting.google.com...
Nice "nothing-ness" insult asshole.
Got any proof I am wrong or you jumping in the
SR doggy patrol and licking up the crap just like they do?
Peter Skelton
Have it your own way, you don't know what a dork is.
____
Peter Skelton
Spaceman
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:j1rp4v0t6cvbev2ki...@4ax.com...
> Have it your own way, you don't know what a dork is.
A dork in "Universal meanings" means
a fool who has no clue that an atomic clock
has faults and is only goofing up trying to keep time
and no proof of "time changing" has ever been "measured"
ever.
It also means a fool that lost the "science of measurement"
completely.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2h6p...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>Wow, this post was almost sane and rational.
>
>
> Fuch off puke.
>
>
>>>At the equator the minutes are not "great circles"
>>
>>This minor point is incorrect, as the equator is
>>a great circle.
>
>
> You are truly lost!
> there is no such thing as a "great circle" moron!
On the silly assumption that you might actually be interested
in learning something, here's the definition of "great
circle" from Mathworld:
(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatCircle.html)
A great circle is a section of a sphere that contains
a diameter of the sphere (Kern and Bland 1948, p. 87).
Sections of the sphere that do not contain a diameter
are called small circles.
Though dictionaries are not good places to find technically
correct descriptions of mathematical terms, this is a
fairly simple one. Here's what Merriam-Webster has:
a circle formed on the surface of a sphere by the
intersection of a plane that passes through the center
of the sphere; specifically : such a circle on the surface
of the earth an arc of which connecting two terrestrial
points constitutes the shortest distance on the earth's
surface between them
> There is always a greater one,
> just a tiny bit outside that one.
There is no "outside" on the surface of the sphere.
Longitude lines are great circles.
Can you really have gotten this far in life without ever
hearing this term?
- Randy
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2h6s...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>The above sentence does not mention minutes or degrees.
>
>
> Hildo's did,
> Fuch off with your twisted crap Randy.
I will "twist" your post by quoting your words without
modifying. Here's your whole post.
>> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2gc1...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>> Alan Horowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>>> > is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. It's a time rate, it's something per unit time, but
>>>> that doesn't necessarily mean a speed.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit twist crap.
>> rpm's is a speed
>> anything "per" time unit is a "speed".
>> You are truly a math scam artist
>> or truly a brainwashed fool.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I was going to offer the example of Watts, which
>>>> is Joules per second.
>>
>>
>> speed of power given per second.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Power in general is energy per
>>>> unit time. I wouldn't call that a speed, but I guess
>>>> you would.
>>
>>
>> anyone would,
>> only twisted flux capacitor salesmen like you "wouldn't".
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Yep. The nautical mile has been standardized to 1852
>>>> meters exactly. So now, in a sense, it's metric.
>>
>>
>> You are lost!
>> <LOL>
>>
>>
Now, you'll note that nothing from Hildo is in there.
You'll also note the paragraph I wrote that provoked you
to say I'm "lost <LOL>".
Just out of curiosity. What in that paragraph struck
you as "lost <LOL>"?
Can't be a statement about minutes or arc. There isn't
one. Can't be something Hildo said. There aren't any of
Hildo's words. Besides, why would something Hildo said
cause you to tell ME I'm "lost <LOL>"?
Care to try again at remembering what you were thinking
two posts ago?
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2j6j...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> On the silly assumption that you might actually be interested
> in learning something, here's the definition of "great
> circle" from Mathworld:
> (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatCircle.html)
>
> A great circle is a section of a sphere that contains
> a diameter of the sphere (Kern and Bland 1948, p. 87).
> Sections of the sphere that do not contain a diameter
> are called small circles.
Who cares about the "crap" like that.
Tell me your "great circle's diameter"
I will double it and 2 of your great circles will fit in one
of mine.
(to infinity)
Tell me you "small circle's diameter",
I will cut it in half (radius)
and have 2 smaller circles that fit inside it.
(to infinity)
Forgot basic math didn't you?
There is no such thing as "greatest"
and no such thing as "smallest".
Wake up will ya!
Sheesh!
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman.
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2j6q...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Now, you'll note that nothing from Hildo is in there.
> You'll also note the paragraph I wrote that provoked you
> to say I'm "lost <LOL>".
and you have lost "WHY I STATED" such at all.
Fuch Off Randy,
your mind is so freakin twisted you "refuse" to admit
you could even be close to wrong.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2j6j...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>>On the silly assumption that you might actually be interested
>>in learning something, here's the definition of "great
>>circle" from Mathworld:
>>(http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatCircle.html)
>>
>> A great circle is a section of a sphere that contains
>> a diameter of the sphere (Kern and Bland 1948, p. 87).
>> Sections of the sphere that do not contain a diameter
>> are called small circles.
>
>
> Who cares about the "crap" like that.
Who cares about the "crap" like the definition of a great
circle, when talking about what a great circle is?
> Tell me your "great circle's diameter"
Since the great circle is a slice through a sphere
(the largest such circle) its diameter is the same
as the sphere.
> I will double it and 2 of your great circles will fit in one
> of mine.
That is not a great circle, since by definition a
great circle is a slice through a sphere. You can't
slice through a sphere and get a circle with diameter
2d.
> Tell me you "small circle's diameter",
> I will cut it in half (radius)
> and have 2 smaller circles that fit inside it.
