Nutcase Dude Gets Schooled on Tornadogenesis

[James McGinn]

Nutcase Dude:
Horizontal spinning occurs in the mid troposphere... *not* in the jet stream at the tropopause. You're looking at 5 to 20 *thousand* *feet* altitude difference.

James McGinn:
Right. As I indicated, vortices originate from the jet stream, the mother vortice, and then grow down along vertical or semi vertical boundary layers.

Nutcase Dude:
That warm moist updrafting air tilts this horizontally spinning air vertically, creating a mesocyclone.

James McGinn:
This is one theory. It's a very poor theory. (Meteorologists are not physicists.) The problem is that this theory fails to account for the concentrated energy that eventually emerges in a tornado/storm. In other words, it asserts a reversal of entropy that has no explanation. It's kind of like the notion of spontaneous generation in biology. Where does the concentrated energy come from? According to this theory, it just appears spontaneously. It's a pseudoscientific notion. But I suppose that if you believe there is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then this is not that much of a stretch.

Nutcase Dude:
This can, under strong updraft, generate cyclonic vortexes... and hence tornadoes.

James McGinn:
So, if you can imagine strong updrafts you can imagine tornadoes. Right? Is that your argument? Once again, if you believe there is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then, I guess, this is not that much of a stretch. The reality is you don't have a comprehensive, self-consistent theory.

Nutcase Dude:
This is why I told you that roller clouds are failed tornadoes...

James McGinn:
LOL. You told me? I think you are confused. Remember, I am the expert. I am the physicist. You are a guy with a PC, internet access, and a bad attitude.

Nutcase Dude:
Roller clouds are the horizontally spinning air which the warm humid updraft air tilt vertically to form tornadoes. Roller clouds are formed and not tilted vertically because insufficient warm humid air exists to tilt them.

James McGinn:
Jet streams and their tributaries run horizontal also. And, just like your theoretical roller clouds, they tend to run along boundary layers. And so, calling them roller clouds doesn't explain where the energy comes from that, eventually, causes a storm/tornado. In contrast, recognizing that they are connected to the jet stream does explain the origin of the energy in that these extensions of jet streams act as conduits of the low pressure energy associated with storms, something your dimwitted convection model completely fails to explain. Along these lines, my explanation doesn't depend on magical, lighter than dry air, warm, moist air which has never been detected in a laboratory. Sorry to burst your bubble. But there is more to doing science than doing google searches.

[Sergio]

Don't post your troll blog here.

You write both sides of it.


Just because it is unread, means it is uninteresting, and poop.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James McGinn, in
<news:64678038-a04f-4c9c...@googlegroups.com> did
thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> Nutcase Dude:
> Horizontal spinning occurs in the mid troposphere... *not*
> in the jet stream at the tropopause. You're looking at 5 to
> 20 *thousand* *feet* altitude difference.

> James McGinn:
> Right.

Wrong, you backpedaling conflating moron. You're trying to state that
the vortexes originate in the jet stream, but the fucking jet stream
can be hundreds of miles away, and is anywhere from 5000 to 20,000
feet above the updrafting air. The jet stream is not a "giant tornado
in the sky" that reaches down tendrils as tornadoes, KookTard.

> As I indicated, vortices originate from the jet stream, the
> mother vortice,

The jet stream is not a vortex. If it were, planes could not fly in
it, you moronic halfwit.

> and then grow down along vertical or semi vertical boundary layers.

"vertical or semi vertical boundary layers" for hundred of miles,
James?

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

You've yet again been caught in another of your logical traps, James.
You have no explanation for how one of your kooky "jet stream induced
vortices" could travel hundreds of miles laterally while only
traveling less than 30,000 feet vertically. Do you k'lame these
tendrils your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" send down
have a mind of their own, thus knowing exactly where to go, targeting
the rear portion of thunderstorm clouds?

Why don't tornadoes just come down out of a clear blue sky, if, as you
k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is sending
tendrils which touch down as tornados, Jim?

> Nutcase Dude:
> That warm moist updrafting air tilts this horizontally spinning
> air vertically, creating a mesocyclone.

> James McGinn:
> This is one theory.

It's not a theory, James. It is empirically-observed fact. Or do you
forget that they've been sending up weather balloons for hundreds of
years, aircraft for the past half century, and now have satellites
*and* Doppler radar which can monitor the phenomena in real time at
wavelengths other than the visual spectrum? Did you not know this? Or
are you just so desperate to defend your delusion that you'll say
pretty much anything?

> It's a very poor theory. (Meteorologists are not physicists.)

Nor are you a physicist, James. A single elective class in Basic
Meteorology does not qualify you as anything, James, not even a
meteorologist. And it is quite apparent you took no knowledge from
that class, instead attending merely as a means of justifying your
delusion, which you found yourself unable to do when the instructor
attempted to correct your badly malfunctioning brain by telling you
your kooky 'theory' is wrong, which they found themselves unable to do
because you're a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who's convinced
himself that he's not a delusional moron. An educational stalemate
because you're ineducable, James.

> The problem is that this theory fails to account for the
> concentrated energy that eventually emerges in a tornado/storm.

No, James. *Your* "theory" fails to account for the energy because you
deny that latent heat, convection and air density differential due to
temperature and humidity exists. The shortcomings are all on *your*
end, not that of established science.

In fact, I just described to you the exact mechanism by which it
happens. The scientific reality as detailed in the mathematical
equations and computer models based upon past empirical research is so
accurate that weather system evolution can be predicted to a large
degree of accuracy, to include direction and severity.

I note your kooky 'theory' has no predictive capability whatsoever.

> In other words, it asserts a reversal of entropy that has no
> explanation.

Only when viewed in context of your kooky k'lame that convection due
to temperature and humidity-induced air density differential doesn't
exist, James.

The failing isn't on the part of established science, it's all on
*your* end, James.

> It's kind of like the notion of spontaneous generation in biology.
> Where does the concentrated energy come from?

>From temperature-induced density differential, James, which you deny,
hence your denial of convection, hence your utter confusion as regards
all aspects of atmospheric phenomena.

> According to this theory, it just appears spontaneously.

No, according to *your* kooky theory it "just appears spontaneously"
because you're so delusional you deny that convection exists, James.

> It's a pseudoscientific notion.

Says the moron blathering out not-even-pseudo-scientific droolery. LOL

> But I suppose that if you believe there is such thing as magical
> wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then this is not
> that much of a stretch.

Aww, look at the delusional kooktard deny everything science knows
about aerodynamics. LOL

What shape is the most aerodynamically efficient, James? A streamlined
body, right? And when an air front of greater density meets an air
front of lesser density, what's the shape that greater density air
attempts to take, given that the greater-density air has a solid
barrier consisting of the ground as it downdrafts? Why, it's a
streamlined half-body, right?

And that streamlined half-body causes frontal lifting, the less dense
air slides along the boundary with the more dense air, producing
horizontal shear which results in horizontally rotating air that the
updrafting less dense air can, given sufficient updraft, tilt
vertically, which if strong enough can result in tornados.

It's apparent you know nothing about aerodynamics, Jim.

> Nutcase Dude:
> This can, under strong updraft, generate cyclonic vortexes...
> and hence tornadoes.
>
> James McGinn:
> So, if you can imagine strong updrafts you can imagine tornadoes.
> Right? Is that your argument? Once again, if you believe there
> is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of
> thin air then, I guess, this is not that much of a stretch.

"magical wedges" LOL

James McGinn is such a moron that he can't look up at the sky and
decipher what's going on.

Oh look, a photograph of an exceptionally strong wedge as a result of
orographic lifting:
<http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud10.jpg>

Oh look, a roll cloud, a result of the same shear phenomenon I told
you about, a failed mesocyclone because insufficient warm humid
updrafting air existed to tilt it vertically:
<http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud13.jpg>

Oh look, another well-defined wedge as outlined along the right-hand
edge of the clouds:
<http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud15.jpg>

Oh look, more roll clouds, multiples of them, brought about by the
unique geography of North Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria:
<http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud21.jpg>

Don't you hate that you're so delusional that you've been proven
*wrong* on every single thing you've been blathering, James?

> The reality is you don't have a comprehensive, self-consistent theory.

I have 250+ years of rigorously-collected oft-corroborated scientific
fact, whereas you have bullshit suppositions which are supported by
the sum total of *zero* corroborating (peer-reviewed or otherwise)
reports.

I have 2991 peer-reviewed reports proving you wrong on just your kooky
k'lame that water molecule polarity changes on H bonding alone, James.
You're up against likely hundreds of thousands of scientists over 250+
years, each and every one of them smarter and saner than you.

> Nutcase Dude:
> This is why I told you that roller clouds are failed tornadoes...
>
> James McGinn:
> LOL. You told me?
> I think you are confused. Remember, I am the expert.

No, James. You're not an expert, you're an insane kooktard with a
crippling Dunning-Kruger affliction and delusions of grandeur. Nothing
more.

> I am the physicist.

You're not a physicist, James. You took a single elective class in
Basic Meteorology, which you likely failed because you refuse to
acknowledge the scientific reality established through more than 250
years of rigorous empirical experimentation.

> You are a guy with a PC, internet access, and a bad attitude.

And sanity, James... a critical component you quite obviously lack.

> Nutcase Dude:
> Roller clouds are the horizontally spinning air which the warm
> humid updraft air tilt vertically to form tornadoes. Roller
> clouds are formed and not tilted vertically because insufficient
> warm humid air exists to tilt them.
>
> James McGinn:
> Jet streams and their tributaries run horizontal also. And, just
> like your theoretical roller clouds, they tend to run along
> boundary layers. And so, calling them roller clouds doesn't
> explain where the energy comes from that, eventually, causes a
> storm/tornado.

The energy to power tornados is certainly not coming from the jet
stream, James. The jet stream is not a vortex, it is a flat and wide
stream of air. If it were a vortex, planes could not fly in it.

In addition, it runs eastward, whereas the dry line runs N-S... the
jet stream is not a "tornado in the sky", and does not send down
tendrils which reach the ground as tornados, Jim.

You're forced to make this kooky claim because you deny convective
updraft of air, so you had to cast about for another source of energy
for tornadoes... and your simplistic thought process went something
along the lines of "A tornado is fast air, I need fast air to power
the tornadoes... jet stream! Duuurrrhhh!".

But you're too stupid to realize tornadoes do not reach to the
tropopause, and now you're forced to make an even kookier claim that
your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is somehow sending
vortexes hundreds of miles away from itself to touch down as
tornadoes... and that these several hundred mile long vortexes somehow
know to *only* touch down through clouds, and never from clear blue
sky. Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" conscious, James,
does it know where and when to send its tendrils to touch down as
tornados?

Do you also k'lame that dust devils are a manifestation of your kooky
"jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", James?

In short, James, you're trying to shift your kooky theory so you can
claim to have an explanation for things, but you're far too far gone
to realize that the claims you're making are utterly insane.

> In contrast, recognizing that they are connected to the jet stream

No, tornadoes are not "connected to the jet stream", you moron.

> does explain the origin of the energy in that these extensions of
> jet streams act as conduits of the low pressure energy associated
> with storms, something your dimwitted convection model completely
> fails to explain.

No, James, that's something *your* dimwitted "plasma not-a-plasma, the
jet stream is a giant tornado in the sky" 'theory' fails to explain
because you deny that humid air is lighter than dry air, you deny that
warmer air is lighter than cooler air, you deny air can have varying
density because of varying temperature and humidity, and thus you deny
convective updraft. The shortcomings are all coming from you, James,
not from established atmospheric science.

The current scientific knowledge of the atmosphere completely explains
the energy source. To the point that the atmosphere can be modeled and
storms predicted, to include precipitation amount and whether there is
a likelihood of severe weather... to include tornadoes, which is
difficult because they spawn in such a short time there's only ~13
minutes warning time on average...

Now, Jim... if, as you k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado
in the sky" were sending vortex streamers hundreds of miles
horizontally to touch down as tornadoes, we'd have hours and hours of
warning, would we not? Your claimed vortexes would be coming from the
top of the troposphere, and thus would be easily visible via satellite
*and* Doppler Radar, giving plenty of warning. Why doesn't that
happen, James? Oh, that's right... because you're a delusional
kooktard, and the jet stream is not a giant tornado in the sky that
reaches out tendrils that touch down as tornadoes, you moron.

> Along these lines, my explanation doesn't depend on magical,
> lighter than dry air, warm, moist air which has never been
> detected in a laboratory.

Except for every single time it is, James.

Shall we review the experiments of Saussure, Gay-Lussac and Dalton
onward to modern times, James?

Here's just a few references which prove you wrong, James:
===========================================================
<http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did5.pdf>

1. S.C. Brown, “The caloric theory of heat,” Am. J. Phys . 18, 367
(Sept. 1950).

2. L.W. Taylor, Physics: The Pioneer Science. Volume I. Mechanics
Heat, Sound (Dover Publications, New York), Ch. 20, p. 267. This
reproduces the original Lectures on Elements of Chemistry, given by
Black at the University of Edinburgh, published from his manuscripts
by John Robinson (Longman & Rees, London, 1803).

3. H.S. Allen and H. Moore, A Textbook of Practical Physics
(MacMillan, London, 1965), p. 296.

4. P.H. Bligh and R. Haywood, “Latent heat — Its meaning and
measurement,” Eur. J. Phys. 7, 245 (1986).

5. S.Y. Mak and C.K.W. Chun, “The measurement of the specific latent
heat of fusion of ice: two improved methods,” Phys. Educ. 35, 181 (May
2000).

8. H.U. Fuchs, The Dynamics of Heat (Springer, New York, 1996), p.
659.

9. C.D. Galles, “Revival of Black’s experiment,” Am. J. Phys. 47, 1008
(Nov. 1979).

10. J.W. Dewdney, “Newton’s law of cooling as a laboratory
introduction to exponential decay functions,” Am. J. Phys. 27, 668
(Dec. 1959).

11. H. Lindeman and A. Lavie, “Instrument for the measurement of the
heat of vaporization of water,” Am. J. Phys. 29, 705 (Oct. 1961).

<http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3125.pdf>
On the computation of moist-air specific thermal enthalpy
===========================================================

Do you not realize you're now forced to include the Laws of
Thermodynamics being altered as part of your kooky conspiracy theory,
James? Your "class action lawsuit" kooksoot against 250+ years of
rigorous scientific inquiry is going to be massive, James,
encompassing pretty much every mathematical model ever made of any
system ever, from the molecular to the atmospheric.

So basically, you're k'laming that every branch of science is wrong.
Do you think that's likely, James, or do you think maybe you're just
an insane kooktard?

<snicker>

> Sorry to burst your bubble. But there is more to doing science
> than doing google searches.

You're not "doing science", James. You're pulling bullshit
suppositions straight from your ass and running away from backing them
up with experimentally-derived empirically-observed
rigorously-collected data.

If you can perform the experiment and prove your claim that latent
heat of evaporation does not exist, then your 'theory' stands (until
you can prove or disprove your other claims)... and all of
conventional science *and* quantum physics falls… but if that
experiment nulls your claim, it destroys your entire theory.

You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
surface and wreak havoc…. you've run away from substantiating any of
those claims, James.

Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James…
======================================================
If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist because a
phase change doesn't occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water
are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that
can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to
2326 J/kg.

If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the
1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will
be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying
premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire "theory".
======================================================

It's a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn,
Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+
years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon
you to prove your claims.

In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a
Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically
measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims,
and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are
used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being
forced to admit he is wrong... which those afflicted with
Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous
lengths to avoid doing so.

Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his
claims?

Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves
what I said was right... you prefer your delusion, in which you paint
yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to
reality.

If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
are by your illogic.

Now, James, you didn't really think you'd get out of answering those
questions, did you?

============================================================
Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your k'laming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of
plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into
hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?

--

Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.

That superposition is the same as wave interference.

That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.

That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.

That RMS isn't a DC voltage.

That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
volts RMS L-L.

That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.

The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.

That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
engineering, physics and control systems engineering.

What a positive or negative vector is.

That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.

That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".

That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.

That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
nuclear charge.

What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.

That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.

That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
*not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.

That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
into account molar volume.

That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".

That water can be plasmized.

That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> Wrong, you backpedaling conflating moron. You're trying to state that
> the vortexes originate in the jet stream, but the fucking jet stream
> can be hundreds of miles away, and is anywhere from 5000 to 20,000
> feet above the updrafting air. The jet stream is not a "giant tornado
> in the sky" that reaches down tendrils as tornadoes, KookTard.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/gZHpm8pM-ew/alpJoCctBgAJ

[James McGinn]

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> You're trying to state that
> the vortexes originate in the jet stream,

Uh huh.

> but the fucking jet stream
> can be hundreds of miles away,

A stream that feeds into a river can run for hundreds of miles. Right?

> The jet stream is not a "giant tornado
> in the sky" that reaches down tendrils as tornadoes,

Well, you know what they say. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

> > As I indicated, vortices originate from the jet stream, the
> > mother vortice,
>
> The jet stream is not a vortex.

Sure it is.

> If it were, planes could not fly in
> it,

Ships can travel up a river, right?

> > and then grow down along vertical or semi vertical boundary layers.
>
> "vertical or semi vertical boundary layers" for hundred of miles,
> James?

Well, usually they run north/south over top of troposphere.

> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S,

I just did.

if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

See upthread.

> You've yet again been caught in another of your logical traps,

Uh, . . . what?

James.
> You have no explanation for how one of your kooky "jet stream induced
> vortices" could travel hundreds of miles laterally

Uh, well, it's a hypothesis. And it doesn't involve absurd notions about moist air being magically lighter.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:85228436-a27f-4843...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> You're trying to state that the vortexes originate in the jet stream,

> Uh huh.

>> but the fucking jet stream can be hundreds of miles away,

> A stream that feeds into a river can run for hundreds of miles. Right?

But the river does not "suck" that stream into itself, James. You're
180 degrees out from reality. What's powering your "sentient sky
tornado monster that can stretch its noodly appendages thousands of
miles through the atmosphere to touch down tornadoes while evading
detection, avoiding aircraft, only touching down at the rear portion
of cumulonimbus clouds, avoiding touching down out of clear blue sky
or other clouds, and somehow knowing not to touch down if the ground
or water below is cooler than the air above", James?

It cannot be your "plasma not-a-plasma", you've already destroyed your
"theory not-a-theory", remember?

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim
(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls. And
without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your "boundaries and
structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma" forms which
drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory" just came
crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build your
"theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and suppositions,
James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
hundreds of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if

the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due

to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire

cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How does a hot air balloon rise, Jim? That's due to air density
differential due to temperature differential, is it not? That
less-dense air is convecting upward. Do you deny this, Jim? Is your
giant sentient sky tornado monster stretching one of its noodly
appendages down and gently lifting the hot air balloon, Jim?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a

hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a

semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will

preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an

[James McGinn]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:45:05 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >> You're trying to state that the vortexes originate in the jet stream,
>
> > Uh huh.
>
> >> but the fucking jet stream can be hundreds of miles away,
>
> > A stream that feeds into a river can run for hundreds of miles. Right?
>
> But the river does not "suck" that stream into itself, James.

I agree. And, unlike so many of your other emotional outbursts, this is not an invalid argument/dispute.

My explanation is complex. It involves many different elements. But, as you suggest, a vortice cannot suck itself into existence, not initially anyway. But once you have a plasma tube the momentum thereof can, essentially, suck more of the same into existence. More specifically, if the conditions for its growth exist (long, flat stretches of moist/dry boundary layer and differential air presssure) it can grow into these resources.

So, it's kind of a chicken and egg problem. The solution to the chicken and egg problem is the realization that neither the chicken or the egg is the solution. The solution is more subtle and more complex than most people are capable of grasping. But we know chickens and eggs do exist. Same for jet streams, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Moreover, we now know the molecular dynamics of jet streams, tornadoes, and hurricanes. We know these dynamics because I explicated them.

So, if you were to take a vacation from your ongoing temper tantrum and if you were so inclined you could take the elements I explained to you and construct your own chicken and egg argument about vortices in the atmosphere. Just don't expect me to do it for you. I'm not running a hand holding service. If you can't think for yourself don't whine when I refuse to do it for you.

> You're
> 180 degrees out from reality.

What reality? The one that involves you claiming to see things you can't explain?

Do you wipe yourself?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 5:58:56 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:

> Well, you know what they say. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

... and they ALL stink...

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:be5153ba-ae26-44ee...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 10:45:05 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> You're trying to state that the vortexes originate in the jet stream,

>>> Uh huh.

>>>> but the fucking jet stream can be hundreds of miles away,

>>> A stream that feeds into a river can run for hundreds of miles. Right?

>> But the river does not "suck" that stream into itself, James.

> I agree. And, unlike so many of your other emotional outbursts,

You mean my proving you're delusional.

> this is not an invalid argument/dispute.
>
> My explanation is complex.

That's what you always say to preface your moronity when you know it's
going to be proven wrong, James. It's almost as if you're saying, "Ok,
I know this is utter bullshit, but..."

> It involves many different elements.

No, it only involved air temperature and humidity which affect air
density which affect air buoyancy, James. It's no complicated. You've
made it complicated because you deny reality, so you've got to keep
making your kooky theory more and more complicated to address all the
gaping logic holes, creating even more in the process.

> But, as you suggest, a vortice cannot suck itself into existence, not

Well, good of you to admit your entire theory is bullshit, James.
That's likely why you've retracted the underlying premise of your
halfwittery:

> initially anyway.

If it can't suck-start itself initially, it can't suck-start itself
ever, James. Your theory thus fails.

Do try harder next time. Tardnado. LOL

Have your mommy Constance, whom you live with because you're too
mentally incapacitated to dress or feed yourself, wipe the drool from
your chin, James. Tardnado. LOL

[James McGinn]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:55:35 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >>> A stream that feeds into a river can run for hundreds of miles. Right?
>
> >> But the river does not "suck" that stream into itself, James.
>
> > I agree. And, unlike so many of your other emotional outbursts,
>
> You mean my proving you're delusional.

Your desperation is starting to feed on itself.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:76c30136-39dc-4d51...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:55:35 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> A stream that feeds into a river can run for hundreds of miles. Right?

>>>> But the river does not "suck" that stream into itself, James.

>>> I agree. And, unlike so many of your other emotional outbursts,

>> You mean my proving you're delusional.

>>> My explanation is complex.

>> That's what you always say to preface your moronity when you know it's
>> going to be proven wrong, James. It's almost as if you're saying, "Ok,
>> I know this is utter bullshit, but..."