What does that have to do with anything? Yes,
there are smaller slices through a sphere. Latitude
lines constitute such slices.
A great circle is the BIGGEST slice.
> (to infinity)
That direction is zero, not infinity.
> Forgot basic math didn't you?
> There is no such thing as "greatest"
> and no such thing as "smallest".
The smallest slice has diameter zero. There's no smaller.
The largest slice has diameter d (same as the sphere).
There's no larger slice.
By definition, a "great circle" is (among other things)
a slice through the sphere. But oh, that's right, you
think the definition doesn't matter when talking about
what the definition is.
I guess we should talk about cube-shaped spheres next,
since using the definition of a sphere would just be
"crap", right? I guess we could use "spheres" that
are ellipsoids and stretched out as long as we like.
Don't go telling me that's not a sphere. Definitions
are crap.
- Randy
Ron Larham
No, it means one who attempts to win an argument by intimidating
use of personal abuse rather than other means.
If you feel wronged please indicate who intoduced obscenity
into this thread before you did.
RonL
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2jch...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Spaceman wrote:
> > Tell me your "great circle's diameter"
>
> Since the great circle is a slice through a sphere
> (the largest such circle) its diameter is the same
> as the sphere.
The largest circle?
<ROFLOL>
>
> > I will double it and 2 of your great circles will fit in one
> > of mine.
>
> That is not a great circle, since by definition a
> great circle is a slice through a sphere. You can't
> slice through a sphere and get a circle with diameter
> 2d.
and yet more sas twisting and ignorance that I made
your circle bigger.
the largest circle crap is just that.
CRAP!
> > Tell me you "small circle's diameter",
> > I will cut it in half (radius)
> > and have 2 smaller circles that fit inside it.
>
> What does that have to do with anything? Yes,
> there are smaller slices through a sphere. Latitude
> lines constitute such slices.
It is the opposite of the great circle being enlarged
Still only twisting from you huh
>
> A great circle is the BIGGEST slice.
>
> > (to infinity)
>
> That direction is zero, not infinity.
That 0 can not be reached by cutting in half
dunghead.
> > Forgot basic math didn't you?
> > There is no such thing as "greatest"
> > and no such thing as "smallest".
>
> The smallest slice has diameter zero.
No,
that is a non existant slice.
> There's no smaller.
There is smaller than smallest all the time.
0 has nothing to ddo with being the "smallest"
It has to do with "not having at all".
Just like you seem to have 0 smarts about
circles.
> The largest slice has diameter d (same as the sphere).
> There's no larger slice.
> By definition, a "great circle" is (among other things)
> a slice through the sphere. But oh, that's right, you
> think the definition doesn't matter when talking about
> what the definition is.
Shove your stupid definition up your twisted brain path.
You are lost.
add one inch to the circles diameter,
you have a "greater" circle.
You are a twisted moron.
Seek help for that "closed brain you seem to not use"
It is sad..
Wake up moron,
great is not the greatest.
small is not the smallest.
Why can't you grasp such simple "facts"?
You sure do need help.
TB
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> "Lew Paterson" <lew.pa...@physics.org> wrote in message
news:b2h2pn$vaq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I take it you are an arts graduate? ie non-technical
>
> You take it completely wrong.
> I am a technition.
Hee hee!! See, he's definitely not an English major!! :-)
> otherwise known as a mechanic.
Hmmm... my dictionary doesn't list technition (nor technician) as a synonym
for mechanic.
>
> It's too bad.
> you are such a bad guesser.
> Or was that just a sad insult?
It was a good guess given your lack of knowledge and ability in both math
and science.
-- TB
Spaceman
"TB" <tbrow...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3e4d3f7a$0$16058$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
> Hee hee!! See, he's definitely not an English major!! :-)
fuch off TB,
still nothing huh?
>
> > otherwise known as a mechanic.
>
> Hmmm... my dictionary doesn't list technition (nor technician) as a synonym
> for mechanic.
Then you have one sad assed book.
> It was a good guess given your lack of knowledge and ability in both math
> and science.
and still only insults without any "physical science".
TB,
seek help for your massless brain.
Spaceman
> > "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:j1rp4v0t6cvbev2ki...@4ax.com...
> > > Have it your own way, you don't know what a dork is.
> >
> > A dork in "Universal meanings" means
> > a fool who has no clue that an atomic clock
> > has faults and is only goofing up trying to keep time
> > and no proof of "time changing" has ever been "measured"
> > ever.
> >
> > It also means a fool that lost the "science of measurement"
> > completely.
>
> No, it means one who attempts to win an argument by intimidating
> use of personal abuse rather than other means.
Like all the "time travel scam artists" do to me?
Nope,
It means you lost the "science of measurement"
and can not stand that "fact"
or it means you are a scam artist.
and can not seel your flux caps anymore for the Time machines
> If you feel wronged please indicate who intoduced obscenity
> into this thread before you did.
find it,
instead of ignoring it.
Do you think "time travel" is possible?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:J9b3a.111054$be.78495@rwcrnsc53...
>
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2jch...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Spaceman wrote:
> > > Tell me your "great circle's diameter"
> >
> > Since the great circle is a slice through a sphere
> > (the largest such circle) its diameter is the same
> > as the sphere.
>
> The largest circle?
> <ROFLOL>
Quality.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html#Circle
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"TB" <tbrow...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message news:3e4d3f7a$0$16058$724e...@reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net...
>
> news:naU2a.101985$Ec4....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Lew Paterson" <lew.pa...@physics.org> wrote in message
> news:b2h2pn$vaq$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > I take it you are an arts graduate? ie non-technical
> >
> > You take it completely wrong.
> > I am a technition.
>
> Hee hee!! See, he's definitely not an English major!! :-)
It came as a surprise to me that he didn't write that he
is a tegnidzium.
Dirk Vdm
Spaceman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fjb3a.50470$Jd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Keep going Dirk,
for if you think there is a "largest circle"
you sure are lost in spacetime and ignoring basic math all the way.
Peter Skelton
So you do know what a dork is? Did you gain this insight by
introspection? Why did you lie before?
____
Peter Skelton
Spaceman
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:cthq4v0giqfo46j9t...@4ax.com...
Just look in the mirror,
You will see one
since you apparently think atomic clocks do not have faults.
(Hildo) news multikabel
> "Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
>
> > Not near the poles dungbrain!
> > In fact at the poles it is "much shorter"
> >
> > Still to ignorant to see any wrongs with what you spout huh?
>
> Let me re-write he wrote, but with some words in caps...
>
> A nautical mile is based on the CIRCUMFERENCE of the planet Earth. If you
> were to cut the Earth in half AT THE EQUATOR, you could pick up one of the
> halves and LOOK AT THE EQUATOR AS A CIRCLE. You could divide THAT (I.E.,
THE
> **EQUATOR**) circle into 360 degrees. You could then divide a degree into
60
> minutes [keep in mind, we're still talking about the equator, here]. A
> minute of arc on the planet Earth [still at the equator...] is 1 nautical
> mile. This unit of measurement is used by all nations for air and sea
> travel.
>
> I don't know about you, but it seems pretty damned clear to me, judging my
> the fact that he was specifically talking about the equator that it was
> defined from there! Idiot.
>
> --
> One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
> against reality, is primitive and childlike and yet it is the most
precious
> thing we have.
> -Albert Einstein
>
> Remove pants to reply.
>
>
Thanks Jeremy :-)
hildo
(Hildo) news multikabel
Everytime I think I fathom spacekids stupidity, he surprises me.
Talking about infinite.....
Hildo
Spaceman
"(Hildo) news multikabel" <hild...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:1045252989.217742@cache2...
> Everytime I think I fathom spacekids stupidity, he surprises me.
> Talking about infinite.....
and yet more "non physical insulatation physics"
Poor things.
Facts scare the crap out of time travel worshippers all the time!
<LOL>
Ron Larham
> "Ron Larham" <lar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bf77f6d2.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > "Spaceman" <Agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message news:<Ed63a.109331$be.78223@rwcrnsc53>...
> > > "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:j1rp4v0t6cvbev2ki...@4ax.com...
> > > > Have it your own way, you don't know what a dork is.
> > >
> > > A dork in "Universal meanings" means
> > > a fool who has no clue that an atomic clock
> > > has faults and is only goofing up trying to keep time
> > > and no proof of "time changing" has ever been "measured"
> > > ever.
> > >
> > > It also means a fool that lost the "science of measurement"
> > > completely.
> >
> > No, it means one who attempts to win an argument by intimidating
> > use of personal abuse rather than other means.
>
> Like all the "time travel scam artists" do to me?
> Nope,
> It means you lost the "science of measurement"
> and can not stand that "fact"
> or it means you are a scam artist.
> and can not seel your flux caps anymore for the Time machines
>
I've seen no one being abusive to you first in this thread.
Perhaps if you changed your attitude people would show
you less contempt.
>
> > If you feel wronged please indicate who intoduced obscenity
> > into this thread before you did.
>
> find it,
> instead of ignoring it.
I did not ignore what had been posted in this thread.
I know what you posted and when.
>
> Do you think "time travel" is possible?
What has that to do with your use of obscenity?
But as it happens I am open minded about it.
Some relevant theories say yes, the logical
paradoxes and the lack of any obvious
time tourists say no. I regard none of these as
decisive.
Also since I am reading this thread on sci.eng.radar+sonar
my views on the subject are not relevant.
RonL
Spaceman
> Some relevant theories say yes, the logical
> paradoxes and the lack of any obvious
> time tourists say no. I regard none of these as
> decisive.
I appologize for any insults,
please accept such appology,
and about "time travel and theories that support such babble...
The only "proof" time travel theories (GR,SR and QM)
have so far is,
bad clocks and ignorance of the science of measurement.
The proof against such is in a simple fact that the Earth "travels"
in space at an invariant rate of time
Lets take just the trip around the sun that Earth makes to
create 1 year.
To make such a trip in 1 year the Earth would need to travel
at about 66,000 mph.
so guess what happens if you go back 1 hour,
(without reversing all actions of the Earth and everything on it)
Simple, you miss the Earth itself by about 66,000 miles.
Nevermind placing Solar Sytem Orbital speeds
(our sun and planets) traveling speed in the Milky Way orbit it takes.
(~1/2 million miles an hour)
nor the Milky Way's orbital speeds of the Universe itself.
(crazy speeds)
:)
Time travel ignores the basics of "what time was invented for"
It is a complete joke unless you can reverse all things except
yourself.
Hence,
all "theories that include time travel as a possibility,
(GR,SR and QM)
are simply lost in "spacetime" babble".