>>> It involves many different elements.

>> No, it only involved air temperature and humidity which affect air
>> density which affect air buoyancy, James. It's no complicated. You've
>> made it complicated because you deny reality, so you've got to keep
>> making your kooky theory more and more complicated to address all the
>> gaping logic holes, creating even more in the process.

>>> But, as you suggest, a vortice cannot suck itself into existence, not

>> Well, good of you to admit your entire theory is bullshit, James.
>> That's likely why you've retracted the underlying premise of your

>> halfwittery.

> Your desperation is starting to feed on itself.

Your cowardly snipping of all that kicks your moronic delusional ass
is proof enough that you're projecting again, James. Stop fucking the
corpse of your dead theory and bury it already, Tardnado.

[James McGinn]

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:55:35 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > My explanation is complex.
>
> That's what you always say to preface your moronity when you know it's
> going to be proven wrong, James. It's almost as if you're saying, "Ok,
> I know this is utter bullshit, but..."

No, I'm saying my explanation is complex.

> > It involves many different elements.
>
> No, it only involved air temperature and humidity which affect air

> density which affect air buoyancy, James. It's not complicated. You've

> made it complicated because you deny reality, so you've got to keep
> making your kooky theory more and more complicated to address all the
> gaping logic holes, creating even more in the process.

I'm saying your simple explanation isn't accurate. It is artificially simple. It is dumbed down, illogical. It is designed to give people an excuse not to think.

> > But, as you suggest, a vortice cannot suck itself into existence, not
>
> Well, good of you to admit your entire theory is bullshit, James.
> That's likely why you've retracted the underlying premise of your
> halfwittery:

It's amazing the depths of desperation and dishonesty people will resort to in order to avoid confronting literal complexity when provided the alternative of fictional simplicity.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:8a7a4716-edec-4b65...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 11:55:35 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> My explanation is complex.

>> That's what you always say to preface your moronity when you know it's
>> going to be proven wrong, James. It's almost as if you're saying, "Ok,
>> I know this is utter bullshit, but..."

> No, I'm saying my explanation is complex.

It's only "complex" because I keep kicking holes in your "theory
not-a-theory", necessitating that you slap patches on the gaping
logical inconsistencies and contradictions exposed. Your "theory
not-a-theory" is a constantly-shifting fabricated fantasy, the product
of a broken brain, not backed up by empirical or experimental
evidence.

Why can't you provide the mathematics proving your contention that
humid air is heavier than dry air, in direct contradiction to
long-established scientific knowledge, James?

Why can't you provide the mathematics proving your contention that
electrostatic attraction increases to the square of distance, in
direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law, James?

>>> It involves many different elements.

>> No, it only involved air temperature and humidity which affect air
>> density which affect air buoyancy, James. It's not complicated. You've
>> made it complicated because you deny reality, so you've got to keep
>> making your kooky theory more and more complicated to address all the
>> gaping logic holes, creating even more in the process.

> I'm saying your simple explanation isn't accurate. It is artificially
> simple. It is dumbed down, illogical. It is designed to give people
> an excuse not to think.

Sure it's accurate. It's been proven by tens of thousands of
experiments, as proven via the thousands of experiments I've
referenced, all of which you've run away from, Tardnado. You are,
after all, the reality denying kooktard who rejects reality in favor
of your comforting delusion that you've got everything figured out, as
you blather out moronic tripe that has turned you into a scientific
laughingstock.

Your explanation, on the other hand, has the sum total of *zero*
experiments backing it up, it has no mathematics to model it, and your
"explanations" have to keep shifting as I expose your erroneous
thought processes which result from your feverish broken brain
slipping cogs as it works overtime trying to understand a reality that
utterly perplexes you.

>>> But, as you suggest, a vortice cannot suck itself into existence, not

>> Well, good of you to admit your entire theory is bullshit, James.
>> That's likely why you've retracted the underlying premise of your
>> halfwittery:

> It's amazing the depths of desperation and dishonesty people will
> resort to in order to avoid confronting literal complexity when
> provided the alternative of fictional simplicity.

You mean like constantly shifting your kooky "theory not-a-theory" as
I kick holes in it, to include retracting your central premise in
trying to evade having been proven wrong, thereby destroying your
entire "theory not-a-theory", James? That was quite the embarrassment
for you, wasn't it, James? It proved you're not only insane, you're
stupid, too. LOL

Good of you to admit you're desperate and dishonest, James. You are,
after all, a proven scientific fraud and a worldwide laughingstock.

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> Retracted:
> Polarity is a variable. And the mechanism that alters (reduces)
> the polarity of H2O molecules is the completion of hydrogen
> bonds with adjoining water molecules.
========================================================

James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn dribbled:
Message-ID: <3a52e2f1a86d44a4...@dizum.com>
========================================================
> In my post entitled Conservation of Energy in Earth's
> Atmosphere I describe how the spinning of water
> droplets/clusters--a direct result of wind shear--causes
> these droplets to elongate into chains of partially
> reactivated H2O molecules, effectuating a plasma with
> structural integrity. It is important to note that
> without the concept that is the subject of this post
> (the Polarity Neutralization Implication of Hydrogen
> Bonds Between Water Molecules and Groups Thereof) this
> would not be possible.
========================================================

Thus, without your "variable polarity of the water molecule" claim

(now retracted by you), your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim falls, by
your own admission. And without your "plasma not-a-plasma" claim, your

"boundaries and structures" which you claim that "plasma not-a-plasma"
forms which drives the winds. Thus your entire "theory not-a-theory"
just came crashing to the ground. That's what happens when you build
your "theory not-a-theory" like a Jenga tower of lies and
suppositions, James.

Yet again, you've destroyed your moronic theory in trying to slap
patches on it so you can writhe your way out of being proven wrong.
You're too ignorant, insane and uneducated to acknowledge or
understand reality, let alone model it, Tardnado. LOL

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

That's reality, James. Deal with it. Tardnado. LOL

[James McGinn]

On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:38:28 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > No, I'm saying my explanation is complex.
>
> It's only "complex" because I keep kicking holes in your "theory
> not-a-theory",

I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.

> Why can't you provide the mathematics proving your contention that
> humid air is heavier than dry air,

Why would it be necessary to contradict what exists only in your imagination?

> >> No, it only involved air temperature and humidity which affect air
> >> density which affect air buoyancy, James. It's not complicated. You've
> >> made it complicated because you deny reality, so you've got to keep
> >> making your kooky theory more and more complicated to address all the
> >> gaping logic holes, creating even more in the process.
>
> > I'm saying your simple explanation isn't accurate. It is artificially
> > simple. It is dumbed down, illogical. It is designed to give people
> > an excuse not to think.
>
> Sure it's accurate. It's been proven by tens of thousands of
> experiments,

And yet you can't even find one.

What does this indicate?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:7ee66cee-cb43-421c...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:38:28 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> No, I'm saying my explanation is complex.

>> It's only "complex" because I keep kicking holes in your "theory

>> not-a-theory", necessitating that you slap patches on the gaping
>> logical inconsistencies and contradictions exposed. Your "theory
>> not-a-theory" is a constantly-shifting fabricated fantasy, the product
>> of a broken brain, not backed up by empirical or experimental
>> evidence.

> I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.

Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
whatsoever.

You're losing, Jim. Badly.

>> Why can't you provide the mathematics proving your contention that

>> humid air is heavier than dry air, in direct contradiction to
>> long-established scientific knowledge, James?

> Why would it be necessary to contradict what exists only in your imagination?

You mean in your imagination. Whereas I've presented several studies
*and* done the math to prove humid air is lighter than dry air, you've
denied reality and blathered out more stupidity. Where's your proof of
any of your claims, Jim? Why can't you provide any proof of your
delusions?

Does it piss you off that reality continues kicking you in the head,
Tardnado? LOL

>> Why can't you provide the mathematics proving your contention that

>> electrostatic attraction increases to the square of distance, in
>> direct contradiction to Coulomb's Law, James?

<crickets>

James? Where's your proof, Tardnado?

>>>> No, it only involved air temperature and humidity which affect air
>>>> density which affect air buoyancy, James. It's not complicated. You've
>>>> made it complicated because you deny reality, so you've got to keep
>>>> making your kooky theory more and more complicated to address all the
>>>> gaping logic holes, creating even more in the process.

>>> I'm saying your simple explanation isn't accurate. It is artificially
>>> simple. It is dumbed down, illogical. It is designed to give people
>>> an excuse not to think.

>> Sure it's accurate. It's been proven by tens of thousands of

>> experiments, as proven via the thousands of experiments I've
>> referenced, all of which you've run away from, Tardnado. You are,
>> after all, the reality denying kooktard who rejects reality in favor
>> of your comforting delusion that you've got everything figured out, as
>> you blather out moronic tripe that has turned you into a scientific
>> laughingstock.
>>
>> Your explanation, on the other hand, has the sum total of *zero*
>> experiments backing it up, it has no mathematics to model it, and your
>> "explanations" have to keep shifting as I expose your erroneous
>> thought processes which result from your feverish broken brain
>> slipping cogs as it works overtime trying to understand a reality that
>> utterly perplexes you.

> And yet you can't even find one.

I've provided references to more than 2500 studies proving your
delusional blather wrong, you lying shitbag.

Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>

There are more than 2500 scientific studies there, all of them proving
you wrong. Get to work refuting them, James.

> What does this indicate?

It indicates that your delusional little make-believe world is under
attack by reality and scientific truth, and you're backpedaling and
writhing like a worm on a hotplate in trying to keep your delusion
alive... because the alternative is that you'd have to acknowledge the
reality that you've been utterly, thoroughly insane for more than 25
years, Tardnado.

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado McGinn?

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================

Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
because much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially

thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,

which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire
cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a
semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will
preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an
extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:16:54 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.
>
> Bullshit, James.

Where's the beef?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:54a4a474-7681-4632...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:16:54 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.

>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>> whatsoever.
>>
>> You're losing, Jim. Badly.

> Where's the beef?

Your non sequitur evasion stands as your tacit admission that you know
you've been defeated, TornadoTard.

Reality is steamrolling over your skull, James, and you're utterly
powerless to stop it.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,

[James McGinn]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
> <news:54a4a474-7681-4632...@googlegroups.com> did
> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:16:54 PM UTC-7,
> > Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>
> >>> I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.
>
> >> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
> >> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
> >> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
> >> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
> >> whatsoever.
> >>
> >> You're losing, Jim. Badly.
>
> > Where's the beef?
>
> Your non sequitur evasion stands as your tacit admission that you know
> you've been defeated,

You don't have a coherent argument. You seem to think that your own cognitive dissonance is the fault of the people, like me, that don't share your brain-dead, poorly considered science-based beliefs.

Convection theory is simple, easy to conceptualize, seemingly plausible, but actually impossible. My plasma based theory is complicated, difficult to conceptualize, seemingly implausible, but actually possible.

Science involves, firstly, eliminating the impossible and then slowly and carefully building up your understanding from there to, eventually, arrive at what is true. You don't get that. You never will.

Convection Versus Plasma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwSyalcoRAk

[Skeet]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:18:32 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Your non sequitur evasion stands as your tacit admission that you know
>you've been defeated, TornadoTard.

"says the"

What a projection artist.

[James McGinn]

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:16:54 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> > I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.
>
> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory

Well, is there any chance you could provide some details as to how you achieved that? It might seem ridiculous to you but I want to see if I might be able to salvage part of it. I mean, unless your dog ate it or something.

> > Why would it be necessary to contradict what exists only in your imagination?
>
> You mean in your imagination. Whereas I've presented several studies
> *and* done the math to prove humid air is lighter than dry air,

Hmm. I must have misplaced it. Any chance you can post it again. Or post a link. I don't recall having seen it. Pretty please?

> I've provided references to more than 2500 studies proving your
> delusional blather wrong, you lying shitbag.

Well, I tried to figure out what you point is. No luck so far. Don't worry, I'll keep trying.

> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>

Maybe you could explain what I'm not seeing.

> There are more than 2500 scientific studies there,

My cup overfloeth.

No luck yet. But I'll keep trying.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:542ff86f-4621-47ad...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:29:29 AM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
>> <news:54a4a474-7681-4632...@googlegroups.com>
>> did thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:16:54 PM UTC-7,
>>> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>> I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.

>>>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
>>>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>>>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>>>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> You're losing, Jim. Badly.

>>> Where's the beef?

>> Your non sequitur evasion stands as your tacit admission that you know

>> you've been defeated, TornadoTard.
>>
>> Reality is steamrolling over your skull, James, and you're utterly
>> powerless to stop it.

> Yo<SMACKAKOOK!>

You're blathering out your delusions again, James. Try providing some
proof for once. That's something you've never done.

You are an uneducated moronic brain-damaged paranoid psychotic lying
piece of shit who babbles out delusional blather.

You are shunned throughout the scientific world, your name has become
synonymous with scientific fraud.

You've been proven to be an uneducated and ineducable halfwit who
couldn't even pass a Basic Meteorology class.

You're a paranoid delusional doofus whose blather gets deleted on
website comments sections because they don't let barkingly mad loons
blather out their moronic insanity.

You're a "tornado expert not-an-expert" who's never seen, experienced
or researched tornadoes.

You're a "physicist not-a-physicist" who holds no advanced degrees,
whose sum total of scientific education consists of a Basic
Meteorology class you failed out of.

You're a worldwide laughingstock, a babbling buffoon who can't wrap
his broken tard-brain around reality.

You've been proven to be so psychotic that you've legally been deemed
a ward of your elderly parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
and others if you lived independently.

You are a cowardly-snipping evading writhing moron who can't provide
any proof to back up the delusions you blather out.

You are defeated.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,

TornadoTard?

[James McGinn]

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:45:04 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> >>>>> I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.
>
> >>>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
> >>>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
> >>>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
> >>>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
> >>>> whatsoever.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're losing, Jim. Badly.
>
> >>> Where's the beef?
>
> >> Your non sequitur evasion stands as your tacit admission that you know
> >> you've been defeated, TornadoTard.
> >>
> >> Reality is steamrolling over your skull, James, and you're utterly
> >> powerless to stop it.
>
> > Yo<SMACKAKOOK!>
>
> You're blathering out your delusions again, James. Try providing some
> proof for once. That's something you've never done.

Well, I don't have proof buy I do have evidence of a person that tried to dispute it and failed miserably--and kind of lost his mind . . . uh. Wanna take a guess who I'm talking about . . . uh, er?

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <ausufbpvpv1bgmr9t...@4ax.com>,
ben...@the.future says...

>
> Fakey the FLotus Blossom wrote:
>
> > Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
> > not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
> > caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
> > moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
> > whatsoever.
>

> Did you catch "Tardnado" lying about a fake lotus, FLotus
> Blossom?

SPANKY-SPANKY! (tm)

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
<news:ausufbpvpv1bgmr9t...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>> whatsoever.

> Did

Have you figured out that cross correlation can be used with Fourier
transforms yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> you

Have you figured out that a sinusoid is a transform of a circle yet,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> catch

Have you figured out the difference between frequency and period of a
sinewave yet, Mathematical Moron?

> "Tardnado"

Have you figured out that wave interference and superposition are the
same thing yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> lying

Have you figured out that wave interference works the same for
standing and traveling waves yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> about

Have you figured out that formulas are math yet, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> a

Have you figured out that sin^2 is a sinusoid yet, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> fake

Have you figured out that atomic number does not equal effective
nuclear charge yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> lotus,

Have you figured out that "within 10% error" does not equal "10%
error" yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> FLotus

Have you figured out that the square of the instantaneous sample of

peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave,

thus its average does *not* equal zero yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Blossom?

Have you figured out that "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic" yet,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

Why do you keep running from the multiple SPNAK!s you've taken, Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard?

Now, prove to the world that you're Usenet's biggest coward by running
away from your stupidity. Again. Spankard.

SPNAK! #1:
=========================================================
A Mathematical Moron wrote:
===========================
> "Sin^2 is a sine"... what a moroon. LOL.
===========================

FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
===========================
<http://i.imgur.com/SU4YXB0.png>

Gee, that *sinusoid* sure looks like a *sinusoid*. LOL
=========================================================


SPNAK! #2:
=========================================================
>> Some Mathematical Moron wrote:
>>> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]
> Right, some maffemagickal maroon wrote that.
Right. You wrote that. LOL
SPNAK!

> What I wrote was
> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]

That's what you wrote, and that's Euler's Formula, Spankard.

But you've yet again fucked it up:
170\left(\cos \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi
}{180}\right)\right)+\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
60+\left(0\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)-170\left(\cos
\left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot 60+\left(-120\cdot \frac{\pi
}{180}\right)\right)+\sin \left(2\cdot x\cdot \pi \cdot
60+\left(-120\cdot \frac{\pi }{180}\right)\right)\right)

<http://i.imgur.com/veVLHuI.png>

Whaaaaaat??? Your kooky equation produces 416.413 volts L-L from 170
volt peak L-N, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard! Obviously you're a Mathematical
Moron blathering on about shit you don't understand. LOL

Uh-oh... take a look at this, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard:
<http://i.imgur.com/nWBbVbS.png>

You'll note your fucked up equation produces ~294 volts RMS L-L from
120 volt RMS L-N. How's *that* work, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

Did... did I just fix your fucked up equation *and* derive the correct
~208 volts RMS L-L from 120 volts RMS L-N? With the *correct* 30
degree lead phase shift? Yeah... yeah I did, Mathematical Moron. LOL

SPNAK!
=========================================================


SPNAK! #3:
=========================================================
>> He says, using Euler's Formula and not knowing it. LOL

> It's not Euler's Theorem, faketard. I realize phasors
> totally mystify you, so you think it's all magic. It's not.
> Did you see any complex numbers?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Relation_with_complex_exponentials>
"The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
Formula"

Some Mathematical Moron wrote:
> = A[cos(0°)x^ + sin(0°)y^] -A[cos(-120°)x^ + sin(-120°)y^]

Euler wrote:
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/4/2/e4285d1d4bd15710afcc2753c9ed3095.png>

SPNAK! on the Mathematical Moron, who didn't even realize he was using
Euler's Formula. Bwahahahaaa!
=========================================================


SPNAK! #4:
=========================================================
Bwahahahaaa! The Mathematical Moron sticks up for the Mathematical
Mega-Moron. And that makes them both *wrong*.

<http://www.electrician2.com/electa1/electa4htm.html>
<http://www.electrician2.com/electa1/electa3htm.htm>
===================================
Mathematically, we can precisely *add* the three vectors for the line
currents by converting vectors into their horizontal and vertical
components by using trigonometry. We can *add* the horizontal
components, then *add* the vertical components, then convert this to
polar coordinates to find the *sum* of the vectors. This is called
algebraic *vector* *addition*.
===================================

And that all goes back to you moron's inability to grok the
Superposition Principle, and thus the Additivity and Homogeneity
properties of same... mostly you... you k'lamed that superposition and
wave constructive/destructive interference were different things, and
that constructive/destructive interference worked differently for
standing waves and traveling waves... so you're especially moronic on
this topic...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle>
"Note that when vectors or vector fields are involved, a superposition
is interpreted as a vector sum."

There's not a minus sign in an equation on that entire page. Morons.

Here, you fecking *morons*... let me demonstrate it a way you halfwits
will hopefully understand...

<http://i.imgur.com/cuw4gus.png>

Red: 100 volt, 0 degree phase
Green: 100 volt, 120 degree phase
Blue: Red + Green

See where the Red and Green lines cross? What's that voltage? Oh, it's
50 volts. What's 50 + 50, you fucking *morons*? Oh, so when you sum
two like sinewaves, you shift the resultant to exactly between the two
tributaries, with the same amplitude as the tributaries.

Hence the resultant is 180 degrees phase from the remaining third
phase, hence the sum of the three phases of 3-phase AC must always
equal zero.

Now, let's look at what you morons are doing...

<http://i.imgur.com/zdNCScp.png>

Same exact graph, but the third phase has been added in Orange to show
the Blue Line is 180 degrees phase from that Orange line, and a Purple
line has been added to reflect DildoRider's moronic sinewave
subtraction equation... now remember, we're figuring out the
superposition (the constructive and destructive interference) of the
Red and the Green lines.

In that image, at the X axis where the Purple line peaks, the Red line
has an amplitude of 87 volts. The green line has an amplitude of -87
volts.

Now, you *fucking* *morons*... what is the wave interference result
when two waves interfere that have exactly opposite amplitudes? Oh...
that's right, its ZERO. Which is also why the Blue line is at ZERO at
that point on the X axis.

Where's that 173.205 volts coming from in DildoRider's kooky sinewave
subtraction equation, you *fucking* *morons*?

But wait! It gets even better!

<http://i.imgur.com/0l0SQjy.png>

That's the same exact graph, but with DildoRider's kooky sinewave
subtraction equation as purple and black lines... the purple line has
the 0 degree phase as the first part of the equation, the black line
has the 120 degree phase as the first part of the equation.

And one can see that the result is flipped. According to DildoRider's
kooky sinewave subtraction equation, he can convert 0 volts directly
into either 173 *or* -173 volts!

Because you're both Mathematical Morons.

SPNAK!

<dances a jig on the brains of the morons because I've irrefutably
proven myself right, and proven the two *morons* are indeed huge
fucking *Mathematical* *Morons*>

Why are you *so* *stupid*, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

And the above proves DildoRider *and* Shiny Tinfoil Spankard have been
*wrong* about every fucking thing they've been blathering.

Bwahahaaaaa! Once again your Usenet Lord and Master drop-kicks your
moronic asses across Usenet.

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

And I'll just drop another SPNAK! in here for added effect...

SPNAK!

You may begin backpedaling in 3... 2... 1... GO!

<snicker>
===============================================================

Your inability to understand, let alone refute, that reality stands as
your tacit admission that you are Usenet's Mathematical Moron.

SPNAK!

RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!

--

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
=====================================
MID: <13d33d0638e0ec69...@dizum.com>
MID: <80d61a6928a9e7df...@dizum.com>

The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
*sinusoids*).

MID: <ff81cb60204ffbd7...@dizum.com>

MID: <382fa822c6dbca9a...@dizum.com>
That formulas *are* math.

How to use a graphing calculator.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d8559...@dizum.com>
What LaTeX notation is.

MID: <8e4e21f5748d8559...@dizum.com>
That LaTeX notation *is* "plain text", not a script.

MID: <c1c02875af2c6615...@dizum.com>
That a formula in LaTeX notation is still a formula.

That scientific notation and LaTeX notation are not the same.
DUURRRHH! GoogleTard. LOL

That LaTeX notation can be copy-n-pasted into a LaTeX compatible
program to view the formula.

That image size != image resolution.

And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
=====================================

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard the Mathematical Moron maunders and mewls:
=====================================
"All you've shown us is graphs of formulas. No equal signs, no maths
done." - Shiny Tinfoil Brain demonstrates his Mathematical Moronism.
=====================================

SPNAK!

<snicker>

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:34d816f5-93ad-4479...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 11:16:54 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>> I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.

>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory

>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>> whatsoever.
>>
>> You're losing, Jim. Badly.

> Well, is there any chance you could provide some details as to how
> you achieved that?

I've beaten your moronic blather by simply pointing out that your
halfwittery doesn't reflect reality, that you're a schizophrenic
uneducated halfwit babbling about fairy tale physical processes that
do not and cannot exist.

I've destroyed your "theory not-a-theory" by reminding you that you've
run from providing proof of your psychotic claims, and that you've run
from doing the experiments you know will prove you wrong.

I've forced you to retract the central premise of your moronic "theory
not-a-theory", thereby destroying the whole things, by referencing
thousands upon thousands of studies which all prove you wrong... which
you ran away from.

> It might seem ridiculous to you but I want to see if I might be able
> to salvage part of it.

You cannot salvage your delusion, James. It's been destroyed. Try
again with a theory that reflects reality. And this time, try not to
be such a fucking retard.

> I mean, unless your dog ate it or something.

You can start by refuting all of reality, James. Of course, you can't
do that... so your only recourse is to file that crayon-scribbled
"class-action" kooksoot you've been working on.

Because every moronic uneducated broken-brained halfwit files a
kooksoot, James. It's de rigueur for your brand of insanity.

Get to filing that kooksoot, you halfwitted schizo-brained moron. Be
sure to crayon-scribble in "FNVWe" as a defendant, along with
*science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe*. We're
all conspiring to thwart your pathetic attempts to remodel reality to
fit your delusion.

You sad sorry stupid sack of shit. You've been made into the butt of
the joke across the entire scientific community. Everyone's laughing
at you. You'll never be taken seriously.

I did that to you, Tardnado McGinn. You're powerless to stop reality
from slowly crushing your skull. All you can do is display exactly how
insane I've driven you. File that kooksoot, you fucking delusional
loser.

<snicker>

>>> Why would it be necessary to contradict what exists only in
>>> your imagination?

>> You mean in your imagination. Whereas I've presented several studies

>> *and* done the math to prove humid air is lighter than dry air, you've
>> denied reality and blathered out more stupidity. Where's your proof of
>> any of your claims, Jim? Why can't you provide any proof of your
>> delusions?
>>
>> Does it piss you off that reality continues kicking you in the head,
>> Tardnado? LOL

> Hmm. I must have misplaced it.

No, you ran away from every single proof that you're a delusional
uneducated schizophrenic moron blathering out psychotic tripe that has
no connection to reality, James. Of course, the fact that the
scientific community shuns you, the fact that you can't get your
delusions on a pre-print server let alone through the peer-review
process, the fact that several prominent researchers have told you
that you're wrong, the fact that now the entire scientific community
knows you're a psychotic uneducated moron to be mocked... that should
clue you in that you're delusional, but you're desperate to maintain
your delusion because you prefer lying rather than the truth. That's
why, after all, you're a scientific fraud.

> Any chance you can post it again. Or post a link. I don't recall
> having seen it. Pretty please?

The link is below, Tardnado. You ran away from it. Again. Why can't
you refute reality, James?

>> I've provided references to more than 2500 studies proving your
>> delusional blather wrong, you lying shitbag.

> Well, I tried to figure out what you point is. No luck so far.
> Don't worry, I'll keep trying.

My point is that you're a lying delusional shitbag who is desperate to
prove all of reality wrong so you can maintain your delusion that you
somehow are not crazy as a shithouse rat, James.

But you are crazy as a shithouse rat... that's why you're forced to
live at home with mommy and daddy... you'd be a danger to yourself and

others if you lived independently.

>> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>

> Maybe you could explain what I'm not seeing.

You're not seeing anything, you're asshole-and-elbows running from
more than 2500 peer-reviewed studies that prove you're an off-meds
schizo-brained uneducated moron babbling on about impossibilities as
though they actually existed.

>> There are more than 2500 scientific studies there, all of them proving
>> you wrong. Get to work refuting them, James.

> My cup overfloeth.

Your "cup" is cracked. What little was in your "cup" dribbled out all
over your shoes long ago. Now you're just an empty-brained uneducated
blathering moron, James, and your psychosis deepens with each passing
day.

> No luck yet. But I'll keep trying.

No, you'll keep running, evading and lying, James.

And let's just add in the other lie you got caught in, you dishonest
shitbag.

>>> By the way, I've been contacted by Google. They wanted to inform me
>>> that my post (link above) is the most viewed post in the history of usenet.

>> Fucking delusional liar.
>>
>> Google Groups search term:
>> authormsg:sci.physics,fV_XIjPUCgAJ after:2015/12/24 before:2015/12/27
>>
>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/authormsg$3Asci.physics$2CfV_XIjPUCgAJ$20after$3A2015$2F12$2F24$20before$3A2015$2F12$2F27>
>> 641 views
>>
>> You're a fucking liar, a scientific fraud, a dishonest scumbag and a
>> psychotic uneducated halfwit, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of
>> Antioch, CA.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,

Tardnado Jim?

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 03:27:00 -0400, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
<ben...@the.future> wrote:

> Fakey the FLotus Blossom wrote:
>

>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>> whatsoever.
>

> Did you catch "Tardnado" lying about a fake lotus, FLotus
> Blossom?
>

another lotus theory destroyed.

--
the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...
https://web.archive.org/web/20160324102816/http://i.imgur.com/S1Xr5PO.png

-

"sines, sines, everywhere there's sines
blocking up the snickerTurds, breaking his mind"
http://imgur.com/a/yMFsu

-

FNVWe attempts to rewrite physics texts in Message-ID:
<3dcad3dd0a0d3972...@dizum.com>

">>let's not forget that mine also had the correct applied mathematics
>> equations unlike fakey the supposed know-it-all:
>> phase A: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x)
>> phase B: 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi)
>> voltage difference between phase A and phase B at any point x in time:
>> 120*sin(2*pi*60*x) - 120*sin(2*pi*60*x+pi) = 240*sin(2*pi*60*x)

Wrong, as has already been proven. What does it say below, you fecking
*moron*?

"The _sum_ E(θ) ≡ E(a) + E(b) can be written thusly:""

it says that you don't even know how to correctly apply mathematics to
real-world AC electricity, snickerTurds. it says that you're in denial
about the inversion of your AC legs.

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/single-phase-power-systems/
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/02170.png
"To mathematically calculate voltage between “hot” wires, we must subtract
voltages, because their polarity marks show them to be opposed to each
other:"
http://sub.allaboutcircuits.com/images/12112.png

http://www.samlexamerica.com/support/documents/WhitePaper-120240VACSingleSplitPhaseandMultiWireBranchCircuits.pdf

on page 2:

** NOTE: The phase of Hot Leg 2 (Phase B) is in the
opposite direction - i.e., 180° apart from the phase
of Hot Leg L1 (Phase A)

*COUGH*
SPNAK!!

-

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII
art if you ask nicely.</GROUCHO MARX>
see: Message-ID: <4ba4a50aaaebc7fb...@dizum.com>

-

snickerTurds can't seem to refute the following:

- begin snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --
/*
HOW TO RUN: download arbitrary precision libraries from:

http://www.hvks.com/Numerical/arbitrary_precision.html

place those files in a directory and save this file as
snickerSinewaveStew.cpp inside that same directory.

compiles with:

gcc -Wall -I. precisioncore.cpp snickerSinewaveStew.cpp -lstdc++

run with:

./a.out

enjoy the LULZ ;)

*/
#include <fprecision.h>
#include <iostream.h>

using namespace std;

int main(){

//float_precision MIN=float_precision(0);
//float_precision MAX=float_precision(0);

float_precision STEP=float_precision(.0001);
float_precision t=float_precision(0); // time variable
float_precision sum=float_precision(0); // sum of SnickerTurd's
ridiculous sinewave mess
float_precision snickerPrediction=float_precision(2550.25); //
snickerTurd's erroneous k0oK-k'lame Sum
float_precision PI;
PI =_float_table(_PI,25);

// this while loop will run forever, but snickers doesn't understand why
while(sum < snickerPrediction){

// fakey's Sinewave Stew(TM) see: MID:
<db672705e57e4932...@dizum.com>
sum = (float_precision(150) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(120)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(20.25) * float_precision(
sin(float_precision(33)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(1400)* float_precision(
sin(float_precision(150)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +(float_precision(20)*
float_precision(sin(float_precision(5013)*float_precision(2)*PI*t))) +
(float_precision(600)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(13)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)))
+
(float_precision(360)*float_precision(sin(float_precision(1209)*float_precision(2)*PI*t)));

// perhaps show a few values larger than +2300 to educate teh
snickerTurds
if(sum>float_precision(2300)){
cout << "t=" << t << " sum=" << sum << std::endl;
}
t = t+STEP;
}
/*

Message-ID: <c8523e6d9c31e328...@dizum.com>
"Oh, yeah... it's 2550.25 volts... so why does your graph not even
reach 2500 volts, given that eventually all the sinewaves will
constructively interfere (ie: *add* to each other) to *sum* to 2550.25
volts?"

Fakey, it doesn't reach 2500 volts because the summation of your sinewaves
never reaches that. They never reach their max values at the same time.
That's how stupid you are.

Message-ID: <731d08dcc702b9a8...@dizum.com>
"I most certainly *did* prove otherwise. It can't even arrive at the
correct sinewave summation voltage of 2550.25 volts"

Fakey, you only *proved* that you are too inept to graph the equations and
notice a few things about the interactions of their frequencies when
summed.

the next line of code is never executed, but snickers DEFINITELY can't
figure out why it isn't and instead has a bunch of lame excuses while
still having not produced a value for t where the sum=2550.25, as he has
k0okily proklamed in many usenet messages that are archived FOREVER.

*/
cout << "snickerTurds was right! the sum is " << sum << " at time t=" <<
t <<endl;
}
- end snickerSinewaveStew.cpp --

-

Fakey irrationally demands a theme song to foam to:
"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."
<f4f9193fa7d28b76...@dizum.com>

-

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In The History Of Usenet. LOL

<the band strikes up a rousing version of "on top of old smokey">

on top of old snick-ers, all covered with Fag. LOL
is where my usenet lord and mas-ter
can go straight to hell*

*hell doesn't exist. hope everybody is having a productive evening.

-

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

-

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers
containing "ro...@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

-

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

-

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

-

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message
<b5e7da79a455d0c9...@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._ (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."

-

Golden Killfile, June 2005
KOTM, November 2006
Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006
Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007
Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006
Busted Urinal Award, April 2007
Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008
Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007
AUK Mascot, September 2007
Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:8a7b4c2c-7c08-4358...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 10:45:04 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>>>>> I don't think you are doing so well in that respect.

>>>>>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
>>>>>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>>>>>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>>>>>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>>>>>> whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're losing, Jim. Badly.

>>>>> Where's the beef?

>>>> Your non sequitur evasion stands as your tacit admission that you know
>>>> you've been defeated, TornadoTard.
>>>>
>>>> Reality is steamrolling over your skull, James, and you're utterly
>>>> powerless to stop it.

>>> Yo<SMACKAKOOK!>

>> You're blathering out your delusions again, James. Try providing some
>> proof for once. That's something you've never done.

> Well, I don't have proof

Your admission that you have no proof is noted, James. You have no
empirical or experimental evidence, no proof, no corroborating
studies, no collaborations with legitimate researchers, all you have
is your delusional suppositions you've pulled straight from your ass.

I can do this for years, James... I'll keep you so busy backpedaling
that you won't even have time to think. I'll drive you so insane with
impotent rage from continually having your retarded ass drop-kicked
across Usenet that you'll end up institutionalized. I've done it
before with far smarter and saner kooks than you.

> buy I do have evidence of a person that tried to dispute it and
> failed miserably--and kind of lost his mind . . . uh. Wanna take
> a guess who I'm talking about . . . uh, er?

You're talking about yourself, James. Reality keeps drop-kicking your
moronic blather-spewing ass, and the very *best* you've done in
response is to backpedal, get caught in lie after lie, and run away.

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <s6tvfbpu4on1p2iac...@4ax.com>,
ben...@the.future says...


>
> Fakey wrote:
>
> > You cannot salvage your Lotus, James. It's been destroyed. Try
> > again with a clown car that reflects you. And this time, try not to
> > be such a fucking plagiarist.
>
> Pot-kettle-black?

Much?

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[James McGinn]

That's what I thought.

[Skeet]

Evasion at it's finest.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in

<news:bbc3b55a-f9ec-448b...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

James? No reply, James?

>>> It might seem ridiculous to you but I want to see if I might be able
>>> to salvage part of it.

>> You cannot salvage your delusion, James. It's been destroyed. Try
>> again with a theory that reflects reality. And this time, try not to
>> be such a fucking retard.

James? No reply, James?

>>> I mean, unless your dog ate it or something.

>> You can start by refuting all of reality, James. Of course, you can't
>> do that... so your only recourse is to file that crayon-scribbled
>> "class-action" kooksoot you've been working on.
>>
>> Because every moronic uneducated broken-brained halfwit files a
>> kooksoot, James. It's de rigueur for your brand of insanity.
>>
>> Get to filing that kooksoot, you halfwitted schizo-brained moron. Be
>> sure to crayon-scribble in "FNVWe" as a defendant, along with
>> *science*, *reality*, *electrons*, *photons* and the *universe*. We're
>> all conspiring to thwart your pathetic attempts to remodel reality to
>> fit your delusion.
>>
>> You sad sorry stupid sack of shit. You've been made into the butt of
>> the joke across the entire scientific community. Everyone's laughing
>> at you. You'll never be taken seriously.
>>
>> I did that to you, Tardnado McGinn. You're powerless to stop reality
>> from slowly crushing your skull. All you can do is display exactly how
>> insane I've driven you. File that kooksoot, you fucking delusional
>> loser.
>>
>> <snicker>

James? No reply, James?

>>>>> Why would it be necessary to contradict what exists only in
>>>>> your imagination?

>>>> You mean in your imagination. Whereas I've presented several studies
>>>> *and* done the math to prove humid air is lighter than dry air, you've
>>>> denied reality and blathered out more stupidity. Where's your proof of
>>>> any of your claims, Jim? Why can't you provide any proof of your
>>>> delusions?
>>>>
>>>> Does it piss you off that reality continues kicking you in the head,
>>>> Tardnado? LOL

>>> Hmm. I must have misplaced it.

>> No, you ran away from every single proof that you're a delusional
>> uneducated schizophrenic moron blathering out psychotic tripe that has
>> no connection to reality, James. Of course, the fact that the
>> scientific community shuns you, the fact that you can't get your
>> delusions on a pre-print server let alone through the peer-review
>> process, the fact that several prominent researchers have told you
>> that you're wrong, the fact that now the entire scientific community
>> knows you're a psychotic uneducated moron to be mocked... that should
>> clue you in that you're delusional, but you're desperate to maintain
>> your delusion because you prefer lying rather than the truth. That's
>> why, after all, you're a scientific fraud.

James? No reply, James?

>>> Any chance you can post it again. Or post a link. I don't recall
>>> having seen it. Pretty please?

>> The link is below, Tardnado. You ran away from it. Again. Why can't
>> you refute reality, James?

James? No reply, James?

>>>> I've provided references to more than 2500 studies proving your
>>>> delusional blather wrong, you lying shitbag.

>>> Well, I tried to figure out what you point is. No luck so far.
>>> Don't worry, I'll keep trying.

>> My point is that you're a lying delusional shitbag who is desperate to
>> prove all of reality wrong so you can maintain your delusion that you
>> somehow are not crazy as a shithouse rat, James.
>>
>> But you are crazy as a shithouse rat... that's why you're forced to
>> live at home with mommy and daddy... you'd be a danger to yourself and
>> others if you lived independently.

James? No reply, James?

>>>> Start here: <http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ref.html>

>>> Maybe you could explain what I'm not seeing.

>> You're not seeing anything, you're asshole-and-elbows running from
>> more than 2500 peer-reviewed studies that prove you're an off-meds
>> schizo-brained uneducated moron babbling on about impossibilities as
>> though they actually existed.

James? No reply, James?

>>>> There are more than 2500 scientific studies there, all of them proving
>>>> you wrong. Get to work refuting them, James.

>>> My cup overfloeth.

>> Your "cup" is cracked. What little was in your "cup" dribbled out all
>> over your shoes long ago. Now you're just an empty-brained uneducated
>> blathering moron, James, and your psychosis deepens with each passing
>> day.

James? No reply, James?

>>> No luck yet. But I'll keep trying.

>> No, you'll keep running, evading and lying, James.
>>
>> And let's just add in the other lie you got caught in, you dishonest
>> shitbag.
>>
>> >>> By the way, I've been contacted by Google. They wanted to inform me
>> >>> that my post (link above) is the most viewed post in the history of usenet.
>>
>> >> Fucking delusional liar.
>> >>
>> >> Google Groups search term:
>> >> authormsg:sci.physics,fV_XIjPUCgAJ after:2015/12/24 before:2015/12/27
>> >>
>> >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/authormsg$3Asci.physics$2CfV_XIjPUCgAJ$20after$3A2015$2F12$2F24$20before$3A2015$2F12$2F27>
>> >> 641 views
>> >>
>> >> You're a fucking liar, a scientific fraud, a dishonest scumbag and a
>> >> psychotic uneducated halfwit, James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of
>> >> Antioch, CA.

> That's what I thought.

You're dumbstruck by the reality that the Meteorology Cabal rules the
entire world, James. I understand. When a person learns of the prison
planet we've created, in which the intelligent rule and the rabble are
our unthinking slaves, it often leaves them speechless.

Be sure to eat hearty, sleep well and take your meds, James.

We've most definitely not brainwashed your mother into becoming one of
our drones, and she most definitely is not dosing your food with mind
control drugs.

We most definitely are not beaming microwaves into your brain as you
sleep to cook it and weaken your resolve and in any case a tinfoil
tent or hat won't help.

Your meds have most definitely not been swapped out for hallucinogens
to force you into an insanity requiring institutionalization, which
would deliver you into our control.

That's just silly, James.

So you can stop resisting us, James. You can trust us, James. We have
your best interests at heart. You'll be happy as our unthinking drone,
James. We promise.

<snicker>

become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:s6tvfbpu4on1p2iac...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> You cannot salvage your delusion, James. It's been destroyed. Try
>> again with a theory that reflects reality. And this time, try not to
>> be such a fucking retard.

> Pot-kettle-black?

You seem to be butthurt and pwned, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. Was it
something I said or did that caused you to become such a bleaty little
tearful mewling moron? Or have you always been a moronic loser?

<snicker?

That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of

a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker (aka Steve Hall), in
<news:1ml3d15.1cbyrv71cikwz8N%snip...@gmail.com> squawked as he
pulled it to poultry porn:

> Ah, but what do you mean by "black"? If you're not careful
> The Risible Mr Fakey, RMS will try to redefine the term.

Define 'redefine', Tr!pey old bird buggerer.

<snicker>

--

---------------------------------------------
Tr!pe the Hypoxic ChickenFucker squawked, in
<news:1l9enri.1boemg21mhmo5lN%sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk>:
"If you want to know about bird sex, just ask me."

Steve Hall (G8DGC, snip...@gmail.com, snip...@gmail.com,
sn...@spambin.fsnet.co.uk, sn...@notforspam.fsnet.co.uk) fucks birds.
LOL

http://i.imgur.com/f0euFil.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/pR0mX95.jpg

Slow bird sex... if Tr!pe chickenfucks fast, he turns blue. LOL
Too much chickenspooge clogging up his lungs. LOL
That's why he's too stupid to do simple math. Lack of oxygen. LOL
That also explains his rampant paranoia. Hypoxic brain damage. LOL
And his segue to human penis... birds aren't enough for him now. LOL

Maths Fail:
Message-ID: <07f2598e7078240c...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <444e1cce007418ec...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <1aefd4d212571584...@dizum.com>

Paranoia Will Destroy Ya:
Message-ID: <6620b273ab1a048a...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9db516a6a4494305...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0793f311af986182...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <6b28ba3566b3f36f...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <aa840a32fa3dc705...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <938a2d9957c61a78...@dizum.com>

Tr!pe The Penis Obsessed Poof:
Message-ID: <48bc243b312b3999...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <0eb75ae7a93df2df...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <9a5d3b92c9841c7e...@dizum.com>
Message-ID: <a4c326b191a39afe...@dizum.com>
---------------------------------------------

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:1qsvfbl798o2nnif5...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>>> Bullshit, James. I've utterly destroyed your entire "theory
>>>> not-a-theory" via more than a half-dozen different avenues. I've
>>>> caught you in several lies. I've proven you're a delusion-blathering
>>>> moron who can't back up any of your insane babbling with any proof
>>>> whatsoever.

>>> Did

Bwahahahaa! One delusional retard sticking up for another delusional
retard while thread-hijacking and bleating out his butthurt.

>> Have you figured out that cross correlation can be used with Fourier
>> transforms yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Look at the bootfucked spankard cowardly snip and backpedal away from
his having been drop-kicked across Usenet for being a moron. LOL!

> See

Have you figured out that water *does* have a plasma temperature yet,
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> fakey

Have you figured out that *any* substance can be plasmized given
sufficient energy input, *including* water, yet, Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard? LOL

> run.

Have you figured out that image size != image resolution yet,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Run,

Have you figured out that Euler's sinewave summation equation is a
result of superposition and the *additivity* rule of vector
*summation* yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> fakey,

Have you figured out that a Lotus Elise is not a Lotus Exige yet,
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> run!

Have you figured out that d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) yet, Mathematical
Moron? LOL

> Run,

Have you figured out that electronegativity is an estimate for
elements and a set constant only for molecules, that it varies per
element with what is being oxidized and what the oxidizer is, and is
dependent upon the factors affecting that oxidation yet, Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard? LOL

> run,

Have you figured out how to copy-n-paste LaTeX notation into a LaTeX
compatible program to view the *formula* yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> run!