We move in space at a rate of time.
not in "spacetime"(cubicmetersecond)
and it is an invariant rate of time, in science.
Hows that, no insults either,
and I am sorry about such if I did "blurt such out without cause".
:)
GR,SR and QM have lost the science of measurement
and twisted it all into a "SciFi" instead of a "reality".
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
pete
> The original definition of the nmi was 1 minute of longitude
> at the equator.
I wonder why it wasn't defined as a minute of lattitude.
--
pete
Richard Herring
writes
>Alan Horowitz wrote:
>> is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
>
>No. It's a time rate, it's something per unit time, but
>that doesn't necessarily mean a speed.
>
>
>Oh, if bit rate is within your definition of "speed",
>then I guess the answer to your question is "yes, by
>definition".
While you're on the subject, let me be really pedantic. Baud is not a
measure of bit rate. It measures _symbol_ rate, which may be quite
different. A humble V.90 modem receives data at anything up to 56k bits
per second, but its symbol rate is only about 4k baud.
--
Richard Herring
Earle Jones
Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> In message <b2gc1...@enews1.newsguy.com>, Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com>
> writes
> >Alan Horowitz wrote:
> >> is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
[...]
*
If v = velocity
v/t = acceleration.
cycles per second = c/t (now called Hz, or Hertz) = frequency.
earle
*
Richard Herring
Jones <earle...@attbi.com> writes
>In article <ekiCB4wX...@baesystems.com>,
> Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> In message <b2gc1...@enews1.newsguy.com>, Randy Poe <rp...@nospam.com>
>> writes
>> >Alan Horowitz wrote:
>> >> is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
>
I didn't write any of that. Please get your attributions right.
--
Richard Herring
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2j6q...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>>Now, you'll note that nothing from Hildo is in there.
>>You'll also note the paragraph I wrote that provoked you
>>to say I'm "lost <LOL>".
>
>
> and you have lost "WHY I STATED" such at all.
How did I lose that, when I quoted THE ENTIRE POST WITHOUT
SNIPPING?
One more try:
>> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:b2gc1...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>> Alan Horowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> > is any unit which has time in the denominator,a speed?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. It's a time rate, it's something per unit time, but
>>>> that doesn't necessarily mean a speed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bullshit twist crap.
>> rpm's is a speed
>> anything "per" time unit is a "speed".
>> You are truly a math scam artist
>> or truly a brainwashed fool.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I was going to offer the example of Watts, which
>>>> is Joules per second.
>>
>>
>>
>> speed of power given per second.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Power in general is energy per
>>>> unit time. I wouldn't call that a speed, but I guess
>>>> you would.
>>
>>
>>
>> anyone would,
>> only twisted flux capacitor salesmen like you "wouldn't".
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Yep. The nautical mile has been standardized to 1852
>>>> meters exactly. So now, in a sense, it's metric.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are lost!
>> <LOL>
>>
That's it. The whole thing. What do you claim is missing?
- Randy
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2jch...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>>Tell me your "great circle's diameter"
>>
>>Since the great circle is a slice through a sphere
>>(the largest such circle) its diameter is the same
>>as the sphere.
>
>
> The largest circle?
Let's take two identical oranges. We each take a knife
and slice through the orange.
I claim that a slice through the equator of the orange
is the largest possible slice.
> <ROFLOL>
That strikes you as funny? Do you really think you
can give an orange slice that has twice the diameter
of the original orange? Or that the concept of
a "largest slice" is absurd?
>>>I will double it and 2 of your great circles will fit in one
>>>of mine.
>>
>>That is not a great circle, since by definition a
>>great circle is a slice through a sphere. You can't
>>slice through a sphere and get a circle with diameter
>>2d.
>
>
> and yet more sas twisting and ignorance that I made
> your circle bigger.
> the largest circle crap is just that.
Tell me how to make a circular slice of an orange
that has a bigger diameter than the original orange.
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2u0k...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Let's take two identical oranges. We each take a knife
> and slice through the orange.
>
> I claim that a slice through the equator of the orange
> is the largest possible slice.
I found bigger oranges,
you are wrong.
Screw off twist artist.
You large circle crap is just that, " just crap"
There is no largest circle
objects do not stop circles
nor create them
> That strikes you as funny? Do you really think you
> can give an orange slice that has twice the diameter
> of the original orange? Or that the concept of
> a "largest slice" is absurd?
No,
that concept is not absurd,
It is you thinking a circle bigger than the orange
can not exist.
It is you creating a limit on "outside the orange".
It is you scamming the public like a con artist.
> Tell me how to make a circular slice of an orange
> that has a bigger diameter than the original orange.
place the orance slice on paper.
trace the orange slice while 1/2 inch away from the
surface.
TADA , larger circle.
you can trace 1/2 inch outside such forever.
so...
go away scam artist backer.
Your card tricks are no good anymore.
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2u0n...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> How did I lose that, when I quoted THE ENTIRE POST WITHOUT
> SNIPPING?
>
> One more try:
One more try to scam the public with your card games and
math tricks?
Get lost scam artist.
the tricks are too old and all have been figured out now.
Alan Horowitz
> No. Viscoscity (as in fluid dynamics) has units of length squared over time.
I feel that viscosity is, in fact, speed going by a different name.
Just as "light years" is, in fact, a distance and only a distance.
has.mac
Thank you for your trolls. Your trolls have been evaluated by
our panel of experts. Here are the results of our tests.