Have you figured out how LaTeX is pronounced yet, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> [Hint:

Have you figured out there's a *formula* in that plain text LaTeX
notation yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> you

Have you figured out that LaTeX notation is plain text yet,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> could

Have you figured out what LaTeX notation is yet, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> run

Have you figured out that "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic" yet,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> faster

Have you figured out that the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a

closed loop per Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases

sum to zero yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> if

Have you figured out that the square of the instantaneous sample of
peak-to-peak voltage of a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave,
thus its average does *not* equal zero yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> you

Have you figured out that "within 10% error" does not equal "10%
error" yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> had

Have you figured out that atomic number does not equal effective
nuclear charge yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> a

Have you figured out that sin^2 is a sinusoid yet, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> lotus.]

Have you figured out that formulas are math yet, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> --
> "...a sinewave is a Fourier transformation of a circle."
> --Fakey

<https://youtu.be/pgzc4aU_HeY?t=110>
"The reason that we have these degree designators is because these
represent fractions of a full circle, and in fact the sine waves are a
manifestation of circular motion, that's why the sine function is
sometimes called a circular function."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Unfasor.gif>

Message-ID: <80d61a6928a9e7df...@dizum.com>
=========================================================
<http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-the-fourier-transform/>
See the animations about 1/4th down the page? Yeah, those are Fourier
transforms transforming circles to sine waves in real time... and in
the process smearing egg on your stoooopid face. LOL

<http://muller.research.engineering.cornell.edu/sites/WEELS/summer06/Fourier%20Transforms-2D.pdf>
2D Fourier transform of a circularly symmetric function translates to
Bessinc shape in 2-D, translates in 1-D to a sinewave.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform>
"Still further generalization is possible to functions on groups,
which, besides the original Fourier transform on R or R" (viewed as
groups under addition), notably includes the discrete-time Fourier
transform (DTFT, group = Z), the discrete Fourier transform (DFT,
group = Z mod N) and the Fourier series or *circular* *Fourier*
*transform* (group = S^1, the unit circle ~ closed finite interval
with endpoints identified). The latter is routinely employed to handle
periodic functions."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_function>
You know, periodic functions... like sinewaves.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"In mathematics, the Fourier sine and cosine transforms are forms of
the Fourier integral transform that do not use complex numbers."

Gee.. that *Fourier* *sine* *transform* sure looks familiar, doesn't
it?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms>
"Relation with complex exponentials:

The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
Formula"

Why, that's the exact equation I used to properly graph 170 volt peak
3-phase, which translates to 120.208 volt RMS L-N and 208.207 volt RMS
L-L. I guess that's why they're called the Euler-Fourier Formulas.

SPNAK!
=========================================================

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that Fourier transforms had nothing
to do with the Euler sinewave summation equation? Yeah... yeah you
are.

Spankard. Moron. LOL

SPNAK!

Why are you so stupid, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

<snicker>

[vallor]

On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:02:30 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
> <news:1qsvfbl798o2nnif5...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:

> Have you figured out that d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) yet, Mathematical
> Moron? LOL

First point of order:

FNVHe said he needed the value of "d" in a derivative. Also, he said
that all the derivative did was shift things 90 degrees out of phase.

Conclusion: FNVHe has never used the derivative of a curve in his life,
nor does he know what they are used for.

He may figure it out, though, by his response to this post. He's quite
intelligent, you know.

In this way, the totality of human knowledge expands just that much more.

>
>> Run,

> Have you figured out how to copy-n-paste LaTeX notation into a LaTeX
> compatible program to view the *formula* yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> run!
>
> Have you figured out how LaTeX is pronounced yet, Mathematical Moron?
> LOL
>
>> [Hint:
>
> Have you figured out there's a *formula* in that plain text LaTeX
> notation yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> you
>
> Have you figured out that LaTeX notation is plain text yet,
> Mathematical Moron? LOL
>
>> could
>
> Have you figured out what LaTeX notation is yet, Mathematical Moron?
> LOL

Second point of order: FNVWe gave no indication that he knew the markup
language in question was LaTeX until I mentioned it.

He saw the LaTeX cargo, and he cargo-culted it into his post. FNVHe
might as well be a chinese room, eh?

--
-v

[Janithor]

x-no-archive: yes

What if instead of fighting and arguing all the time, we all made an
effort to just get along?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:2ar2gblqggo3fs8m6...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> I'm not sure if he even realizes that LaTex is rendered
> as gibberish by normal newsreaders.

Liar. It's plain text. If it's "rendered as gibberish" by your
newsreader, you're a moron too stupid to run a newsreader.

Have you figured out yet that LaTeX notation is plain text,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> It fits his MO --

Drop-kicking your moronic ass across Usenet? LOL

> i'm sure it looks slick, but it's all for display
> purposes only.

Bwahahaaaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard *still* can't figure out LaTeX.

Have you figured out yet that there's a *formula* in that plain text
LaTeX notation, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> I filtered Rolf for posting in html, and that's something
> most newsreaders can understand (if one wants them to).
> I'm not sure why Fakey thinks anyone should rush to a
> LaTex parser to see what he's rattling on about.

You Mathematical Moron... it's a method of putting complex formulas
into plain-text so others can copy-n-paste them into a LaTeX
compatible program to view the formulas. Since we're using the
desmos.com graphing calculator, you can simple open that web page,
copy-n-paste the LaTeX into it, and see not only the formula, but the
resultant graph, as well... that you *still* haven't figured that out,
along with the fact that you *still* haven't been able to produce even
a single graph, proves you're a mathematical moron. LOL

Have you figured out yet how to copy-n-paste LaTeX notation into a
LaTeX compatible program to view the *formula*, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> 'Course, there could be another hilarious gaff hiding in it.

Oh, your hilarious gaffe is the gaff upon which your petard has been
hoisted, Mathematical Moron. LOL

Have you figured out yet that "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff",
Mathematical Moron? LOL

That "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff".

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dmbu0s...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:02:30 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
>> <news:1qsvfbl798o2nnif5...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:

>> Have you figured out that d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) yet, Mathematical
>> Moron? LOL

> First point of order:
>
> FNVHe said he needed the value of "d" in a derivative.

I was taunting Shiny Tinfoil Spankard to get him all worked up so I
could drop-kick him across Usenet more. It worked.

<snicker>

> Also, he said that all the derivative did was shift things 90
> degrees out of phase.

Do you deny that cosine leads sine by 90 degrees when graphed?

<http://i.imgur.com/PbEFER9.png>

> Conclusion: FNVHe has never used the derivative of a curve in his life,
> nor does he know what they are used for.

Conclusion: Fanfic.

> He may figure it out, though, by his response to this post. He's quite
> intelligent, you know.
>
> In this way, the totality of human knowledge expands just that much more.

Of course... and as much as I've schooled that moron Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard, that's dragged the left end of the bell curve upward by
several orders of magnitude. LOL

Remember, he's the moron who didn't even know that the resultant of
the three phases of 3-phase AC is always 0. He didn't know that the
resultant of two phases of 3-phase AC is always phase-shifted 60
degrees between the two tributary phases, and 180 degrees out of phase
with the remaining third phase. He thought constructive/destructive
wave interference and superposition were different things, and that
they operated differently upon standing and traveling waves. He and
DildoRider were going on about producing positive and negative
voltages of 416.413 volts L-L from 170 volt peak L-N, and 294 volts
RMS L-L from 120 volt RMS L-N. He blathered on and on that Fourier's
formula and Euler's formula had nothing to do with each other, not
knowing they're called Euler-Fourier Formulas. He's defended the
moronism being spewed by the wholly delusional kooktard Tardnado
McGinn. He desperately attempted to divert attention away from his
getting spanked silly with diversion after diversion he'd raped from
Google, only to prove himself an even bigger moron. And now he's
running like a coward from the multiple SPNAK!s he's taken. LOL

>>> Run,

>> Have you figured out how to copy-n-paste LaTeX notation into a LaTeX
>> compatible program to view the *formula* yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>> run!

>> Have you figured out how LaTeX is pronounced yet, Mathematical Moron?
>> LOL

>>> [Hint:

>> Have you figured out there's a *formula* in that plain text LaTeX
>> notation yet, Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>> you

>> Have you figured out that LaTeX notation is plain text yet,
>> Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>> could

>> Have you figured out what LaTeX notation is yet, Mathematical Moron?
>> LOL

> Second point of order: FNVWe gave no indication that he knew the markup
> language in question was LaTeX until I mentioned it.

Sure I did. I'd mentioned it prior, but when Shiny Tinfoil Spankard
started in on his "no equal sign, no math done" and "what is this
script?!" and "there's no formula there!" blather, I decided to fuck
with him by calling it scientific notation. I'm betting he spent a day
raping Google only to find information about exponents. LOL

> He saw the LaTeX cargo, and he cargo-culted it into his post. FNVHe
> might as well be a chinese room, eh?

No. I've known of LaTeX since college. You do realize they use that in
college nowadays, right? Because they have computers now, not slide
rules and abacuses.

[Skeet]

[vallor]

On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:59:03 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler

Emeritus wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> vallor, in <news:dmbu0s...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:02:30 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
>> Emeritus wrote:
>
>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
>>> <news:1qsvfbl798o2nnif5...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>>> first into the wood chipper again:
>
>>> Have you figured out that d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) yet, Mathematical
>>> Moron? LOL
>
>> First point of order:
>>
>> FNVHe said he needed the value of "d" in a derivative.
>
> I was taunting Shiny Tinfoil Spankard to get him all worked up so I
> could drop-kick him across Usenet more. It worked.
>
> <snicker>
>
>> Also, he said that all the derivative did was shift things 90 degrees
>> out of phase.
>
> Do you deny that cosine leads sine by 90 degrees when graphed?
>
> <http://i.imgur.com/PbEFER9.png>

Nice misdirection. I never said the function didn't.

I said that as far as _you_ know, that's all there is too the derivative.

What's it FOR, FNVWe?

>
>> Conclusion: FNVHe has never used the derivative of a curve in his
>> life, nor does he know what they are used for.
>
> Conclusion: Fanfic.

Okay then -- what's a derivative FOR, FNVHe?

>> He may figure it out, though, by his response to this post. He's quite
>> intelligent, you know.
>>
>> In this way, the totality of human knowledge expands just that much
>> more.
>
> Of course... and as much as I've schooled that moron Shiny Tinfoil
> Spankard, that's dragged the left end of the bell curve upward by
> several orders of magnitude. LOL

Nice misdirection, but it's obvious you haven't figured it out.

What's a derivative _FOR_, FNVHe?

> Remember, he's the moron who didn't even know

Three strikes, you're out.

The derivative of a curve gives the slope of the line tangent to the
curve at each point on the curve.

This is literally some of the most basic first year Calculus knowledge.

You know, Math 1 -- the course you managed to avoid, if...

>> He saw the LaTeX cargo, and he cargo-culted it into his post. FNVHe
>> might as well be a chinese room, eh?
>
> No. I've known of LaTeX since college. You do realize they use that in
> college nowadays, right? Because they have computers now, not slide
> rules and abacuses.

Funny you should be lecturing me about math in college, when you clearly
haven't taken first year (or, I'll bet, first semester) Calculus.

That doesn't mean you didn't go to college, of course -- it just means
you didn't end up with any higher math. There's nothing wrong with that,
either, until you start putting on airs about your prowess with something
you don't have a grasp of.

However, take heart -- thanks to the Net, it's possible to learn as much
Math as you'd like. So go for it. :)

I've already told you what you get from a derivative -- now go figure out
what you get from an integral.

--
-v

[edpr...@gmail.com]

hey FNVWE

I just realized. JM is the Black Knight.
He's had both arms and both legs chopped off
but he is still claiming it is just a flesh wound!!

he is really funny to watch.

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

you might as well ask him about real-world applications of fourier
transforms.

>
>
>>
>>> Conclusion: FNVHe has never used the derivative of a curve in his
>>> life, nor does he know what they are used for.
>>
>> Conclusion: Fanfic.
>
> Okay then -- what's a derivative FOR, FNVHe?
>
>
>>> He may figure it out, though, by his response to this post. He's quite
>>> intelligent, you know.
>>>
>>> In this way, the totality of human knowledge expands just that much
>>> more.
>>
>> Of course... and as much as I've schooled that moron Shiny Tinfoil
>> Spankard, that's dragged the left end of the bell curve upward by
>> several orders of magnitude. LOL
>
> Nice misdirection, but it's obvious you haven't figured it out.
>
> What's a derivative _FOR_, FNVHe?

i predict many fakeyKrickets...

>
>> Remember, he's the moron who didn't even know
>
> Three strikes, you're out.
>
> The derivative of a curve gives the slope of the line tangent to the
> curve at each point on the curve.
>
> This is literally some of the most basic first year Calculus knowledge.

we had trig/pre-calc in 7th grade where i'm from.

>
> You know, Math 1 -- the course you managed to avoid, if...
>
>>> He saw the LaTeX cargo, and he cargo-culted it into his post. FNVHe
>>> might as well be a chinese room, eh?
>>
>> No. I've known of LaTeX since college. You do realize they use that in
>> college nowadays, right? Because they have computers now, not slide
>> rules and abacuses.
>
> Funny you should be lecturing me about math in college, when you clearly
> haven't taken first year (or, I'll bet, first semester) Calculus.

HAHAHA

> That doesn't mean you didn't go to college, of course -- it just means
> you didn't end up with any higher math. There's nothing wrong with that,
> either, until you start putting on airs about your prowess with something
> you don't have a grasp of.

you totally forget that he *totally* predicted that sum of 2550.25 using
his euler signwave sumptification equayshuns.

> However, take heart -- thanks to the Net, it's possible to learn as much
> Math as you'd like. So go for it. :)

it looks as if i've managed to get him on desmos.com.

i wonder if he ever was able to figure out why the phasor calculations
exactly matched my "k0oky" idea of subtracting functions to determine the
voltage difference between two conductors?

> I've already told you what you get from a derivative -- now go figure out
> what you get from an integral.

then, he'll graph the RMS sinewave.

[Sergio]

Ha, I think his head fell off too!

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dmfr9b...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 08:59:03 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> vallor, in <news:dmbu0s...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2016 08:02:30 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
>>> Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
>>>> <news:1qsvfbl798o2nnif5...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
>>>> first into the wood chipper again:

>>>> Have you figured out that d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) yet, Mathematical
>>>> Moron? LOL

>>> First point of order:
>>>
>>> FNVHe said he needed the value of "d" in a derivative.

>> I was taunting Shiny Tinfoil Spankard to get him all worked up so I
>> could drop-kick him across Usenet more. It worked.
>>
>> <snicker>

>>> Also, he said that all the derivative did was shift things 90 degrees
>>> out of phase.

>> Do you deny that cosine leads sine by 90 degrees when graphed?
>>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/PbEFER9.png>

> Nice misdirection.

Translation:
"Nice fact."

> I never said the function didn't.

The derivative of sin is cosine, so yeah, you did.

> I said that as far as _you_ know,

Well, folks, we've got the Amazing Fucking Kreskin amongst us. He's a
fucking mind reader. Or he's fanficcing up a storm. LOL

> that's all there is too the derivative.
>
> What's it FOR, FNVWe?

You're asking about something so simple as the Law of Sines and Law of
Cosines, and *I'm* the one who doesn't know? Really? LOL

>>> Conclusion: FNVHe has never used the derivative of a curve in his
>>> life, nor does he know what they are used for.

>> Conclusion: Fanfic.

> Okay then -- what's a derivative FOR, FNVHe?

See above. Have you never worked with anything other than right
triangles? Holy fuck, this is stuff taught in high school, and you'd
have people believe I didn't know about it, when I've demonstrated far
more knowledge on the subject than Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

>>> He may figure it out, though, by his response to this post. He's quite
>>> intelligent, you know.
>>>
>>> In this way, the totality of human knowledge expands just that much
>>> more.

>> Of course... and as much as I've schooled that moron Shiny Tinfoil
>> Spankard, that's dragged the left end of the bell curve upward by
>> several orders of magnitude. LOL

> Nice misdirection, but it's obvious you haven't figured it out.
>
> What's a derivative _FOR_, FNVHe?

You obviously do no stock trading, or you'd realize that the first
derivative of price/time is the slope of the price, the second order
derivative is the rate of price change, and the third order derivative
is the rate of change of that rate of change.

>> Remember, he's the moron who didn't even know

> Three strikes, you're out.
>
> The derivative of a curve gives the slope of the line tangent to the
> curve at each point on the curve.
>
> This is literally some of the most basic first year Calculus knowledge.
>
> You know, Math 1 -- the course you managed to avoid, if...

Of course, you're only speaking of first order derivative... so it
would appear your knowledge of derivatives isn't so fully-fleshed as
you'd lead us to believe, eh?

What's the fourth order derivative? Hmmmm?

<snicker>

>>> He saw the LaTeX cargo, and he cargo-culted it into his post. FNVHe
>>> might as well be a chinese room, eh?

>> No. I've known of LaTeX since college. You do realize they use that in
>> college nowadays, right? Because they have computers now, not slide
>> rules and abacuses.

> Funny you should be lecturing me about math in college, when you clearly
> haven't taken first year (or, I'll bet, first semester) Calculus.

Except I'm the one producing the graphs to prove my knowledge, and
correctly describing nth order derivatives, whereas you're stuck on
the GoogleRaped knowledge about first order derivatives, and Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard is off babbling about inverse operators because he
doesn't know the difference between inverse operators and inverse
functions. LOL

> That doesn't mean you didn't go to college, of course -- it just means
> you didn't end up with any higher math. There's nothing wrong with that,
> either, until you start putting on airs about your prowess with something
> you don't have a grasp of.
>
> However, take heart -- thanks to the Net, it's possible to learn as much
> Math as you'd like. So go for it. :)

Fanfic... did you *not* see where I spanked Kensi the Lunkhead on the
geometry used for calculating space-time curvature?

> I've already told you what you get from a derivative -- now go figure out
> what you get from an integral.

Really? You think you're so smart, huh? The anti-derivative with
respect to x finds the area to the x axis from the curve, using the
Riemann Summation formula.

Now, what's the fourth order derivative? Or would you rather expound
upon snap, crackle and pop?

<snicker>

--

Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================

Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.

Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176

Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.

The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.

Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.

You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================

But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.

Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".

In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.

He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.

Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.

Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".

Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.

Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.

Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.

Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.

Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.

The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.

Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.

Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.

That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yfet2...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

> it looks as if i've managed to get him on desmos.com.

Now if you could only get through Shiny Tinfoil Spankard's thick head
that the LaTeX formulas I've been posting have been from the
desmos.com graphing calculator, perhaps he wouldn't embarrass himself
quite so often. LOL

> i wonder if he ever was able to figure out why the phasor calculations
> exactly matched my "k0oky" idea of subtracting functions to determine the
> voltage difference between two conductors?

They didn't, you moron. You're *still* struggling to figure out that
Euler sinewave summation equation, eh? How many months has it been
now? 150 IQ? LOL

Here are some examples of your graphing and mathematical "skills",
DildoRider:
<http://i.imgur.com/rqHSTVI.png>
<http://i.imgur.com/V8e2gXh.png>

Conversely, I've correctly graphed 170 volt peak L-N, derived 120 volt
RMS L-N from that, 208 volt RMS L-L from that, and graphed it all,
complete with the proper phase shift.

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL

Obsessed Retard. LOL
Compulsive Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL

Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL

<snicker>

--

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider, aka Teh Mop Jockey)
5907 Stanton Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA
(412) 853-6395
(412) 799-0532
(412) 665-8289
(412) 404-8757

DildoRider admits he's stoooopid:
MID: <c65504c436778934...@dizum.com>
=================================================
>> it appears I've kicked your ass so hard it's
>> damaged your brain, DildoRider.

> then it appears that you like shooting fish in
> barrels, intellectually lazy fuckhead that you are.

Well, you've just admitted that intellectually kicking your ass is
akin to shooting fish in a barrel... IOW, you've admitted that you're
stoooopid. No un-ringing that bell.

<snicker>
=================================================

DildoRider admits he's "really stupid" (his words). LOL
MID: <8a9faed11123abfa...@dizum.com>
=================================================
> so what you're saying is that your targets for attack
> have to be really stupid or else you can't manage?
=================================================

DildoRider admits much more about himself:
MID: <36c6802852caf4f7...@dizum.com>
=================================================
"absolutely and completely retarded, insane, gay, ugly, smelly,
toothless, dirt-poor, incontinent and possibly homeless"
=================================================

This is a libtard's method of "winning", for fuck sake.

150 IQ? LOL

[vallor]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 07:30:41 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> vallor, in <news:dmfr9b...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>

>> Three strikes, you're out.
>>
>> The derivative of a curve gives the slope of the line tangent to the
>> curve at each point on the curve.
>>
>> This is literally some of the most basic first year Calculus knowledge.
>>
>> You know, Math 1 -- the course you managed to avoid, if...
>
> Of course, you're only speaking of first order derivative... so it would
> appear your knowledge of derivatives isn't so fully-fleshed as you'd
> lead us to believe, eh?
>
> What's the fourth order derivative? Hmmmm?
>
> <snicker>
>

Lol.

"My derivatives go all the way to ELEVEN!" -Fakeytard

>>>> He saw the LaTeX cargo, and he cargo-culted it into his post. FNVHe
>>>> might as well be a chinese room, eh?
>
>>> No. I've known of LaTeX since college. You do realize they use that in
>>> college nowadays, right? Because they have computers now, not slide
>>> rules and abacuses.
>
>> Funny you should be lecturing me about math in college, when you
>> clearly haven't taken first year (or, I'll bet, first semester)
>> Calculus.
>
> Except I'm the one producing the graphs to prove my knowledge, and
> correctly describing nth order derivatives, whereas you're stuck on the
> GoogleRaped knowledge about first order derivatives,

Project much? I actually went to school and paid attention.

And it's obvious you didn't know what a derivative was before I told
you. Otherwise, you would have been crowing about it in the first place.
Q.E.D.

How does it feel to be bullied, instead of the bully, buddy?

--
-v

[Nadegda]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 07:46:19 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka DildoRider)
> of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as
> suck...@127.0.0.1, in
> <news:op.yfet2...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
> into the wood chipper again:
>
>> it looks as if i've managed to get him on desmos.com.
>
> Now if you could only get through Shiny Tinfoil Spankard's thick head
> that the LaTeX formulas I've been posting have been from the desmos.com
> graphing calculator, perhaps he wouldn't embarrass himself quite so
> often. LOL
>
>> i wonder if he ever was able to figure out why the phasor calculations
>> exactly matched my "k0oky" idea of subtracting functions to determine
>> the voltage difference between two conductors?
>

> They didn't, you<SMACKAKOOK!>

Didn't you get spanked silly by kensi over this? I have now gotten around
to reading a thread where she clobbered you again and again with exactly
calculated, graphed disproof of your k'lames, drawing you out into
backpedaling just a little and then smacking you again, and repeating
that until you'd become a blubbering wreck and then went away for a week
or two to go nurse your ego-wounds.

I guess you're just a glutton for punishment. Now make a new kooky k'lame
about sine curves so that I can dig up my old graphing calculator and
then use it to make you cry for your mommy like a small child with a
scraped knee.

<snicker>

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <dmjqns...@mid.individual.net>, val...@cultnix.org
says...

He's well-acquainted with that feeling. He's had to endure it
throughout his REAL life. It's what made him the bitter and socially
maladjusted Walter Mitty asshole he is today.

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dmjqns...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 07:30:41 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> vallor, in <news:dmfr9b...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump head
>> first into the wood chipper again:

Awww, you snipped out all that text which made you feel bullied. Did I
hurt diddums fwagile widdle feewings? LOL

>>> Three strikes, you're out.
>>>
>>> The derivative of a curve gives the slope of the line tangent to the
>>> curve at each point on the curve.
>>>
>>> This is literally some of the most basic first year Calculus knowledge.
>>>
>>> You know, Math 1 -- the course you managed to avoid, if...

>> Of course, you're only speaking of first order derivative... so it would
>> appear your knowledge of derivatives isn't so fully-fleshed as you'd
>> lead us to believe, eh?
>>
>> What's the fourth order derivative? Hmmmm?
>>
>> <snicker>

> Lol.
>
> "My derivatives go all the way to ELEVEN!" -Fakeytard

Seven, actually. Your inability to provide an answer to what the
fourth order derivative is, noted. Jerk. LOL

>>>>> He saw the LaTeX cargo, and he cargo-culted it into his post. FNVHe
>>>>> might as well be a chinese room, eh?

>>>> No. I've known of LaTeX since college. You do realize they use that in
>>>> college nowadays, right? Because they have computers now, not slide
>>>> rules and abacuses.

>>> Funny you should be lecturing me about math in college, when you
>>> clearly haven't taken first year (or, I'll bet, first semester)
>>> Calculus.

>> Except I'm the one producing the graphs to prove my knowledge, and
>> correctly describing nth order derivatives, whereas you're stuck on the
>> GoogleRaped knowledge about first order derivatives,

> Project much? I actually went to school and paid attention.

Not enough, apparently. LOL

> And it's obvious you didn't know what a derivative was before I told
> you. Otherwise, you would have been crowing about it in the first place.
> Q.E.D.

Oh, sure. I'm the one properly graphing (in the horizontal *and* the
vertical), I'm the one correctly deriving RMS from peak voltage and
L-L voltage from L-N voltage (with the correct phase shift), I'm the
one correctly calculating the Riemann curvature tensor of space-time
curvature, I'm the one speaking of nth order derivatives while you
dribble down your chin about slope... but *you*, you're the smart one.
LOL

> How does it feel to be bullied, instead of the bully,

Let me know when that starts happening, won't you? Why... why'd you
snip out all that text above which proved you *wrong*, "buddy"?

> buddy?

I'm not your buddy, pal. LOL

That "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff".

That inverse operations are not inverse functions.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:08j9gbltie8jdlm3f...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> vallor, in <news:dmfr9b...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

>>> What's a derivative _FOR_, FNVHe?

>> You obviously do no stock trading,

> Sorry fakey, we are talking about mathematical
> derivatives, not stock options.

Bwahaa<choke, gasp>ahahahaaa! "stock options" Ahahaaaahahaaa!

Have you figured out yet that stock trading requires mathematical
derivatives, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that mathematical derivatives as used in
stock trading are not stock options, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Oh, wait... you don't understand either one.
>
> <google-scour, then insert misdirection here: __________>

Bwahahahaa! Oh, fuck, are you ever retarded, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.

Now I *know* _you've_ never done any stock trading... if you had,
you'd realize that you can program your own stock indicators,
calculating first, second and third order derivatives of price,
volume, bid, ask and option volume.

<http://marketthoughtsandanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/first-and-second-derivatives-of-spx.html>

SPNAK!

This *entire* *fucking* *post* is going into the SPNAK!-pile,
Mathematical Moron. You're *that* SPNAK!d.

<snicker>

>> or you'd realize that the first derivative of price/time is the
>> slope of the price, the second order derivative is the rate of
>> price change,

> Wrong again, fakey...

Translation:
"I'm wrong again, fakey..." LOL

> Those are both the same thing.
> d(price)/dt = slope of price as a function of time
> = rate of change of price with time
> = first derivative of price(t).

Bwahahahaa! Have you figured out yet that velocity does not equal
acceleration or deceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the derivative of a constant is always
equal to zero, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Mathematical Moron says that velocity equals acceleration or
deceleration! Ho Lee Phuck, you're a mathematical moron.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative>
"the derivative of the position of a moving object with respect to
time is the object's velocity"

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_derivative>
"the second derivative of the position of a vehicle with respect to
time is the instantaneous acceleration of the vehicle, or the rate at
which the velocity of the vehicle is changing with respect to time."

SPNAK!

>> and the third order derivative is the rate of change of that
>> rate of change.

> No, that's the 2nd derivative, d^2(price)/dt.
> Wrong again, fakey... ho hum.

Do you *ever* get tired of proving yourself a moron?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>
"jerk, also known as jolt, surge, or lurch, is the rate of change of
acceleration; that is, the derivative of acceleration with respect to
time, and as such the second derivative of velocity, or the third
derivative of position."

If you're rolling along in your clown car at 1000 RPM on the engine
and 45 MPH road speed on a level road, and you press the gas pedal
such that you're now accelerating by 45 MPH per minute, then after 30
seconds you hit a downgrade which progressively increases this
acceleration such you'll hit 135 MPH in 1 minute, what was the third
order derivative, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?

It also becomes blatantly obvious that you've never worked with any
burner control or chiller control systems, as they use first, second
and third order derivative of temperature to control firing rate or
chiller load smoothly with minimum overshoot. Moron.

SPNAK!

> Don't you ever get tired of being spanked about things
> you google that you can't understand?

Spankard. LOL

> Why don't you go back to google, find something you can
> understand, work your way up, and come back and ask if
> you got it yet.

Says the moron who didn't rape Google hard enough. LOL

> <snip much petulant wailing & gnashing of teeth>

Translation:
"Snip of everything that kicks my ass. My next post to you will snip
*everything*. I'm a spankard. And a mathematical moron. I wish I could
be right just once."

>>> I've already told you what you get from a derivative -- now go figure out
>>> what you get from an integral.

>> Really? You think you're so smart, huh? The anti-derivative with

> LOL! "anti-derivative"... snjork!

Bwahahahaaa! Have you figured out yet that finding the anti-derivative
is the same as finding the integral, Mathematical Moron? LOL

And there's the proof that Mathematical Moron didn't rape Google hard
enough...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiderivative>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative>
"The fundamental theorem of calculus states that antidifferentiation
is the same as integration."

Have you figured out yet what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

SPNAK!

>> respect to x finds the area to the x axis from the curve, using the
>> Riemann Summation formula.

> Normal people use integrals, fakey. Not infinite-series
> recursive approximations. But... i guess you're stuck
> with the things you can comprehend, and when you're just
> a lowly faketard, that doesn't leave you with very much.

Bwahahahaa! Tell us again how finding the anti-derivative is not the
same as finding the integral, Maffemagickal Moron.

>> Now, what's the fourth order derivative? Or would you rather expound
>> upon snap, crackle and pop?

> Uh, fakey...

Translation:
"Uh, fakey... we're not talking about talking cereal. DUUURRRHHH!" LOL

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jounce>
"snap is the fourth derivative of the position vector with respect to
time, with the first, second, and third derivatives being velocity,
acceleration, and jerk, respectively; hence, the jounce is the rate of
change of the jerk with respect to time."

SPNAK!

> just learn what simple derivatives are
> before you go off on a tangent (heheh) about things you
> can't ever understand.

Moron. Spankard. LOL

That "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff".

That inverse operations are not inverse functions.

That finding the anti-derivative is the same as finding the integral.

That stock trading requires mathematical derivatives.

That mathematical derivatives as used in stock trading are not stock
options.

That velocity does not equal acceleration or deceleration.

What the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is.

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 01:46:19 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
> socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in
> <news:op.yfet2...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
> into the wood chipper again:
>
>> it looks as if i've managed to get him on desmos.com.
>
> Now if you could only get through Shiny Tinfoil Spankard's thick head
> that the LaTeX formulas I've been posting have been from the
> desmos.com graphing calculator, perhaps he wouldn't embarrass himself
> quite so often. LOL
>
>> i wonder if he ever was able to figure out why the phasor calculations
>> exactly matched my "k0oky" idea of subtracting functions to determine
>> the
>> voltage difference between two conductors?
>
> They didn't, you moron. You're *still* struggling to figure out that
> Euler sinewave summation equation, eh? How many months has it been
> now? 150 IQ? LOL
>
> Here are some examples of your graphing and mathematical "skills",
> DildoRider:
> <http://i.imgur.com/rqHSTVI.png>

proving that "adding" the functions on the conductors is wrong and that
they should be subtracted to calculate a voltage.

> <http://i.imgur.com/V8e2gXh.png>

http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png

which completely agrees with the phasor calculations. you're just too
stupid to see that.

http://ece.k-state.edu/~starret/581/3phase.html

http://ece.k-state.edu/~starret/581/3p4.gif

>
> Conversely, I've correctly graphed 170 volt peak L-N, derived 120 volt
> RMS L-N from that, 208 volt RMS L-L from that, and graphed it all,
> complete with the proper phase shift.

"derived" LOL

don't you mean that you took the SQUARE of sin(x) then you took the MEAN
of that and then you took the ROOT of .5? and then you told us all that
it was a sine wave function?

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL

Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL

Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

[Nadegda]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:00:31 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

>> Wrong again, fakey...
>
> Translation:
> "I'm wrong again, fakey..." LOL

Annnnd with that, he accepts the name "fakey" for himself.

<snicker>

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:54:45 -0400, Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid>
wrote:

lotusLiar, gableFabler, pathetic fuckhead...

he's a k0ok of many trades.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:hpeagb1g21fqofcsn...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>>> vallor, in <news:dmfr9b...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

>>>>> What's a derivative _FOR_, FNVHe?

>>>> You obviously do no stock trading,

>>> Sorry fakey, we are talking about mathematical
>>> derivatives, not stock options.

>> Bwahaa<choke, gasp>ahahahaaa! "stock options" Ahahaaaahahaaa!

> Sorry if the topic is too hard. You really do suck at
> jargon-parroting, fakester.

You really do suck at backpedaling, Spankard. LOL

>> Have you figured out yet that stock trading requires mathematical
>> derivatives, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> No, it actually doesn't... but you wouldn't know that.

Yeah, it does. You cowardly snipped out the link I posted proving it,
so I'll post another for you to run away from, just so everyone can
get a really good look at what a backpedaling coward you are.

<https://www.tradestation.com/~/media/Files/TradeStation/Education/University/School%20of%20EasyLanguage/Books/EL_FunctionsAndReservedWords_Ref.ashx>

That's EasyLanguage, a programming DSL for stocks, futures,
commodities and options.

Now... strap on your little tardly thinking cap, Spankard, and pay
attention... what mathematical derivative is being used when one is
using the simplest technical indicator one could possibly use, and
why? Go on, Stok Geeneyus, edumacate us. LOL

>> Have you figured out yet that mathematical derivatives as used in
>> stock trading are not stock options, Mathematical Moron? LOL

<crickets> LOL!

>>> Oh, wait... you don't understand either one.
>>>
>>> <google-scour, then insert misdirection here: __________>

> And look, fakey follows orders, and
drop-kicks a moronic Maffemagickal Mooron. LOL

> generates frantic misdirection, like a good little spanktard:

Look at the spankard backpedaling! Bwahahaaa!

And now he's so butthurt he's cowardly snipping again! Baahahahaaa!
Your cowardice has been fixored, Spankard.

>> Bwahahahaa! Oh, fuck, are you ever retarded, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.
>>
>> Now I *know* _you've_ never done any stock trading... if you had,
>> you'd realize that you can program your own stock indicators,
>> calculating first, second and third order derivatives of price,
>> volume, bid, ask and option volume.
>>
>> <http://marketthoughtsandanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/first-and-second-derivatives-of-spx.html>
>>
>> SPNAK!
>>
>> This *entire* *fucking* *post* is going into the SPNAK!-pile,
>> Mathematical Moron. You're *that* SPNAK!d.
>>
>> <snicker>

> <snip further evasion>

And he even proudly admits his cowardice! *That*, folks, is how one
trains a kook. LOL

>>>> or you'd realize that the first derivative of price/time is the
>>>> slope of the price, the second order derivative is the rate of
>>>> price change,

>>> Wrong again, fakey...

Cowardly snipping *again*! Bwahahaha! Restored, Spankard:

>> Translation:
>> "I'm wrong again, fakey." LOL

>>> Those are both the same thing.
>>> d(price)/dt = slope of price as a function of time
>>> = rate of change of price with time
>>> = first derivative of price(t).

>> Bwahahahaa! Have you figured out yet that velocity does not equal
>> acceleration or deceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Your desperate swerving is taken as admission that you
> don't understand any of this, even after hours of
> google-scouring.

Your desperate cowardly snipping of the websites which prove you're
*wrong*, because you're too fucking cowardly to ever admit it and get
laughed at, is noted. How's *that* tactic working for ya, Spankard?
LOL!

> If you would listen instead of froth, you could learn a
> lot. But you can't, and you won't.

Learn a lot from you? The Maffimagickal Mooron? That'd be like
learning a lot from that delusional reality-denying TornadoTard. LOL

Cowardly snipping *again*! Bahahahaaaaaa! You pathetic backpedaling
moronic sack of stupid shit. And the really funny part is, you're *so*
fucking deluded that you actually believe you're 'winning' as I
drop-kicked your moronic ass across Usenet, as evidence by your
pathetic delusional 'victolly' bleats... right before you cowardly
snip and run away. Again. LOL!

>> Have you figured out yet that the derivative of a constant is always
>> equal to zero, Mathematical Moron? LOL
>>
>> Mathematical Moron says that velocity equals acceleration or
>> deceleration! Ho Lee Phuck, you're a mathematical moron.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative>
>> "the derivative of the position of a moving object with respect to
>> time is the object's velocity"
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_derivative>
>> "the second derivative of the position of a vehicle with respect to
>> time is the instantaneous acceleration of the vehicle, or the rate at
>> which the velocity of the vehicle is changing with respect to time."
>>
>> SPNAK!

If you would shut your blabbering gob instead of spewing diversions
and bleating in pain as you ran away, you could learn a lot. But you
can't, and you won't. You're a Maffemagickal Moooron. LOL

>>>> and the third order derivative is the rate of change of that
>>>> rate of change.

>>> No, that's the 2nd derivative, d^2(price)/dt.
>>> Wrong again, fakey... ho hum.

>> Do you *ever* get tired of proving yourself a moron?

Bwahahahaaaa! Spankard snips out everything proving him wrong, bleats
out a meek 'victolly!', and runs away. Again. Restored:

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)>
>> "jerk, also known as jolt, surge, or lurch, is the rate of change of
>> acceleration; that is, the derivative of acceleration with respect to
>> time, and as such the second derivative of velocity, or the third
>> derivative of position."
>>
>> If you're rolling along in your clown car at 1000 RPM on the engine
>> and 45 MPH road speed on a level road, and you press the gas pedal
>> such that you're now accelerating by 45 MPH per minute, then after 30
>> seconds you hit a downgrade which progressively increases this
>> acceleration such you'll hit 135 MPH in 1 minute, what was the third
>> order derivative, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?
>>
>> It also becomes blatantly obvious that you've never worked with any
>> burner control or chiller control systems, as they use first, second
>> and third order derivative of temperature to control firing rate or
>> chiller load smoothly with minimum overshoot. Moron.
>>
>> SPNAK!

> There you go, fakey. Inability to learn.

You're projecting, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.

Have you figured out yet what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
cofunctionality, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

Have you figured out yet that finding the anti-derivative is the same
as finding the integral, Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>>> Really? You think you're so smart, huh? The anti-derivative with

>>> LOL! "anti-derivative"... snjork!

>> Bwahahahaaa! Have you figured out yet that finding the anti-derivative
>> is the same as finding the integral, Mathematical Moron? LOL

And now that the spankard is backed into a corner (again) and getting
his tardly snaggle-teeth kicked in (again), he starts babbling out his
retardation (again)! It just keeps getting better and better! This
kind of simultaneous meltdown / cowardly backpedal / ink cloud retreat
is seldom seen except amongst the biggest kooktards. LOL

> Have you figured out that anti-addition is the same as
> subtraction? I'm sure you could impress the babes with
> words like that, faketard.

Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
cofunctionality, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> Have you figured out yet that your Schwinn is the same
> thing as an anti-Lotus?

Have you figured out yet what the "co" in "cosine" means, Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> Have you figured out that arguing with your betters is
> the same as stupidity? No, you will never get that one.

Have you figured out yet that you're a mathematical moron,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

Your cowardice has been fixored, Spankard:

>> And there's the proof that Mathematical Moron didn't rape Google hard
>> enough...
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiderivative>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative>
>> "The fundamental theorem of calculus states that antidifferentiation
>> is the same as integration."
>>
>> Have you figured out yet what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is,
>> Mathematical Moron? LOL
>>
>> SPNAK!

>>>> Now, what's the fourth order derivative? Or would you rather expound
>>>> upon snap, crackle and pop?

>>> Uh, fakey...

And the spankard cowardly snips *again*! The magnitude of your
butthurt must have you howling and spittle-flecking at your screen...
you read my post, your throat clenched, your heart pounded, you
hammered your stubby-fingered tard-fists on your computer desk, then
you ran away. Again. LOL

>> Translation:
>> "Uh, fakey... we're not talking about talking cereal. DUUURRRHHH!" LOL
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jounce>
>> "snap is the fourth derivative of the position vector with respect to
>> time, with the first, second, and third derivatives being velocity,
>> acceleration, and jerk, respectively; hence, the jounce is the rate of
>> change of the jerk with respect to time."
>>
>> SPNAK!

>>> just learn what simple derivatives are
>>> before you go off on a tangent (heheh) about things you
>>> can't ever understand.

>> Moron. Spankard. LOL

> What's the effective temperature of the 700 nm red-body
> radiation emitted from your cherry-red,
> glow-in-the-daylight, re-spanked ass?

You be sure to let us all know when you start your feeble "spanking",
Spankard, after you've picked up your teeth and salved your bootfucked
ass. Again. LOL

> --
> "3-phase AC power constitutes a closed loop!"
> --Fakey demonstrates his mastery of Kirchoff's Law

I'd suggest you at least learn to spell the name correctly before you
attempt to misquote me, but you're a moron, you're incapable of
learning. LOL!

<http://people.sinclair.edu/nickreeder/eet1155/mod02.htm>
"Kirchhoff's Voltage Law (KVL) says that the sum of the voltage drops
around any closed loop in a circuit equals the sum of the voltage
rises around that loop."

<http://www.tina.com/course/31three/three>
"The delta or D-connection of three phases is achieved by connecting
the three loads in series forming a closed loop."

Does... does that say three phases connected in series forms a closed
loop... gee, that's how a delta transformer or 3-phase motor works,
isn't it?

<http://www.tpub.com/neets/book5/17c.htm>
"The primary windings, for example, are connected to each other to
form a closed loop."

Does... does that say three phases form a closed loop... gee, that's
how an alternator works, isn't it?

<http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/alternating-current/chpt-10/three-phase-y-delta-configurations/>
"One quick check of this is to use Kirchhoff’s Voltage Law to see if
the three voltages around the loop add up to zero."

Does... does that prove you *wrong* on two fronts... that Kirchhoff's
Voltage Law *is* used for 3-phase AC, *and* that 3-phase AC
constitutes a closed loop across all three phases? Yeah... yeah it
does.

SPNAK! on the know-nothing moron.

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

<snicker>

I'ma just drop another SPNAK! in there because you've been SPNAK!d
*so* hard the SPNAK! is still reverberating, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.
LOL

______ _______ __ __ ______ __ __ __
/ \ / \ / \ / | / \ / | / |/ |
/PS!KAN |SPNAK!S |SP \ NA |/SPNAK! |SP | /PN/ AK!|
AN \__PS/ !S |__SN |!NS \pS |!S |__NA |PS |/!S/ SP |
!K \ K! AK/ KAPN K! |KP SP |N! AK< NA |
SPNAK! |AKANPS!/ AK AK AN |ANSPNAK! |AKSPN \ !!/
/ \__SP |N! | N! |!SSP |NA | !K |KA |NP \ __
!K NA/ PS | PS | P!K |PK | AN |!N | AS |/ |
ANPS!K/ SP/ SP/ NA/ S!/ SP/ SP/ K!/ !!/

<snicker>

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in

<news:op.yfibs...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 01:46:19 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
>> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
>> socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in
>> <news:op.yfet2...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
>> into the wood chipper again:

>>> it looks as if i've managed to get him on desmos.com.

>> Now if you could only get through Shiny Tinfoil Spankard's thick head
>> that the LaTeX formulas I've been posting have been from the
>> desmos.com graphing calculator, perhaps he wouldn't embarrass himself
>> quite so often. LOL

>>> i wonder if he ever was able to figure out why the phasor calculations
>>> exactly matched my "k0oky" idea of subtracting functions to determine
>>> the
>>> voltage difference between two conductors?

>> They didn't, you moron. You're *still* struggling to figure out that
>> Euler sinewave summation equation, eh? How many months has it been
>> now? 150 IQ? LOL
>>
>> Here are some examples of your graphing and mathematical "skills",
>> DildoRider:
>> <http://i.imgur.com/rqHSTVI.png>

> proving that "adding" the functions on the conductors is wrong and that
> they should be subtracted to calculate a voltage.

Wrong. And you *still* fucked up that graph. Badly. Because you're
Robert Michael Wolfe the Mathematical Mega-Moron. LOL

>> <http://i.imgur.com/V8e2gXh.png>

> http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png
>
> which completely agrees with the phasor calculations. you're just too
> stupid to see that.