We found that your trolls are...
[ ] Incomprehensible
[*] Offensive
[ ] Just plain stupid
[ ] Without merit
[*] Grammatically incorrect
[ ] Laced with spelling and punctuation errors
[ ] Laden with circular reasoning
[*] Laced with misunderstandings of basic scientific principles
[ ] Somewhat too revealing of your minimal mental abilities
[ ] Too similar to other trolls submitted in the past
You could improve your trolls considerably by...
[*] Including a few actual facts
[ ] Taking remedial English lessons
[*] Mentioning that you are a professional
[*] Stating more falsehoods as facts than you already have
[*] Swearing more
[ ] Including more colorful personal insults
[ ] Using the phrases "you people" or "those people" more
[*] Modifying your insults to cover larger groups of people at once
[ ] Ranting incoherently
[ ] Using religious or racial slurs
[ ] Using the words "junk", "crap", "garbage", "toy", "flimsy" and
"Professional" more frequently
[ ] Using childish taunts
[*] Including fake laughter such as "ha ha ha" or "har de har de har"
[ ] Focusing on just one outrageous topic will give your troll more punch
[*] Ignoring any facts, and using more absolutes in your troll
[ ] Using all capital letters
[ ] Focusing more on those areas in which "your" view is better than "their"
view
[ ] Exaggerate more, you need not be limited by facts
Please get a...
[ ] life
[ ] grip
[ ] job
[ ] clue
[*] book on basic physics/mechanics
[ ] book on basic radar/sonar
[ ] note from your mom
You should...
[*] Have someone who can read review your postings
[ ] Save your postings for later and think if you really want to send them
[ ] Take your medication
[ ] Not have "one for the road" next time
[ ] Stay in school
[ ] Go and use whatever nonlinear waveform you want, we don't care
[ ] Think about other people's feelings before you post
[*] Get your ego boost some other way
[ ] Realize that by trolling a group you hurt everyone, not just the people
you are mad at
[ ] Go away so we can talk about radar
[ ] Put up a web site with your name on it to show the world
[ ] Take down your web site, it's not very good
Suggested other activities besides trolling...
[*] Posting something constructive
[ ] Helping someone else
[ ] Spending some time with your family instead of your magazines
[ ] Working off that big pot belly
[ ] Get your ego boost instead by helping out at a local hospital
[ ] Consider another hobby that does not require contact with other humans
e.g. mortuary science
Thank you for your submission.
You have...
[ ] passed
[ ] passed with honors
[*] failed, must try harder
Adapted from the original Minolta troll report form by B.B
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:8Ox4a.166071$HN5.7...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Oriel36
> >> > But distance/time is velocity. Multiple velocity by mass, and you have
> >> > momentum,
> >>
>
>
Distance
> per unit time is speed.
> ____
>
> Peter Skelton
Well did'nt spacetime create a horrible mess insofar as Newton via the
longitude problem recognised that a clock reading corresponded to
distance travelled without having to mention the word 'speed'.The
mariners who used accurate clocks to determine their location knew
that seconds,minutes and hours were geographically fixed to GMT but
without recognition that these distances diminished from a maximum at
the equator to 0 miles at the poles the relationship between units of
'time' and distance would be useless.Newton had no choice but to
consider absolute and relative time for it is obvious that comparing
clock readings for determining location of the ship from day to day
should be treated seperately from the speed of the ship over the
course of a day.
Accurate clocks were developed with the principle that distance per
unit clock division (seconds,minutes,hours) varies in a specific way
and as an outriggger of this primary function you could also gauge
'speed',the Mariners,Newton and just about any disciplined scientist
knows that you cannot isolate seconds,minutes and hours from the
geometry from which it emerged yet spacetime clowns managed to do it
and conjure up a 'time' dimension out of a relative measure.
Did any of you actually read what Newton wrote or do you just accept
the hatchet job Einstein accomplished on the relative /absolute
distinctions from the Principia without question ?.What is shocking
about spacetime is its linguistic tampering and here is one sample
along with the scholium iv of the Principia where absolute/relative
distinctions emerge.
While I was thinking of this problem in my
student years, I came to know the strange
result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came
to the conclusion that our idea about the motion
of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect,
if we admit Michelson's null result as fact. This
was the first path which lead me to the special
theory of relativity. Since then I have come to
believe that the [presumed absolute] motion of the
earth [through this imaged ether] cannot be
detected by any optical experiment, though the
earth is revolving around the sun.
--- Found in: How I created the theory of
relativity, translation of a lecture Einstein
gave in Japan in 1922, translated by
Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, Aug.
1982, p46.
"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that conceptual space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion."
'Principia'
http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm#time
If one cannot discern that the distinction between absolute and
relative space is just a simple comparison between the geocentric and
heliocentric ["Absolute and relative space, are the same in figure and
magnitude; but they do not remain always numerically the same."
Principia ]there is little sense in crowing that relativity is more
accurate than Newton when Einstein thought that absolute space meant
'aether' whereas for Newton it was a simple geometric comparison
between the geocentric and heliocentric system.
Spaceman
"has.mac" <has...@virgin.nospamnet.> wrote in message news:8FG4a.433$54....@news1.nokia.com...
> Dear Spaceman,
<snipped a stupid message that is as old as the hills>
Dear nobody.