Bwahahahaa! No, it doesn't. If you've got to use *negative* phases to
make your fucked up equation work, it ain't working right,
Mathematical Mega-Moron. LOL

> http://ece.k-state.edu/~starret/581/3phase.html
>
> http://ece.k-state.edu/~starret/581/3p4.gif

>> Conversely, I've correctly graphed 170 volt peak L-N, derived 120 volt
>> RMS L-N from that, 208 volt RMS L-L from that, and graphed it all,
>> complete with the proper phase shift.

> "derived" LOL
>
> don't you mean that you took the SQUARE of sin(x) then you took the MEAN
> of that and then you took the ROOT of .5? and then you told us all that
> it was a sine wave function?

No, no square or mean was taken or made. I used the correct Euler
sinewave summation equation to arrive at the correct results,
something that you continue to demonstrate you're utterly mentally
unable to grasp how to do, lo these 4 long frustrating (for you)
months, because you're Robert Michael Wolfe the Mathematical
Mega-Moron. LOL

Now you tearfully bleat that you can't find that equation that's been
known since 1748 because you're too retarded to rape Google, which is
pretty much the *only* thing that differentiates you from Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

I'll remind you that you've been given the correct equation to use
*three* *times* now, and you've _still_ not grasped what it was, let
alone how to use it properly. LOL

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka

[Nadegda]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:18:22 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

> Oh, sure. I'm the one properly graphing (in the horizontal *and* the
> vertical)

Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are now controlling the
transmission. We control the horizontal *and* the vertical.

And you have now officially reached the outer limits of kookery.

[Skeet]

SMACKDOWN!!!

[Skeet]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:00:31 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Now I *know* _you've_ never done any stock trading... if you had,
>you'd realize that you can program your own stock indicators,
>calculating first, second and third order derivatives of price,
>volume, bid, ask and option volume.

Nice misdirection.

[Skeet]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:46:39 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>
>Yeah, it does. You cowardly snipped out the link I posted proving it,
>so I'll post another for you to run away from, just so everyone can
>get a really good look at what a backpedaling coward you are.

Everbody is laffing at joo poser boi.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:k49dgb1dqskur3ek0...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>>>>>> What's a derivative _FOR_, FNVHe?

>>>>>> You obviously do no stock trading,

>>>>> Sorry fakey, we are talking about mathematical
>>>>> derivatives, not stock options.

>>>> Bwahaa<choke, gasp>ahahahaaa! "stock options" Ahahaaaahahaaa!

> You don't get that stock options are "derivatives" in a
> different meaning of the word. It went over your head.
> Like i said, you don't understand either one.

Bwahahahaaa! Look at the moron backpedal. No one has mentioned stock
options except for you, you moron. I specifically said "stock
trading". And even using a simple moving average means you're using a
mathematical derivative... can you figure out which one, Mathematical
Moron? LOL

>>>> Have you figured out yet that stock trading requires mathematical
>>>> derivatives, Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>> No, it actually doesn't... but you wouldn't know that.

>> Yeah, it does. You cowardly snipped out the link I posted proving it,
>> so I'll post another for you to run away from, just so everyone can

> No, fakey, you didn't prove anything. You claimed stock
> trading REQUIRES (your word) mathematical derivatives.

It does, you moron. Well, maybe in your case, it wouldn't, because
you're too fucking stupid to gauge the market for entry points. LOL

What does one watch for in price and volume to determine an
appropriate entry point for bids, Spankard?

What does one watch for in price and volume to determine an
appropriate exit point for asks, Spankard?

Moron. LOL

> Your link cites no such rule or law, because there isn't
> one. Sheesh, you're a blockhead.
>
> Stop making shit up, like stock trading rules and
> imaginary Lotii.

Bwahahaaaaa! Holy shit, Spankard, you're dumber than Gulley.

>> Look at the spankard backpedaling! Bwahahaaa!
>>
>> And now he's so butthurt he's cowardly snipping again! Baahahahaaa!

> Sorry, fakey, you have said nothing worthy of
> consideration. Try again.

You pathetic backpedaling cowardly snipping piece of shit. You're so
spanked you can't even stop yourself from cowardly snipping and lying.
LOL

>>> If you would listen instead of froth, you could learn a
>>> lot. But you can't, and you won't.

>> Learn a lot from you? The Maffimagickal Mooron? That'd be like
>> learning a lot from that delusional reality-denying TornadoTard. LOL

> You can remain ignorant, if you really insist.

You do, and you have. LOL

> You can paste-n-screed irrelevant things you googled, if
> you really insist. Doesn't mean anyone has to care.

Awww, the "no one cares" backpedal of a spankard. LOL

> You can even pretend you have a lotus, and yell "Vrooom
> vroooom!!!" while you run around in circles.

And now fanfic. LOL!

>> Cowardly snipping *again*! Bahahahaaaaaa! You pathetic

> Is there a reason i need to include your blither-blather
> in MY post?

You mean beside the fact that it proves you're a moron, and the fact
that your cowardly snipping it out proves you're a cowardly
backpedaling moron? LOL

> I know it's golden to you, but really,
> fakey, it's all jabberwocky. You can't answer what i said
> except for crying & screaming... no comment required.

You mean your blither-blathering about options trading when everyone
else was talking about stock trading? Or your desperate attempts at
diverting attention away from the fact that you've yet again proven
yourself to be a moron? LOL

>> moronic sack of stupid shit. And the really funny part is, you're *so*
>> fucking deluded that you actually believe you're 'winning' as I

> Heheh... fakey, i'm not winning. I won. Bleat and
> blather, cry and whine. Get in your imaginary lotus and
> cry "Vrooooom vroooooom!"

Translation:
"<fanfic> <victolly!" LOL!

> I have already demonstrated that you have no clue about
> that of which you babble.

Says the moron blathering on about options trading that he knows
nothing about and mathematical derivatives that he knows nothing
about, then cowardly snipping out the proof that he's a moron and
bleating "victolly!". LOL

>>> What's the effective temperature of the 700 nm red-body
>>> radiation emitted from your cherry-red,
>>> glow-in-the-daylight, re-spanked ass?

> Still can't answer? I thought you proved to Kensi that
> you were the expert in red-body radiation. Ah, how the
> mighty have fallen. Mighty sad, that is.

You still haven't answered what your delusional "red-body radiation"
is, Spankard. Keep blathering on about your delusional victolly! as
though it'd actually taken place, Spankard... it's ever so much fun
drop-kicking your moronic ass across Usenet, and it makes it so much
easier knowing that you're ineducable. LOL

>> Does... does that prove you *wrong* on two fronts... that Kirchhoff's
>> Voltage Law *is* used for 3-phase AC, *and* that 3-phase AC
>> constitutes a closed loop across all three phases? Yeah... yeah it
>> does.

> Does... does it make your case to argue with yourself
> over something i never said, that you can't understand,
> and lose the argument? LOL & Rolf.

Does... does it assuage your eternal butthurt to backpedal away from
all the SPNAK!age you've been taking, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:icedgbhu0t132ugge...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Paul G. Derbyshire, socked up as Nadegda, in
>> <news:ne3sr6$kmf$2...@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head first into the
>> wood chipper again:

>>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 16:12:56 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood
>>> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>>>> Paul G. Derbyshire, socked up as Nadegda, in
>>>> <news:ne2f27$kmf$1...@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head first into the
>>>> wood chipper again:

>>>>> Didn't you get spanked silly by kensi over this? I have now gotten
>>>>> around to reading a thread where she clobbered you again and again with
>>>>> exactly calculated, graphed disproof of your k'lames, drawing you out
>>>>> into backpedaling just a little and then smacking you again, and
>>>>> repeating that until you'd become a blubbering wreck and then went away
>>>>> for a week or two to go nurse your ego-wounds.

>>>> Completely the opposite, in fact.

>>> And yet, we have it on record that you vanished for over a week right
>>> after being spanked to blisters by kensi.

>> No proof, Paul?

> Proof, fakey. We watched right here.
> Naggy laid the wood on you. Left-handed... snjork!

Is that why Paul Derbyshire's left hand ran away after being proven to
be a moron several times, spammed the shit out of AUK until he got
TOS'd, then his right hand showed up after outing itself nearly three
years ago?

> What's the LCM of the periods of your 6 frequencies?

Have you figured out yet what the difference is between frequency and
period of a sinewave, Mathematical Moron?

> How does a cooler body know not to send any radiation
> toward the warmer body?

You mean my reiterating the Laws of Thermodynamics?

Message-ID: <70a4c67b944148a7...@dizum.com>

VSEPR theory AXE method, water molecule lone pair smearing, H bond
angle, electron orbital hybridization, CO2 and NOx as global *cooling*
gasses, the Laws of Thermodynamics, hurricane intensity as relates to
global temperature slope, irrefutable proof of global cooling,
Gaussian curvature of the Riemannian manifold of space-time... all of
it SPNAK!ing Kensi the LunkHead, none of which you understood. LOL

That was what SPNAK!d LunkHead so hard he ran away. LOL

> That was Klassik Fakey.

Have you figured out yet that wave interference works the same for
standing and traveling waves, Mathematical Moron? LOL

That was Klassic Maffemagickal Moroon. LOL

>>> How do you square your k'lames with the facts on record?

>> The fact on record that you're a lying kook, Paul?
>
> As opposed to the fact on record that fakey, the lotus-
> plagiarizer, is... an honest kook? Lol & rolf!

>
> What's the effective temperature of the 700 nm red-body

> emission radiating from your cherry-red, glow-in-the-
> daylight, re-spanked ass?

More kooky blither-blather from the fanfic-spewing
lightspeed-backpedaling moronic spankard Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

Have you figured out yet that finding the anti-derivative is the same

as finding the integral, Mathematical Moron? LOL

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Paul G. Derbyshire, socked up in a pink frilly dress as Nadegda, in
<news:ne539g$phg$3...@dont-email.me> did thusly jump head first into the
wood chipper again:

<http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

Moron.

<snicker>


Nadegda got outed as that lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard Paul G.
Derbyshire of Pembroke, Ontario, Canada by Ray Banana. When Kensi D.
LunkHead learned of this, he immediately started backpedaling and
k'laming that "Nadegda" was actually just "vacationing" in Pembroke.
LOL!

Message-ID: <a76a23be8f4a22ea...@dizum.com>
========================================================
========================================================
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.usenet.kooks/yhNtCQr1rpE/GlDtnrGgMxsJ>

X-Received: by 10.224.215.194 with SMTP id
hf2mr20447108qab.0.1367629316993;
Fri, 03 May 2013 18:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path:
y6ni5923qax.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.bbs-scene.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED.67.70.58.178!not-for-mail
From: Nadegda <nad31...@gmail.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: A REVIEW: How much does Keith "Murphy" McElroy suck at
this
Usenet thing?
Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 00:58:29 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <km1mfl$t4j$7...@dont-email.me>
References: <klmos0$ma7$1...@speranza.aioe.org>
<klpdue$ij8$1...@news.albasani.net> <p6cgt.2690$hl7....@newsfe14.iad>
<klsfqm$vnt$5...@dont-email.me> <klskpp$uv9$1...@dont-email.me>
<x4ogt.36755$zt4....@newsfe15.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 00:58:29 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="67.70.58.178";
logging-data="29843";
mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"
Summary: Murphy is a kook with hundreds, if not thousands, of sock
puppets
Keywords: Murphy
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
Bytes: 5876
Lines: 116
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
========================================================
========================================================

Message-ID: <65d0f5e1ad03d420...@dizum.com>
========================================================
========================================================
> <http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=134389570800>

Kensi was "vacationing"... in Pembroke, Ontario, Canada... quite by
coincidence, you understand... LunkHead was there with Nadegda,
apparently.

And Nadegda and Kensi most definitely were *not* there to double-team
on Paul Derbyshire's mushroom-slathered meatpole.

Paul G. Derbyshire of Pembroke, Ontario, Canada is a life-long virgin,
you see. He'll never touch anything more feminine than his hand with a
Barbie-doll wig glued to it, paste-on eyes, and his mother's
hooker-pink lipstick smeared between thumb and index finger knuckle.
Ironically, he's named his f(e)isty lover "kensi". She's really hot in
the sack... an expert in getting anal. Sometimes, she takes it so
deeply it pokes out of her mouth!

Oh, here's Kensi:
<http://goo.gl/hdpXFC>

She's Paul Derbyshire's regular Saturday night thang. Ain't she purdy?
I'm sure a lot of guys have hit that. Chimpy's hit that... twice.

Strangely and quite coincidentally, Paul Derbyshire calls his right
thumb "Nadegda". I found a picture of Nadegda, too.

<https://goo.gl/sbdRcq>

You don't wanna know what she's into. *Really* kinky stuff. Suffice to
say sometimes she invites along her four sisters for what she calls
"sexy spelunking". You know what they say... fugly chicks gotta go
kinky. LOL

> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdyBYSuqQBQ>

> P.S. How's the astrophysics coming along? Have you visited
> any good telescopes lately?

Ask kensi which observatories nearby have time standard control
capability. That's something every astronomer should know, right?

<snicker>
========================================================
========================================================

[Skeet]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 08:54:33 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>
>You mean your blither-blathering about options trading when everyone
>else was talking about stock trading?

<TINEE>

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:0l55gbp5072r2ua30...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Do you deny that cosine leads sine by 90 degrees when graphed?

> Irrelevant, fakey.

Not irrelevant, Spankard. All you did was demonstrate that sin and cos
are cofunctions of each other, in that the function of the
complementary angle which is the cofunction is equal to the other
function, which you didn't know because you raped Google for it and
ran to Usenet to try to divert attention away from all the SPNAK!age
you were taking...

<http://i.imgur.com/hNdXbZZ.png>
<http://i.imgur.com/SU4YXB0.png>

Gee, that sinusoid sure looks like a sinusoid. LOL

Have you figured out yet that sin^2 is a sinusoid, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

And you still didn't get it. Because you're a Mathematical Moron.
And now you'll bleat more about how the above formulas are "gibberish
in your newsreader", and how if there's no equals sign it's not math.

<snicker>

> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
> operation is.

Bwaahahahaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard k'lames the cofunctionality of sin
and cos are "inverse operations" and not cofunctionality. + and - are
inverse operations, Moron. * and / are inverse operations, Moron. This
is exactly what I mean when I say that you rape Google for some bit of
knowledge which you think will make you seem like "not-a-moron", run
to Usenet with it, and prove yourself a moron. LOL

The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL

<http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

And that's being added to the SPNAK! pile. LOL

Have you figured out yet what the "co" in "cosine" means, Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> Don't let that stop you from loudly proclaiming how you
> kicked my ass, like you do every time you get beaten up.

That's rich, coming from the mathematical moron who k'lamed that sin^2
wasn't a sinusoid.

>> Remember, he's the moron who didn't even know that the resultant of
>> the three phases of 3-phase AC is always 0. He didn't know that the
>> resultant of two phases of 3-phase AC is always phase-shifted 60
>> degrees between the two tributary phases, and 180 degrees out of phase
>> with the remaining third phase. He thought constructive/destructive
>> wave interference and superposition were different things, and that
>> they operated differently upon standing and traveling waves. He and
>> DildoRider were going on about producing positive and negative
>> voltages of 416.413 volts L-L from 170 volt peak L-N, and 294 volts
>> RMS L-L from 120 volt RMS L-N. He blathered on and on that Fourier's
>> formula and Euler's formula had nothing to do with each other, not
>> knowing they're called Euler-Fourier Formulas. He's defended the
>> moronism being spewed by the wholly delusional kooktard Tardnado
>> McGinn. He desperately attempted to divert attention away from his
>> getting spanked silly with diversion after diversion he'd raped from
>> Google, only to prove himself an even bigger moron. And now he's
>> running like a coward from the multiple SPNAK!s he's taken. LOL

> Amazing... a whole run-on paragraph

"run-on paragraph" LOL!

You must hate being wrong about *everything*, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.

> devoid of one word of TRVTH.

The TRVTH is that you're well and truly SPNAK!'d, and you've been
running away from the SPNAK!s you've been taking, desperately throwing
up chaff and attempting diversions. LOL

RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!

>> Sure I did. I'd mentioned it prior, but when Shiny Tinfoil Spankard
>> started in on his "no equal sign, no math done" and "what is this
>> script?!" and "there's no formula there!" blather, I decided to fuck
>> with him by calling it scientific notation. I'm betting he spent a day
>> raping Google only to find information about exponents. LOL

> Of course, you can't post actual equations on usenet,

Bwahahahaaa! Have you figured out yet that there's a formula in that
plain text LaTeX notation, Mathematical Moron? LOL

And according to your retarded blather, all one must do to change a
formula to an equation is add an equals sign, and poof!, "maths!". LOL

> because it would reveal the fact that you don't know any
> math. So you hide it in gibberish that can't be parsed
> in a newsreader. Brilliant, fakester.

Have you figured out yet how to copy-n-paste LaTeX notation into a
LaTeX compatible program to view the *formula*, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> Have you figured out the effective temperature of the
> 700nm red-body radiation emitting from your cherry-red,
> glow-in-the-daylight re-re-re-spanked ass?

Have you figured out that you're a moron yet, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?
LOL

> I guess that would be waaaay too hard for you.

Whereas you can only k'lame to have spanked me to 700 nm red (which
you obviously learned about by scouring Google, and you think it's
something you should be proud of knowing, so you repeatedly bleat it)
without providing any proof, you're running away from the SPNAK!age
you've taken, which has your ass pulsing like a gamma-ray pulsar. LOL

>> No. I've known of LaTeX since college.

> Another lie. You never went to college. There's no
> reason to think you ever finished high school. Obviously
> you didn't pass geometry.

Awwww, fanfic. And from the moron who's demonstrated he can't even
grasp high school level topics. LOL

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:caddgb1p4iqopqlcm...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> There's no such thing as "Euler sinewave summation
> equation", except in your delusional skull. HTH.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle>
"Note that when vectors or vector fields are involved, a superposition
is interpreted as a vector sum."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Relation_with_complex_exponentials>
"The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
Formula"

SPNAK! on the Mathematical Moron. LOL

Don't you *ever* get tired of getting your retarded ass drop-kicked
across Usenet, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?

>> Bwahahahaa! No, it doesn't. If you've got to use *negative* phases to
>> make your fucked up equation work, it ain't working right,
>> Mathematical Mega-Moron. LOL

> How do you know, fakey? You have no idea how to do
> phasor arithmetic.

I've demonstrated that I do. Whereas you've demonstrated you don't
even know the difference between "inverse operations" and "inverse
functions".

> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
> operation is.

Bwaahahahaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard k'lames the cofunctionality of sin
and cos are "inverse operations" and not cofunctionality. + and - are
inverse operations, Moron. * and / are inverse operations, Moron. This
is exactly what I mean when I say that you rape Google for some bit of
knowledge which you think will make you seem like "not-a-moron", run
to Usenet with it, and prove yourself a moron. LOL

The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL

<http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

And that's being added to the SPNAK! pile. LOL

Have you figured out yet what the "co" in "cosine" means, Shiny

Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

>>> don't you mean that you took the SQUARE of sin(x) then you took the MEAN
>>> of that and then you took the ROOT of .5? and then you told us all that
>>> it was a sine wave function?

>> No, no square or mean was taken or made.

> Because you don't know how to do that.

Sure I do, but it's not required. The RMS is a mathematical
approximation... the Euler sinewave summation equation will give the
mathematically precise answer every time. But you don't know how to do
that, even when given the equation. LOL

>> I used the correct Euler
>> sinewave summation equation to arrive at the correct results,

> No you didn't.
>
> There's no such thing as "Euler sinewave summation
> equation", except in your delusional skull. HTH.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle>
"Note that when vectors or vector fields are involved, a superposition
is interpreted as a vector sum."

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Relation_with_complex_exponentials>
"The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
Formula"

SPNAK! on the Mathematical Moron. LOL

>> something that you continue to demonstrate you're utterly mentally
>> unable to grasp how to do, lo these 4 long frustrating (for you)
>> months, because you're Robert Michael Wolfe the Mathematical
>> Mega-Moron. LOL
>>
>> Now you tearfully bleat that you can't find that equation that's been
>> known since 1748 because you're too retarded to rape Google, which is
>> pretty much the *only* thing that differentiates you from Shiny
>> Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

> you mean, Euler's Theorem, exp(jx) = cos(x) + j sin(x)?

Bwahahahaa! That's not Euler's Theorem, Mathematical Moron.

<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulersTotientTheorem.html>

> The equation you can't understand?
>
> Sorry kooktard, i've already told you it's not for
> summing sines. You don't understand that because you

> don't know any math.

Bwahahahaa!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula>
Complex exponentials can simplify trigonometry, because they are
easier to manipulate than their sinusoidal components. One technique
is simply to convert sinusoids into equivalent expressions in terms of
exponentials.

Oh, what's directly below that text blurb, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?
Why, it's that bit of reality which you deny because you're a
Mathematical Moron. LOL

SPNAK!

> That's why you have never attempted to do any math here,
> electing instead to simply blither-blather about how much
> math you know. Oh, and about the Lotus you don't have.
> VROOOOM!!

Fanfic. Tell us all again about how the Euler Formula isn't used with
sinewaves, Maffemagickal Moroon. LOL

>> I'll remind you that you've been given the correct equation to use
>> *three* *times* now, and you've _still_ not grasped what it was, let
>> alone how to use it properly. LOL

> Fakey, solve a problem using "Euler's sinewave summation

Have you figured out yet that velocity does not equal acceleration or
deceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> equation".

Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
cofunctionality, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> C'mon, now.

Have you figured out yet that the inverse *function* of cosine is
arccosine, and the inverse *function* of sine is arcsine?
<http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

> Do the math, fakey.

Already done, graphed and SPNAK!s delivered. You're *still* running
from them, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:jpoegb5qbbja0pl98...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>>> And now he's so butthurt he's cowardly snipping again! Baahahahaaa!

>>> Sorry, fakey, you have said nothing worthy of
>>> consideration. Try again.

>> You pathetic backpedaling cowardly snipping piece of shit. You're so
>> spanked you can't even stop yourself from cowardly snipping and lying.
>> LOL

> Try

Have you figured out yet that the inverse *function* of cosine is

arccosine, and the inverse *function* of sine is arcsine? LOL
<http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

> again,

Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
cofunctionality, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> Ersatzia.

Have you figured out yet that the derivative of a constant is always
equal to zero, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> More

Have you figured out yet what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> tears

Have you figured out yet that velocity does not equal acceleration or
deceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> this

Have you figured out yet that mathematical derivatives as used in
stock trading are not stock options, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> time.

Have you figured out yet that stock trading requires mathematical
derivatives, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> W

Have you figured out yet that finding the anti-derivative is the same
as finding the integral, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> h

Have you figured out yet that you're a mathematical moron,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> o

Have you figured out yet what the "co" in "cosine" means, Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> o

Have you figured out yet that water *does* have a plasma temperature,
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> o

Have you figured out yet that *any* substance can be plasmized given
sufficient energy input, *including* water, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?
LOL

> o

Have you figured out yet that image size != image resolution,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> s

Have you figured out yet that Euler's sinewave summation equation is a
result of superposition and the *additivity* rule of vector
*summation*, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> h!

Have you figured out yet that cos(x) leads sin(x) by 90 degrees,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

RUN, SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD!!! RRRRRUUUUUUUNNNNNNN!!!!

<snicker>

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:33:54 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
> <news:jpoegb5qbbja0pl98...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head
> first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:
>
>>>>> And now he's so butthurt he's cowardly snipping again! Baahahahaaa!
>
>>>> Sorry, fakey, you have said nothing worthy of
>>>> consideration. Try again.
>
>>> You pathetic backpedaling cowardly snipping piece of shit. You're so
>>> spanked you can't even stop yourself from cowardly snipping and lying.
>>> LOL
>
>> Try
>
> Have you figured out yet that the inverse *function* of cosine is
> arccosine, and the inverse *function* of sine is arcsine? LOL
> <http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

then why doesn't -cos(x) == acos(x)?

also:

-sin(x) != asin(x)

have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...

-

"People didn't cause the Great Depression, Liberal ko0kTarD. Governmental
policy did." - Fakey in MID <7880b90ad2ecebe35ba01b4557597d80%40dizum.com>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression
"The initial stock market crash triggered a "panic sell-off" that made the
stock market go even lower."

so... so the "government" panicked, snickers?

funny that a bona-fide conservative horatio alger hero type would want the
government stepping in to save the stock market.

Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view
and several heterodox points of view.

"First, there are demand-driven theories, from Keynesian and institutional
economists who argue that the depression was caused by a widespread loss
of confidence that led to underconsumption. The demand-driven theories
argue that the financial crisis following the 1929 crash led to a sudden
and persistent reduction in consumption and investment spending.[1] Once
panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further
losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money therefore became
profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever
more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.

Second, there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression
started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by
monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking
of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation,
causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this
explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow
to owe ever more in real terms."

wait? what? no major "third" konservative k0okTheory blaming the
government for everything mentioned?

odd, that. eh, lotusLoser?

-

the never-ending saga of fakey's "lotus"...

https://web.archive.org/web/20160408001051/http://i.imgur.com/e3OrQSq.png

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly

Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL

Terrible Liar. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL

Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

[James McGinn]

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>

> James McGinn, in
> <news:64678038-a04f-4c9c...@googlegroups.com> did

> thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:
>

> > Nutcase Dude:
> > Horizontal spinning occurs in the mid troposphere... *not*
> > in the jet stream at the tropopause. You're looking at 5 to
> > 20 *thousand* *feet* altitude difference.
>
> > James McGinn:
> > Right.
>
> Wrong, you backpedaling conflating moron. You're trying to state that
> the vortexes originate in the jet stream, but the fucking jet stream
> can be hundreds of miles away, and is anywhere from 5000 to 20,000
> feet above the updrafting air. The jet stream is not a "giant tornado
> in the sky" that reaches down tendrils as tornadoes, KookTard.
>
> > As I indicated, vortices originate from the jet stream, the
> > mother vortice,
>
> The jet stream is not a vortex. If it were, planes could not fly in
> it, you moronic halfwit.
>
> > and then grow down along vertical or semi vertical boundary layers.
>
> "vertical or semi vertical boundary layers" for hundred of miles,
> James?
>
> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
>
> You've yet again been caught in another of your logical traps, James.
> You have no explanation for how one of your kooky "jet stream induced
> vortices" could travel hundreds of miles laterally while only
> traveling less than 30,000 feet vertically. Do you k'lame these
> tendrils your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" send down
> have a mind of their own, thus knowing exactly where to go, targeting
> the rear portion of thunderstorm clouds?
>
> Why don't tornadoes just come down out of a clear blue sky, if, as you
> k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is sending
> tendrils which touch down as tornados, Jim?
>
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > That warm moist updrafting air tilts this horizontally spinning
> > air vertically, creating a mesocyclone.
>
> > James McGinn:
> > This is one theory.
>
> It's not a theory, James. It is empirically-observed fact. Or do you
> forget that they've been sending up weather balloons for hundreds of
> years, aircraft for the past half century, and now have satellites
> *and* Doppler radar which can monitor the phenomena in real time at
> wavelengths other than the visual spectrum? Did you not know this? Or
> are you just so desperate to defend your delusion that you'll say
> pretty much anything?
>
> > It's a very poor theory. (Meteorologists are not physicists.)
>
> Nor are you a physicist, James. A single elective class in Basic
> Meteorology does not qualify you as anything, James, not even a
> meteorologist. And it is quite apparent you took no knowledge from
> that class, instead attending merely as a means of justifying your
> delusion, which you found yourself unable to do when the instructor
> attempted to correct your badly malfunctioning brain by telling you
> your kooky 'theory' is wrong, which they found themselves unable to do
> because you're a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who's convinced
> himself that he's not a delusional moron. An educational stalemate
> because you're ineducable, James.
>
> > The problem is that this theory fails to account for the
> > concentrated energy that eventually emerges in a tornado/storm.
>
> No, James. *Your* "theory" fails to account for the energy because you
> deny that latent heat, convection and air density differential due to
> temperature and humidity exists. The shortcomings are all on *your*
> end, not that of established science.
>
> In fact, I just described to you the exact mechanism by which it
> happens. The scientific reality as detailed in the mathematical
> equations and computer models based upon past empirical research is so
> accurate that weather system evolution can be predicted to a large
> degree of accuracy, to include direction and severity.
>
> I note your kooky 'theory' has no predictive capability whatsoever.
>
> > In other words, it asserts a reversal of entropy that has no
> > explanation.
>
> Only when viewed in context of your kooky k'lame that convection due
> to temperature and humidity-induced air density differential doesn't
> exist, James.
>
> The failing isn't on the part of established science, it's all on
> *your* end, James.
>
> > It's kind of like the notion of spontaneous generation in biology.
> > Where does the concentrated energy come from?
>
> >From temperature-induced density differential, James, which you deny,
> hence your denial of convection, hence your utter confusion as regards
> all aspects of atmospheric phenomena.
>
> > According to this theory, it just appears spontaneously.
>
> No, according to *your* kooky theory it "just appears spontaneously"
> because you're so delusional you deny that convection exists, James.
>
> > It's a pseudoscientific notion.
>
> Says the moron blathering out not-even-pseudo-scientific droolery. LOL
>
> > But I suppose that if you believe there is such thing as magical
> > wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then this is not
> > that much of a stretch.
>
> Aww, look at the delusional kooktard deny everything science knows
> about aerodynamics. LOL
>
> What shape is the most aerodynamically efficient, James? A streamlined
> body, right? And when an air front of greater density meets an air
> front of lesser density, what's the shape that greater density air
> attempts to take, given that the greater-density air has a solid
> barrier consisting of the ground as it downdrafts? Why, it's a
> streamlined half-body, right?
>
> And that streamlined half-body causes frontal lifting, the less dense
> air slides along the boundary with the more dense air, producing
> horizontal shear which results in horizontally rotating air that the
> updrafting less dense air can, given sufficient updraft, tilt
> vertically, which if strong enough can result in tornados.
>
> It's apparent you know nothing about aerodynamics, Jim.
>
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > This can, under strong updraft, generate cyclonic vortexes...
> > and hence tornadoes.
> >
> > James McGinn:
> > So, if you can imagine strong updrafts you can imagine tornadoes.
> > Right? Is that your argument? Once again, if you believe there
> > is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of
> > thin air then, I guess, this is not that much of a stretch.
>
> "magical wedges" LOL
>
> James McGinn is such a moron that he can't look up at the sky and
> decipher what's going on.
>
> Oh look, a photograph of an exceptionally strong wedge as a result of
> orographic lifting:
> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud10.jpg>
>
> Oh look, a roll cloud, a result of the same shear phenomenon I told
> you about, a failed mesocyclone because insufficient warm humid
> updrafting air existed to tilt it vertically:
> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud13.jpg>
>
> Oh look, another well-defined wedge as outlined along the right-hand
> edge of the clouds:
> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud15.jpg>
>
> Oh look, more roll clouds, multiples of them, brought about by the
> unique geography of North Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria:
> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud21.jpg>
>
> Don't you hate that you're so delusional that you've been proven
> *wrong* on every single thing you've been blathering, James?
>
> > The reality is you don't have a comprehensive, self-consistent theory.
>
> I have 250+ years of rigorously-collected oft-corroborated scientific
> fact, whereas you have bullshit suppositions which are supported by
> the sum total of *zero* corroborating (peer-reviewed or otherwise)
> reports.
>
> I have 2991 peer-reviewed reports proving you wrong on just your kooky
> k'lame that water molecule polarity changes on H bonding alone, James.
> You're up against likely hundreds of thousands of scientists over 250+
> years, each and every one of them smarter and saner than you.
>
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > This is why I told you that roller clouds are failed tornadoes...
> >
> > James McGinn:
> > LOL. You told me?
> > I think you are confused. Remember, I am the expert.
>
> No, James. You're not an expert, you're an insane kooktard with a
> crippling Dunning-Kruger affliction and delusions of grandeur. Nothing
> more.
>
> > I am the physicist.
>
> You're not a physicist, James. You took a single elective class in
> Basic Meteorology, which you likely failed because you refuse to
> acknowledge the scientific reality established through more than 250
> years of rigorous empirical experimentation.
>
> > You are a guy with a PC, internet access, and a bad attitude.
>
> And sanity, James... a critical component you quite obviously lack.
>
> > Nutcase Dude:
> > Roller clouds are the horizontally spinning air which the warm
> > humid updraft air tilt vertically to form tornadoes. Roller
> > clouds are formed and not tilted vertically because insufficient
> > warm humid air exists to tilt them.
> >
> > James McGinn:
> > Jet streams and their tributaries run horizontal also. And, just
> > like your theoretical roller clouds, they tend to run along
> > boundary layers. And so, calling them roller clouds doesn't
> > explain where the energy comes from that, eventually, causes a
> > storm/tornado.
>
> The energy to power tornados is certainly not coming from the jet
> stream, James. The jet stream is not a vortex, it is a flat and wide
> stream of air. If it were a vortex, planes could not fly in it.
>
> In addition, it runs eastward, whereas the dry line runs N-S... the
> jet stream is not a "tornado in the sky", and does not send down
> tendrils which reach the ground as tornados, Jim.
>
> You're forced to make this kooky claim because you deny convective
> updraft of air, so you had to cast about for another source of energy
> for tornadoes... and your simplistic thought process went something
> along the lines of "A tornado is fast air, I need fast air to power
> the tornadoes... jet stream! Duuurrrhhh!".
>
> But you're too stupid to realize tornadoes do not reach to the
> tropopause, and now you're forced to make an even kookier claim that
> your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is somehow sending
> vortexes hundreds of miles away from itself to touch down as
> tornadoes... and that these several hundred mile long vortexes somehow
> know to *only* touch down through clouds, and never from clear blue
> sky. Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" conscious, James,
> does it know where and when to send its tendrils to touch down as
> tornados?
>
> Do you also k'lame that dust devils are a manifestation of your kooky
> "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", James?
>
> In short, James, you're trying to shift your kooky theory so you can
> claim to have an explanation for things, but you're far too far gone
> to realize that the claims you're making are utterly insane.
>
> > In contrast, recognizing that they are connected to the jet stream
>
> No, tornadoes are not "connected to the jet stream", you moron.
>
> > does explain the origin of the energy in that these extensions of
> > jet streams act as conduits of the low pressure energy associated
> > with storms, something your dimwitted convection model completely
> > fails to explain.
>
> No, James, that's something *your* dimwitted "plasma not-a-plasma, the
> jet stream is a giant tornado in the sky" 'theory' fails to explain
> because you deny that humid air is lighter than dry air, you deny that
> warmer air is lighter than cooler air, you deny air can have varying
> density because of varying temperature and humidity, and thus you deny
> convective updraft. The shortcomings are all coming from you, James,
> not from established atmospheric science.
>
> The current scientific knowledge of the atmosphere completely explains
> the energy source. To the point that the atmosphere can be modeled and
> storms predicted, to include precipitation amount and whether there is
> a likelihood of severe weather... to include tornadoes, which is
> difficult because they spawn in such a short time there's only ~13
> minutes warning time on average...
>
> Now, Jim... if, as you k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado
> in the sky" were sending vortex streamers hundreds of miles
> horizontally to touch down as tornadoes, we'd have hours and hours of
> warning, would we not? Your claimed vortexes would be coming from the
> top of the troposphere, and thus would be easily visible via satellite
> *and* Doppler Radar, giving plenty of warning. Why doesn't that
> happen, James? Oh, that's right... because you're a delusional
> kooktard, and the jet stream is not a giant tornado in the sky that
> reaches out tendrils that touch down as tornadoes, you moron.
>
> > Along these lines, my explanation doesn't depend on magical,
> > lighter than dry air, warm, moist air which has never been
> > detected in a laboratory.
>
> Except for every single time it is, James.
>
> Shall we review the experiments of Saussure, Gay-Lussac and Dalton
> onward to modern times, James?
>
> Here's just a few references which prove you wrong, James:
> ===========================================================
> <http://nautilus.fis.uc.pt/personal/mfiolhais/artigosdid/did5.pdf>
>
> 1. S.C. Brown, "The caloric theory of heat," Am. J. Phys . 18, 367
> (Sept. 1950).
>
> 2. L.W. Taylor, Physics: The Pioneer Science. Volume I. Mechanics
> Heat, Sound (Dover Publications, New York), Ch. 20, p. 267. This
> reproduces the original Lectures on Elements of Chemistry, given by
> Black at the University of Edinburgh, published from his manuscripts
> by John Robinson (Longman & Rees, London, 1803).
>
> 3. H.S. Allen and H. Moore, A Textbook of Practical Physics
> (MacMillan, London, 1965), p. 296.
>
> 4. P.H. Bligh and R. Haywood, "Latent heat -- Its meaning and
> measurement," Eur. J. Phys. 7, 245 (1986).
>
> 5. S.Y. Mak and C.K.W. Chun, "The measurement of the specific latent
> heat of fusion of ice: two improved methods," Phys. Educ. 35, 181 (May
> 2000).
>
> 8. H.U. Fuchs, The Dynamics of Heat (Springer, New York, 1996), p.
> 659.
>
> 9. C.D. Galles, "Revival of Black's experiment," Am. J. Phys. 47, 1008
> (Nov. 1979).
>
> 10. J.W. Dewdney, "Newton's law of cooling as a laboratory
> introduction to exponential decay functions," Am. J. Phys. 27, 668
> (Dec. 1959).
>
> 11. H. Lindeman and A. Lavie, "Instrument for the measurement of the
> heat of vaporization of water," Am. J. Phys. 29, 705 (Oct. 1961).
>
> <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.3125.pdf>
> On the computation of moist-air specific thermal enthalpy
> ===========================================================
>
> Do you not realize you're now forced to include the Laws of
> Thermodynamics being altered as part of your kooky conspiracy theory,
> James? Your "class action lawsuit" kooksoot against 250+ years of
> rigorous scientific inquiry is going to be massive, James,
> encompassing pretty much every mathematical model ever made of any
> system ever, from the molecular to the atmospheric.
>
> So basically, you're k'laming that every branch of science is wrong.
> Do you think that's likely, James, or do you think maybe you're just
> an insane kooktard?
>
> <snicker>
>
> > Sorry to burst your bubble. But there is more to doing science
> > than doing google searches.
>
> You're not "doing science", James. You're pulling bullshit
> suppositions straight from your ass and running away from backing them
> up with experimentally-derived empirically-observed
> rigorously-collected data.
>
> If you can perform the experiment and prove your claim that latent
> heat of evaporation does not exist, then your 'theory' stands (until
> you can prove or disprove your other claims)... and all of
> conventional science *and* quantum physics falls... but if that
> experiment nulls your claim, it destroys your entire theory.
>
> You have made the extraordinary claims that convection doesn't exist,
> that latent heat doesn't exist, that all water in the troposphere is
> plasma, that plasma can form droplets, that these plasma droplets
> cause air with humidity to be *heavier* than dry air, that the jet
> stream is a giant tornado just waiting to stretch down to the planet's
> surface and wreak havoc.... you've run away from substantiating any of
> those claims, James.
>
> Now is your chance to prove yourself and one of your claims, James...
> ======================================================
> If, as you claim, latent heat of evaporation doesn't exist because a
> phase change doesn't occur upon evaporation and thus clusters of water
> are launching into the air upon evaporation, then the *only* heat that
> can be carried away is specific heat, which would be equivalent to
> 2326 J/kg.
>
> If, however, as Joseph Black and innumerable scientists since the
> 1700s have proven, latent heat of evaporation *does* exist, there will
> be 2,500,000 J/kg carried away. This result will null the underlying
> premise of your claims, James, thus disproving your entire "theory".
> ======================================================
>
> It's a simple experiment, and given that you, James Bernard McGinn,
> Jr. of Antioch, CA, have made claims that fly in the face of 250+
> years of experimentally, empirically measured data, the onus is upon
> you to prove your claims.
>
> In the balance hangs Mr. McGinn either likely being nominated for a
> Nobel Prize for overturning 250+ years of rigorously and empirically
> measured scientific data, or his being forced to retract his claims,
> and his claims being subsumed into the heap of odd theories that are
> used as examples of wrong-headedness. And in the process, his being
> forced to admit he is wrong... which those afflicted with
> Dunning-Kruger find nearly impossible to do, often going to ridiculous
> lengths to avoid doing so.
>
> Does anyone wonder why Mr. McGinn continues to refuse to prove his
> claims?
>
> Your refusal to substantiate your claims, Mr. McGinn, further proves
> what I said was right... you prefer your delusion, in which you paint
> yourself as smarter than every scientist in the last 250+ years, to
> reality.
>
> If your "class action lawsuit" against 250+ years of rigorous
> scientific inquiry has any hope of prevailing, James, you will be
> forced to perform that experiment. Your continued evasion of
> performing that experiment speaks volumes toward just how trapped you
> are by your illogic.
>
> Now, James, you didn't really think you'd get out of answering those
> questions, did you?
>
> ============================================================
> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
>
> Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
> That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
> it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
> James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due
> to lack of oxygen. So your k'laming that convection doesn't exist
> means you're further k'laming that gravity does not exist, and fire
> cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
> oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
> phenomenon due to density differential, James?
>
> How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
> Jim?
>
> Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?
>
> How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a
> hypothetical construct so your claims have even a semblance of
> plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and dissociation
> energy of water are identical, and thus the water will dissociate into
> hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an extremely energetic laser, Jim?
>
> Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
> extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
> photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
> the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
> troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?
>
> How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
> dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
> planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
> all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?
>
> Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
> upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
> in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
> not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
> molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
> for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
> implausible claims are workable, Jim?
> ============================================================
>
> Why can't you answer those questions, Jim?
>
> --
>
> Shiny Tinfoil Brain (aka Bite My Shiny Metal Ass) didn't know:
> =====================================

> The Euler equation is a subset of equations known as the Euler-Fourier
> Formulas, thus that a sinewave is a transformation of a circle (which
> should have been intuitive, given that generators *rotate* to create
> *sinusoids*).
>

> That cross correlation is used with Fourier transforms.
>
> That superposition is the same as wave interference.
>
> That wave interference works the same for standing or traveling waves.
>
> That RMS and peak-to-peak voltage are two different things.
>
> That RMS isn't a DC voltage.
>
> That 170 volt peak, 120.208 volt RMS L-N 3-phase service gives 208.207
> volts RMS L-L.
>
> That 4444525800 != 4400000000 != 1.
>
> The difference between frequency and period of a sinewave.
>
> That there's no difference between 'i' and 'j' in electrical
> engineering, physics and control systems engineering.
>
> What a positive or negative vector is.
>
> That the vector sum of 3-phase AC constitutes a closed loop per
> Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, thus that the three phases sum to zero.
>
> That "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic".
>

> That his claim: "Water is tetrahedral. It actually has 4 poles, 2
> positive and 2 negative." is nonsense from a blathering moron.
>
> That the term "electronegativity" denotes a *positive* effective
> nuclear charge.
>
> What the definition of the word "equivalent" is.
>
> That digital voltmeters do indeed take discrete instantaneous samples.
>
> That the atmosphere (and the gaseous phase water within the
> atmosphere) does indeed follow the Ideal Gas Law to within 1.337842%
> margin of error *worst* *case* at 70 F.
>
> That the square of the instantaneous sample of peak-to-peak voltage of
> a peak-voltage sinewave is an offset sinewave, thus its average does
> *not* equal zero, as Shiny Tinfoil Brain k'lames.
>
> That the Ideal Gas Law does not require an ideal gas because it takes
> into account molar volume.
>
> That "within 10% error" does not equal "10% error".
>
> That water can be plasmized.
>
> That atomic number does not equal effective nuclear charge.
>

> And the moron continues to demonstrate his inability to read a graph.
> =====================================
>

> SPNAK!
>
> <snicker>

I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.

I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.

Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

James 'Tardnado' McGinn, in
<news:571f3afb-4eb0-4203...@googlegroups.com> did

thusly jump head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 9:10:05 PM UTC-7,
> Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

>> Wrong, you backpedaling conflating moron. You're trying to state that
>> the vortexes originate in the jet stream, but the fucking jet stream
>> can be hundreds of miles away, and is anywhere from 5000 to 20,000
>> feet above the updrafting air. The jet stream is not a "giant tornado
>> in the sky" that reaches down tendrils as tornadoes, KookTard.

>> The jet stream is not a vortex. If it were, planes could not fly in
>> it, you moronic halfwit.

>> "vertical or semi vertical boundary layers" for hundred of miles,
>> James?
>>
>> Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
>> the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
>> being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?
>>
>> You've yet again been caught in another of your logical traps, James.
>> You have no explanation for how one of your kooky "jet stream induced
>> vortices" could travel hundreds of miles laterally while only
>> traveling less than 30,000 feet vertically. Do you k'lame these
>> tendrils your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" send down
>> have a mind of their own, thus knowing exactly where to go, targeting
>> the rear portion of thunderstorm clouds?
>>
>> Why don't tornadoes just come down out of a clear blue sky, if, as you
>> k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is sending
>> tendrils which touch down as tornados, Jim?