I am not a troll,
and only three type of people ever call me such.
A) Moron
B) Troll
C) Time travel dupe scam backer
Are you a troll, moron or time travel dupe scam backer?
Gareth
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2u0k...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>>Let's take two identical oranges. We each take a knife
>>and slice through the orange.
>>
>>I claim that a slice through the equator of the orange
>>is the largest possible slice.
>
>
> I found bigger oranges
[SNIP..]
No, you must use the same orange.
A great circle is the largest diameter slice for a particular sphere, as
you rightly say, you can always find a bigger sphere and get a larger
circle, but you cannot get a larger diameter slice from the same sphere.
The hypotenuse is the longest side of a right angled triangle, do you
accept that concept? Of course you can always get a longer side if you
draw a bigger triangle, but for that particular triangle the hypotenuse
is the longest side.
Similarly, a great circle is the largest diameter slice for that sphere.
Gareth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to me directly:
Replace the text after the@symbol with: totalise DOT co DOT uk
Spaceman
"Gareth" <gareth...@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:b30nsl$rhl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> No, you must use the same orange.
No,
I need not use the same orange to prove a larger "circle" exists.
that is pure bullshit!
and the greatest "circle" does not exist at all.
Oranges are irrelevant.
Gareth
> "Gareth" <gareth...@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:b30nsl$rhl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>No, you must use the same orange.
>
>
> No,
> I need not use the same orange to prove a larger "circle" exists.
Nobody said a larger circle does not exist elsewhere, but not in the
same sphere.
> that is pure bullshit!
> and the greatest "circle" does not exist at all.
Nobody in this thread has claimed that the "greatest circle" exists, but
for a particular sphere there is a largest diameter slice, that is
called a "great circle". It is not the biggest possible circle ever
anywhere, only the biggest possible circle for A PARTICULAR SPHERE.
> Oranges are irrelevant.
Yes they are, that was just Randy Poe's good example of a sphere which
is easy to visualise and understand.
Spaceman
"Gareth" <gareth...@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:b30otj$f8c$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Nobody said a larger circle does not exist elsewhere, but not in the
> same sphere.
Bullshit!
the point I made was the no greatest circle exists.
and then I got all this crap spouted about a "great" circle crap.
I am not saying an object does not have a circle that won't fit in it.
I am stating an object always can have a circle that is larger
that will fit around it.
Sheesh!
> Nobody in this thread has claimed that the "greatest circle" exists,
Bullshit!
and.
You don't read huh?
It was stated and I merely stated it was wrong.
What is this place you post from?
The ignore what was stated group?
(Hildo) news multikabel
"Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
Spaceracist,
Learn to read, you myopic idiot.
The term is GREAT circle, not greatest circle.
You are talking greatest circle, you rave and you're not even capable of
reading correctly.
The definition of the term "great circle" is "the largest diameter slice for
a particular sphere".
Do you understand what a definition means?
I'll give you a simpler example:
Mathew is a great Moron,
you are the greatest moron
Is the difference between great and greatest clear to you ?
Hildo
has.mac
EL
> "Spaceman" <AgentS...@aol.combination> wrote in message
> news:9tR4a.178559$HN5.7...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Gareth" <gareth...@nobody.nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> news:b30nsl$rhl$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > > No, you must use the same orange.
> >
> > No,
> > I need not use the same orange to prove a larger "circle" exists.
> > that is pure bullshit!
> > and the greatest "circle" does not exist at all.
> > Oranges are irrelevant.
> >
> >
>
> Spaceracist,
>
> Learn to read, you myopic idiot.
> The term is GREAT circle, not greatest circle.
>
> You are talking greatest circle, you rave and you're not even capable of
> reading correctly.
>
> The definition of the term "great circle" is "the largest diameter slice for
> a particular sphere".
[EL]
Which is the "greatest circle" in that *particular* sphere. <grin>
LOL.
>
> Do you understand what a definition means?
>
> I'll give you a simpler example:
>
> Mathew is a great Moron,
[EL]
I agree.
> you are the greatest moron
[EL]
I do not agree.
I have seen better than James. :):)
>
> Is the difference between great and greatest clear to you ?
>
> Hildo
[EL]
Hildo, your post is great, but I am sure it is not the greatest. :)
I also know that I am trying hard to be funny or funnier but I am sure
I am not the funniest.
Funny. :)
Funnier. :) :) :)
Funniest. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:) :) :) :) :) :)
EL
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2u0k...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>>Let's take two identical oranges. We each take a knife
>>and slice through the orange.
>>
>>I claim that a slice through the equator of the orange
>>is the largest possible slice.
>
>
> I found bigger oranges,
Let's take two IDENTICAL oranges. We each take a knife
and slice through the orange.
I claim that a slice through the equator of the orange
is the largest possible slice.
Preliminary homework: What does "identical" mean?
Follow-in problem: I lock you in a room with a wooden
sphere of diameter 6 inches and any sawing equipment
you want, but no other tools, glue, fasteners or other
supplies. Your assignment, to produce a solid wooden
disk of diameter 12 inches.
Can you do it?
- Randy
Randy Poe
The post to which Spacecase refers contained his own post,
quoted verbatim. Nothing else except the above and the question
"What did I leave out?"
Since there's nothing else there, he calls his own words
"card games", "math tricks", "scam artistry" and trickery.
A satisfactory ending point.
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b32vs...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Let's take two IDENTICAL oranges.
Shove your freaking oranges up your butt!
you are only proving an orange has "a greatest size,
It has nothing to do with what I stated you twisting freak!
I stated there is no such thing as a greatest CIRCLE". (mathematic circle)
and
There is not such thing as "smallest" CIRCLE. (mathematic circle)
nothing to do with freakin' orange slices.
Or "anything" slices at all was stated my me.
Sheesh!
I stated a smallest circle does not exist.
I stated a greatest circle does not exist.
twisting such of a simple and factual statement
is only twisting like a jerk would.
Randy Poe, you are a jerk.
and a brainwashed dipwad.
and maybe a con man, and scam artist too.
(hence you twisting of such facts I state)
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b32vs...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>>Let's take two IDENTICAL oranges.
>
>
> Shove your freaking oranges up your butt!
> you are only proving an orange has "a greatest size,
It has a greatest slice. The edge of that slice,
the outer circumference, is what is called a "great
circle".
> It has nothing to do with what I stated you twisting freak!
It has everything to do with the definition of "great
circle", which is the largest plane slice through a
given sphere.
> There is not such thing as "smallest" CIRCLE. (mathematic circle)
> nothing to do with freakin' orange slices.
> Or "anything" slices at all was stated my me.
But everything to do with the term "great circle", which
is not "the largest possible circle in the universe"
but "the largest possible circular slice of a particular
sphere".
But then you said the definition of "great circle" has
nothing to do with the definition of "great circle".
<ROFLOL>
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b33bl...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> It has a greatest slice. The edge of that slice,
> the outer circumference, is what is called a "great
> circle".
and I never said it was not the great circle of the orange slice.
I merely stated it is not the greatest circle on can have "around the orange".
Screw off Randy,
you seem to have a problem with any thing I state and just twist
it to be wrong in your mind just so you can stay "brainwashed" like you are.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b33bl...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>>It has a greatest slice. The edge of that slice,
>>the outer circumference, is what is called a "great
>>circle".
>
>
> and I never said it was not the great circle of the orange slice.
Uh, sure. Whatever you say. Since for you "never" is "not within one
post of this one", I guess you might even believe that.
> I merely stated it is not the greatest circle on can have "around the orange".
OK, show me how to get a bigger one out of the same orange.
> Screw off Randy,
> you seem to have a problem with any thing I state and just twist
> it to be wrong in your mind just so you can stay "brainwashed" like you are.
There's that short-term memory again. You don't really want
me to back two days and show you how this conversation
started, do you?
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b33gu...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Spaceman wrote:
> > "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b33bl...@enews3.newsguy.com...
> >
> >>It has a greatest slice. The edge of that slice,
> >>the outer circumference, is what is called a "great
> >>circle".
> >
> >
> > and I never said it was not the great circle of the orange slice.
>
> Uh, sure. Whatever you say. Since for you "never" is "not within one
> post of this one", I guess you might even believe that.
>
> > I merely stated it is not the greatest circle on can have "around the orange".
>
> OK, show me how to get a bigger one out of the same orange.
You really don't read do you?
I never said you could get a bigger slice,
I said you could find a larger circle that surrounds that orange slice.
You really should learn to "comprehend" what is stated.
It is really sad you can't
Then again,
It could just be you are one of those con artists
that sell "time machines" and you need the largest circle
to stop at the mass instead of where it should stop (nowhere)
> There's that short-term memory again. You don't really want
> me to back two days and show you how this conversation
> started, do you?
You are the one that has the lost memory and
never learned what a circle is.
The orange slice is not the circle.
the circle has no limit.
oranges slices do.
Go twist and orange slice up your twisted butt Randy.
You damn scam artist.
Peter Skelton
wrote:
>Spaceman wrote:
>> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b33bl...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>
Dear Randall,
Stay after school, write 500 times on the blackboard:
I will never, ever feed a troll again.
____
Peter Skelton
Spaceman
"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:r1sa5vo2m4cndmcat...@4ax.com...
> Dear Randall,
>
> Stay after school, write 500 times on the blackboard:
>
> I will never, ever feed a troll again.
Dear Mr Skelton,
Randy is the troll.
He has twisted my statement of
There is no such thing as a "greatest circle".
into the great circle debate.
and
sadly,
you are falling for the trolls oldest tactics of twisting a statement
and repeating the twist.
So,
It is I that should write such,
along with you.
and
I appologize for feeding the troll, and the crossposting I did not notice.
and I will start writing tomorrow.
Will you?
:)
The Ghost In The Machine
<rp...@nospam.com>
wrote
on Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:31:12 -0500
<b32vs...@enews3.newsguy.com>:
Technically that's not possible since any attempts at
producing said disk will result in a slice that, while
as close as one can desire (assuming the wooden slice
doesn't fall apart) to 12 inches in diameter at
the midpoint of the disc, will be 12 inches minus at
the edges. However, most of us wouldn't have a problem
with this -- I'm just horribly pedantic. :-)
(I'm also assuming you've misspecified the problem, as
a solid wooden sphere of diameter 6 inches will produce
a solid wooden disc of 6 inches when cut in three pieces
(one very thin), unless there's some weird puzzle in here
that I've missed. :-) After all, one can make a disc
arbitrarily large (and thin) if one is *extremely* good
with an infinitely thin jigsaw and assumes wood of
infinite toughness...)
>
> - Randy
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b33gu...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>>
>>>"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b33bl...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>It has a greatest slice. The edge of that slice,
>>>>the outer circumference, is what is called a "great
>>>>circle".
>>>
>>>
>>>and I never said it was not the great circle of the orange slice.
>>
>>Uh, sure. Whatever you say. Since for you "never" is "not within one
>>post of this one", I guess you might even believe that.
>>
>>
>>>I merely stated it is not the greatest circle on can have "around the orange".
>>
>>OK, show me how to get a bigger one out of the same orange.
>
>
> You really don't read do you?
> I never said you could get a bigger slice,
OK. You asked for it. This is why we got onto this silly discussion.
Spaceman wrote:
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:b2h6p...@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>> Wow, this post was almost sane and rational.
>
>
>
> Fuch off puke.
>
>
>>> At the equator the minutes are not "great circles"
>>
>>
>> This minor point is incorrect, as the equator is
>> a great circle.
>
>
>
> You are truly lost!
> there is no such thing as a "great circle" moron!
Got that? You insisted that there IS NO SUCH THING
as a great circle. And when I gave you the definition of
a great circle, you told me it's "crap". The definition
says it is a SECTION OF A SPHERE. So we're looking at
different SECTIONS OF A PARTICULAR SPHERE. As in,
THE SAME ORANGE.
You looked (supposedly) at this definition and claimed
you could double the diameter of a "great circle".
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b2j6j...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>>> On the silly assumption that you might actually be interested
>>> in learning something, here's the definition of "great
>>> circle" from Mathworld:
>>> (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GreatCircle.html)
>>>
>>> A great circle is a section of a sphere that contains
>>> a diameter of the sphere (Kern and Bland 1948, p. 87).
>>> Sections of the sphere that do not contain a diameter
>>> are called small circles.
>
>
> Who cares about the "crap" like that.
> Tell me your "great circle's diameter"
> I will double it and 2 of your great circles will fit in one
> of mine.
If you want to pretend now that what you were saying
had nothing to do with great circles, fine. So we'll
all go back to agreeing that a single sphere has a
largest possible slice. That slice has the same diameter
as the original sphere, and it is called by sane people
a "great circle".
- Randy
Randy Poe
> "Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:r1sa5vo2m4cndmcat...@4ax.com...
>
>>Dear Randall,
>>
>>Stay after school, write 500 times on the blackboard:
>>
>>I will never, ever feed a troll again.
>
>
> Dear Mr Skelton,
> Randy is the troll.
> He has twisted my statement of
> There is no such thing as a "greatest circle".
This statement?
>> You are truly lost!
>> there is no such thing as a "great circle" moron!
> into the great circle debate.
> and
> sadly,
> you are falling for the trolls oldest tactics of twisting a statement
> and repeating the twist.
Spaceman language: "Twist" = "You quoted me verbatim!
No fair! Waah!"
- Randy
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b35ga...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Got that? You insisted that there IS NO SUCH THING
> as a great circle.
No you lying asshole!
I insisted there is no such thing as a "greatest circle"
and the "great circle" crap you keep posting is a joke.
since you can easily trace a greater circle around
the slice of orange and make a greater circle surrounding it.
so why don't you shove your twisted ass "relativity worship crap"
up your wazoo Randy.
You are a freakin scam artist, or a moron.
and maybe even both and that is even more sad.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
www.realspaceman.com
Is that your real name Randy?
If it is,
It wll be placed in the flat universe dork troll file.
If not, please correct such for me.
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b35gf...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> This statement?
> >> You are truly lost!
> >> there is no such thing as a "great circle" moron!
and I traced a larger circle around your stupid ass orange slice
and you still do not get it because you are either a scam artist,
or a moron.
I appologize to other groups in this post.
(you will note that Randy will not do such and keeps the crossposting
for the troll effect)
This is my last post that will be crossposted to such.
all my replies will be showing up only in "sci.physics".
Followups to this post set to only sci.physics only
Only a troll will replace the crossposting.
--
James M Driscoll Jr.
Randy Poe
> (removed crossposting)
>
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b35ga...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>>Got that? You insisted that there IS NO SUCH THING
>>as a great circle.
>
>
> No you lying asshole!
> I insisted there is no such thing as a "greatest circle"
Spaceman wrote:
>>> You are truly lost!
>>> there is no such thing as a "great circle" moron!
Spaceman
"Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b35np...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Spaceman wrote:
> >>> You are truly lost!
> >>> there is no such thing as a "great circle" moron!
and I showed you that placing an orange slice on paper
and drawing a circle 1/2 inch away from the "great circle you propose"
proves no "great circle" exists, only grate orange slice did.
You are twisting a "great circle" to be a "great orange slice"
yet...
a circle needs no orange slice to be drawn
and even the "great circle of an orange" has a greater circle surrounding it.
Go twist your con man game up your ass Randy.
you truly are one sad assed troll and maybe also a fool.
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <rp...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:b35np...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>>Spaceman wrote:
>> >>> You are truly lost!
>> >>> there is no such thing as a "great circle" moron!
>
>
> and I showed you that placing an orange slice on paper
> and drawing a circle 1/2 inch away from the "great circle you propose"
> proves no "great circle" exists, only grate orange slice did.
Can you tell me what is meant by the term "great circle"?
I posted two definitions.