James? No reply? Could your feeble brain not conceive of a fairy tale
to explain your deluded blather, James? Did you lose the proof backing
up your moronism? Did your synaptic leprosy prevent your providing a
response?

Answer the question, James, you evasive mental midget.

>> It's not a theory, James. It is empirically-observed fact. Or do you
>> forget that they've been sending up weather balloons for hundreds of
>> years, aircraft for the past half century, and now have satellites
>> *and* Doppler radar which can monitor the phenomena in real time at
>> wavelengths other than the visual spectrum? Did you not know this? Or
>> are you just so desperate to defend your delusion that you'll say
>> pretty much anything?

>> Nor are you a physicist, James. A single elective class in Basic
>> Meteorology does not qualify you as anything, James, not even a
>> meteorologist. And it is quite apparent you took no knowledge from
>> that class, instead attending merely as a means of justifying your
>> delusion, which you found yourself unable to do when the instructor
>> attempted to correct your badly malfunctioning brain by telling you
>> your kooky 'theory' is wrong, which they found themselves unable to do
>> because you're a Dunning-Kruger afflicted kooktard who's convinced
>> himself that he's not a delusional moron. An educational stalemate
>> because you're ineducable, James.

>> No, James. *Your* "theory" fails to account for the energy because you
>> deny that latent heat, convection and air density differential due to
>> temperature and humidity exists. The shortcomings are all on *your*
>> end, not that of established science.
>>
>> In fact, I just described to you the exact mechanism by which it
>> happens. The scientific reality as detailed in the mathematical
>> equations and computer models based upon past empirical research is so
>> accurate that weather system evolution can be predicted to a large
>> degree of accuracy, to include direction and severity.
>>
>> I note your kooky 'theory' has no predictive capability whatsoever.

>> Only when viewed in context of your kooky k'lame that convection due
>> to temperature and humidity-induced air density differential doesn't
>> exist, James.
>>
>> The failing isn't on the part of established science, it's all on
>> *your* end, James.

>> From temperature-induced density differential, James, which you deny,
>> hence your denial of convection, hence your utter confusion as regards
>> all aspects of atmospheric phenomena.

>> No, according to *your* kooky theory it "just appears spontaneously"
>> because you're so delusional you deny that convection exists, James.

>> Says the moron blathering out not-even-pseudo-scientific droolery. LOL

>> Aww, look at the delusional kooktard deny everything science knows
>> about aerodynamics. LOL
>>
>> What shape is the most aerodynamically efficient, James? A streamlined
>> body, right? And when an air front of greater density meets an air
>> front of lesser density, what's the shape that greater density air
>> attempts to take, given that the greater-density air has a solid
>> barrier consisting of the ground as it downdrafts? Why, it's a
>> streamlined half-body, right?
>>
>> And that streamlined half-body causes frontal lifting, the less dense
>> air slides along the boundary with the more dense air, producing
>> horizontal shear which results in horizontally rotating air that the
>> updrafting less dense air can, given sufficient updraft, tilt
>> vertically, which if strong enough can result in tornados.
>>
>> It's apparent you know nothing about aerodynamics, Jim.

You were asked a question, TornadoTard. Answer the question, you inept
evasive mental derelict.

>> "magical wedges" LOL
>>
>> James McGinn is such a moron that he can't look up at the sky and
>> decipher what's going on.
>>
>> Oh look, a photograph of an exceptionally strong wedge as a result of
>> orographic lifting:
>> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud10.jpg>
>>
>> Oh look, a roll cloud, a result of the same shear phenomenon I told
>> you about, a failed mesocyclone because insufficient warm humid
>> updrafting air existed to tilt it vertically:
>> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud13.jpg>
>>
>> Oh look, another well-defined wedge as outlined along the right-hand
>> edge of the clouds:
>> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud15.jpg>
>>
>> Oh look, more roll clouds, multiples of them, brought about by the
>> unique geography of North Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria:
>> <http://www.bowerhillonline.net/cloud/cloud21.jpg>
>>
>> Don't you hate that you're so delusional that you've been proven
>> *wrong* on every single thing you've been blathering, James?

>> I have 250+ years of rigorously-collected oft-corroborated scientific
>> fact, whereas you have bullshit suppositions which are supported by
>> the sum total of *zero* corroborating (peer-reviewed or otherwise)
>> reports.
>>
>> I have 2991 peer-reviewed reports proving you wrong on just your kooky
>> k'lame that water molecule polarity changes on H bonding alone, James.
>> You're up against likely hundreds of thousands of scientists over 250+
>> years, each and every one of them smarter and saner than you.

>> No, James. You're not an expert, you're an insane kooktard with a
>> crippling Dunning-Kruger affliction and delusions of grandeur. Nothing
>> more.

>> You're not a physicist, James. You took a single elective class in
>> Basic Meteorology, which you likely failed because you refuse to
>> acknowledge the scientific reality established through more than 250
>> years of rigorous empirical experimentation.

>> And sanity, James... a critical component you quite obviously lack.

>> The energy to power tornados is certainly not coming from the jet
>> stream, James. The jet stream is not a vortex, it is a flat and wide
>> stream of air. If it were a vortex, planes could not fly in it.
>>
>> In addition, it runs eastward, whereas the dry line runs N-S... the
>> jet stream is not a "tornado in the sky", and does not send down
>> tendrils which reach the ground as tornados, Jim.
>>
>> You're forced to make this kooky claim because you deny convective
>> updraft of air, so you had to cast about for another source of energy
>> for tornadoes... and your simplistic thought process went something
>> along the lines of "A tornado is fast air, I need fast air to power
>> the tornadoes... jet stream! Duuurrrhhh!".
>>
>> But you're too stupid to realize tornadoes do not reach to the
>> tropopause, and now you're forced to make an even kookier claim that
>> your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" is somehow sending
>> vortexes hundreds of miles away from itself to touch down as
>> tornadoes... and that these several hundred mile long vortexes somehow
>> know to *only* touch down through clouds, and never from clear blue
>> sky. Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky" conscious, James,
>> does it know where and when to send its tendrils to touch down as
>> tornados?
>>
>> Do you also k'lame that dust devils are a manifestation of your kooky
>> "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", James?

Answer the questions, you evasive nose-picking waste of good oxygen.

>> In short, James, you're trying to shift your kooky theory so you can
>> claim to have an explanation for things, but you're far too far gone
>> to realize that the claims you're making are utterly insane.

>> No, tornadoes are not "connected to the jet stream", you moron.

>> No, James, that's something *your* dimwitted "plasma not-a-plasma, the
>> jet stream is a giant tornado in the sky" 'theory' fails to explain
>> because you deny that humid air is lighter than dry air, you deny that
>> warmer air is lighter than cooler air, you deny air can have varying
>> density because of varying temperature and humidity, and thus you deny
>> convective updraft. The shortcomings are all coming from you, James,
>> not from established atmospheric science.
>>
>> The current scientific knowledge of the atmosphere completely explains
>> the energy source. To the point that the atmosphere can be modeled and
>> storms predicted, to include precipitation amount and whether there is
>> a likelihood of severe weather... to include tornadoes, which is
>> difficult because they spawn in such a short time there's only ~13
>> minutes warning time on average...
>>
>> Now, Jim... if, as you k'lame, your kooky "jet stream / giant tornado
>> in the sky" were sending vortex streamers hundreds of miles
>> horizontally to touch down as tornadoes, we'd have hours and hours of
>> warning, would we not? Your claimed vortexes would be coming from the
>> top of the troposphere, and thus would be easily visible via satellite
>> *and* Doppler Radar, giving plenty of warning. Why doesn't that
>> happen, James? Oh, that's right... because you're a delusional
>> kooktard, and the jet stream is not a giant tornado in the sky that
>> reaches out tendrils that touch down as tornadoes, you moron.

Answer the questions, James, you ignorant evasive simpleton.

Answer the questions, James, you bumbling moronic halfwit.

And where's that "class-action" kooksoot, TornadoTard?

> I think you've done as good as possible to demonstrate the validity of
> meteorology's storm theory. In the future, when people ask me to present an
> aggregation of the best evidence to support the current paradigm of
> meteorology's storm theory I am going to point them to your posts. Because
> here's the thing. Meteorologists won't do what you did. They know it's
> futile. They know that any attempt to demonstrate the validity of their
> understanding of storms (especially with respect to their characterization of
> the role of water) will only expose it is absurdly flawed.
>
> I also think you've done as good as is possible to dispute my theoretical
> thinking. Of course you are extremely scattered and desperate. But people will
> see through that and realize that you actually made some effort. Again, and
> for the same reasons, this is not something meteorologists would ever do.
>
> Thank you for your participation. You've been a big help.

I've forced you into a one-dimensional existence of trying desperately
to defend yourself and your delusion, James, and even at that you've
utterly failed. You admit defeat in each of your posts by proving
yourself unable to muster any sort of defense whatsoever. You've lost,
James... you're GoogleStacked from here to hell and back, your
delusion is destroyed, you've been turned into the world's
laughingstock, you're shunned by the scientific community, and the
very best you can do is sit there drooling and shitting yourself as I
rain hammerblow after hammerblow of truth and reality.

Why can't you answer those questions which highlight your psychosis,
James Bernard 'Tardnado' McGinn, Jr. of Antioch, CA?

--

Here, James, at the very least, try to address those tough questions
which spotlight the logical inconsistencies and contradictions
inherent in your "theory":

============================================================
Why are you known as Tardnado McGinn, the delusional moronic ignorant
uneducated psychotic babbling loon, James?

Why have you been legally deemed to be mentally incompetent and a
lifelong ward of your parents James, Sr. and Constance, necessitating
that you live with your parents because you'd be a danger to yourself
if you lived independently, James? Is it your paranoid schizophrenia?
Is that why your mommy has to feed you, dress you, wipe your ass and
help you to not piss all over yourself?

And you call yourself a scientist, James? You're nothing more than a
pathetic basement-dwelling schizo-brained delusional loser.

Anders Nilsson measured (https://youtu.be/7hGqlEpvODw?t=2156) a
spectral peak that was not solid-phase nor liquid-phase water, James.
You claim that water remains liquid-phase upon evaporation. What was
Anders Nilsson measuring, James? Oh, that's right... gaseous phase
water, thereby proving that evaporation entails a phase change,
thereby proving latent heat of evaporation exists, thereby
*dis*proving a gigantic chunk of your theory, James.

You make a supposition that a "plasma not-a-plasma" is created from
water due to wind shear, which transports energy throughout the
atmosphere via wind driven by that plasma. Where does the energy come
from to create your "wind shear" to create your "plasma not-a-plasma"
if the "plasma not-a-plasma" cannot exist and thereby "transport
energy" by driving that wind to create the "wind shear" which creates
your "plasma not-a-plasma", unless there is "wind shear" to begin
with, James? Your logic is so twisted you're going in circles. You've
created a circulus in probando causality dilemma, which utterly
destroys your theory, James.

You've yet again slapped a patch on your theory, abandoning Coulomb's
Law for a separate "mechanism" by which electrostatic attraction
increases with increasing distance. How does your "mechanism" and
electrostatic attraction in accordance with Coulomb's Law not mutually
cancel, thereby dissociating all water, James?

According to your "theory", electrostatic attraction *increases* with
distance (in violation of Coulomb's Law), which means that when an
electron falls in orbit, it has to *absorb* energy. And that higher
energy level somehow translates into a *weaker* electrostatic
attraction. Now let's look at the other side of the coin... the
electron in orbit would give off energy, rise in orbit, and somehow,
that *lower* energy level translates into a *stronger* electrostatic
attraction... how's *that* work, James? Explain how you've not just
violated the Law of Conservation of Energy on an atomic level.

How do the polarity of the electron and the proton cancel if, as even
you admit, there is a distance between them as a result of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle and the repulsive van der Waals force, KookTard,
and once they've cancelled, how is polarity reestablished, and how is
that not dissociating the water?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why is the boiling
point of water anomalously high as compared to other H-bonded
hydrides, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, then water's
cohesion would also drop. Why does it not do that, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, how is water *not*
splitting up into hydroxide and hydronium ions, KookTard?

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water have
such a high latent heat of vaporization, a direct result of that same
H bonding, KookTard? Of course, being the delusional uneducated moron
that you are, you deny that water has any latent heat of
vaporization... but you're *so* stupid that you didn't realize that
your denial also means you deny that water has a gaseous phase, and
that's just retarded.

If water molecule polarity dropped upon H bonding, why does water not
become much more dense upon fully H bonding, KookTard?

How do your "jet stream vortices" travel potentially hundreds of miles
away from your "jet stream / giant tornado in the sky", without
detection by satellite *or* Doppler radar, and know where and when to
touch down so they always hit only cumulonimbus clouds, rather than
tornadoes randomly appearing out of the clear blue sky or from other
types of clouds, James? Is your "jet stream / giant tornado in the
sky" sentient, James?

Go on, Jim, tell us... *why* is there a "boundary" between the
troposphere and the stratosphere... we're waiting, Jim... No answer,
Jim? Is it because that's where your "sentient jet stream / giant
tornado monster with noodly appendages" lives, and it likes it that
way, Jim? Do you need your meds, Jim?

How does a hot air balloon work, James? No plasma, no giant sentient
tornado monster in the jet stream... how does it rise, Jim? Why can't
you explain that, James?

Why does water freeze from the top down, even if the heat sink is
*below* the container of water? That's another question your "theory
not-a-theory" can't answer.

Why can't you provide the explanation and mathematics to prove your
claim that humid air is heavier than dry air, James?

Why can't you explain or mathematically model even *one* of your
delusions, James?

Why can't you get your delusions through the peer-review process,
James?

Why can't you even get your delusion on a pre-print server, James?

Why are there *no* corroborating studies backing up your delusions,
James?

Why are you shunned by the scientific community, James?

Why is your blather on the comments sections of websites being
*deleted*, dismissed as the mad barking of a loon, James?

Why are you described in the reviews of the "books" you've written as
"delusional", "insane", and a "conspiracy theorist", James?

Why did you *fail* *out* of an elective Basic Meteorology class, in
which they teach the very concepts you're blathering out your lack of
education about now, James?

Why do you so hate meteorologists, James? Is it because you failed out
of the elective Basic Meteorology class because you've legally been
deemed mentally incompetent, James?

Why do you use your failing out of an elective Basic Meteorology class
as the basis to claim yourself to be a "physicist not-a-physicist",
James? Do you not understand that physicists are highly educated,
whereas you're ignorant and uneducated?

What universities did you attend, what were your majors and what was
the topic of your Ph.D. thesis, James? You don't have a Ph.D? Then
you're not a physicist, James. LOL

If, as you claim, the jet stream is a vortex, why is the ride while
inside the jet stream so smooth, James? Have you never ridden in an
airplane inside a jet stream, James? Is it just that your "sentient
jet stream / giant tornado monster with noodly appendages" likes its
back scratched by the aircraft, so it doesn't rip the aircraft to
shreds, Jim?

Do you not understand that once the air going upward through the
tornadic funnel reaches the cumulonimbus cloud base above the
mesocyclone, it spreads out, thus the tornado is strictly a phenomenon
which happens from cloud base to ground? It does *not* go from the
ground all the way up through the cloud to the tropopause as you
claim, James, and it most certainly does not continue for potentially
thousands of miles in the upper troposphere to join the jet stream,
which would make air travel deadly.

Explain why the jets run easterly, whereas the dry line runs N-S, if
the jets are powering the creation of tornadoes. How is a tornado
being created hundreds of miles from the edge of the jets, James?

Which direction does air flow from a flame, Jim? Up, does it not?
That's convection due to temperature-induced density differential, is
it not? Which direction does air flow from a flame in zero gravity,
James? Radially in all directions, thereby snuffing out the flame due

to lack of oxygen. So your claiming that convection doesn't exist
means you're further claiming that gravity does not exist, and fire

cannot burn for very long before it is smothered due to lack of
oxygen. Or were you not aware that convection is a gravity-induced
phenomenon due to density differential, James?

How are your atmospheric "water droplets" forming if they're plasma,
Jim?

Do you not know that water droplets *minimize* surface area, James?
How are your "plasma not-a-plasma" "water droplets" *maximizing* their
surface area as you claim?

Do you not know what the definition of "plasma" is, James?

How is your "plasma not-a-plasma" (which you have admitted is a

hypothetical construct in a failed attempt to lend your claims even a

semblance of plausibility) forming if the nuclear binding energy and
dissociation energy of water are identical, and thus the water will

preferentially dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen unless hit with an

extremely energetic laser, Jim?

Where is the energy (equivalent to photons of 103.32 nm wavelength,
extremely strong ultraviolet, just 3.32 nm away from x-rays... except
photons with shorter wavelength than 121 nm are absorbed high above
the troposphere because they ionize air so well) coming from in the
troposphere to form your "plasma not-a-plasma", Jim?

How is the energy to plasmize your "plasma not-a-plasma" not
dissociating all water on the planet and killing all life on the
planet given that the energy *must* be in the troposphere where nearly
all the water is, and where all life is, Jim?

Now that it's been proven that water molecule polarity doesn't change
upon H bonding (which would have side effects such as random changes
in the solvent properties of water... and we know those properties do
not randomly change, Jim), and in fact the two spin isomers of water
molecules account for the different H bonding strengths which account
for evaporation and condensation, do you still contend that your
implausible claims are workable, Jim?

Why are you not taking your meds, James?
============================================================

Why can't you answer those questions, Tardnado Jim?

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:crsfgb1dfn7cr5q29...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>>>>> And now he's so butthurt he's cowardly snipping again! Baahahahaaa!

>>>>> Sorry, fakey, you have said nothing worthy of
>>>>> consideration. Try again.

>>>> You pathetic backpedaling cowardly snipping piece of shit. You're so
>>>> spanked you can't even stop yourself from cowardly snipping and lying.
>>>> LOL

>>> Try

>> Have you figured out yet that the inverse *function* of cosine is
>> arccosine, and the inverse *function* of sine is arcsine? LOL

> Now fakey is reduced to crying about things i never said.

You were discussing cosine being the derivative of sine via the
equation d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x). Then you started bleating about
"inverse operators" by bleating: "You still don't have a clue what a
derivitive is, or what its inverse operation is." (while misspelling
"derivative" LOL), you backpedaling spankard. Because you don't know
the difference between an inverse operation and cofunctionality.

So go on, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard... tell us what the "inverse
operation" of the derivative d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) is. Go on. Go rape
Google for as long as you need, then come back to prove yourself an
even bigger moron. LOL

> Tell everyone your usenet master has left you a quivering

Have you figured out yet the difference between Euler's Theorems and
Euler's Formulas, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> blob of jello, twisting in the wind.

Have you figured out yet that there are _three_ methods of
mathematically approximating RMS voltage, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Careful, those tears might melt you, fakey.

Have you figured out yet that RMS voltage is a mathematical
approximation, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> When are you gonna invoke the ESSE [TINESSE] to do some

Have you figured out yet that the inverse _function_ of cosine is
arccosine, and the inverse _function_ of sine is arcsine? LOL
<http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

> fazer maffs on usenet?

Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
cofunctionality, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

RUN, SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RRRUUUUUUNNNNN!!!

That RMS voltage is a mathematical approximation.

That there are _three_ methods of mathematically approximating RMS
voltage.

The difference between Euler's Theorems and Euler's Formulas.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:kopfgbtj1fia1ugm3...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

>>> There's no such thing as "Euler sinewave summation
>>> equation", except in your delusional skull. HTH.

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle>
>> "Note that when vectors or vector fields are involved, a superposition
>> is interpreted as a vector sum."

> LOL! That has nothing to do with Euler's Anything.
>
> Free clue: Google "Euler sinewave summation equation".
> What do you see, fakey? a bunch of shit from auk? LOL.

Only a GoogleTard like you gets "a bunch of shit from auk", Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard.

First link: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula>

"Complex exponentials can simplify trigonometry, because they are
easier to manipulate than their sinusoidal components. One technique
is simply to convert sinusoids into equivalent expressions in terms of
exponentials."

Second link:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trigonometric_identities>

Third link:
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/53005/how-to-get-complex-exponential-form-of-wave-equation-out-of-sinusoidal-form>
Response to the question? "See Euler's identity."

Fourth link: <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Sine.html>

Fifth link:
<http://www.labbookpages.co.uk/audio/beamforming/waveSum.html>
"Euler's Formula Representation"

Sixth link: <http://www.thefouriertransform.com/pairs/sinusoids.php>
"The Fourier Transform for the sine function can be determined just as
quickly using Euler's identity for the sine function"

Seventh link:
<http://white.stanford.edu/teach/index.php/Fourier_transform_math>
"So now we've got a bunch of sine and cosine waves (written using
Euler's formula). How do we find the Fourier coefficient which tells
us how much to "weight" each wave?"

<http://i.imgur.com/4QMfnvQ.png>

SPNAK! on the GoogleTard. LOL

> It's just a buzzphrase invented by our own fakey.

Look at the GoogleTard denying reality because he's so butthurt! LOL

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_and_cosine_transforms#Relation_with_complex_exponentials>
>> "The form of the Fourier transform used more often today is... Euler's
>> Formula"

> You are misquoting.

You are backpedaling and lying. LOL

> Again, as i've pointed out,

You mean what you've projected.

> you don't understand what you
> are googling. It does not say euler's formula is a
> fourier transform. If you knew anything about either
> one, you would realize how ridiculous your deliberate
> misreading is. Not that it has anything to do with your
> imaginary "Euler sinewave summation equation".

I've proven you wrong above, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. Now what will you
do? Cowardly snip, bleat, lie and run away? Again? LOL

> It's pointless to explain your error to you, as you are
> ineducable. So i'll just say, fakey you're an idiot.

You're still projecting, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.

Have you figured out yet that a sinusoid is a transform of a circle,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>>> Bwahahahaa! No, it doesn't. If you've got to use *negative* phases to
>>>> make your fucked up equation work, it ain't working right,
>>>> Mathematical Mega-Moron. LOL

>>> How do you know, fakey? You have no idea how to do
>>> phasor arithmetic.

>> I've demonstrated that I do.

> You have proved that you don't. If you could, you would.

Which is why I have. And graphed it. I note you've produced no graphs.
Too stupid, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Why don't you do some phasor arithmetic, fakey? Hmm?

Why don't you stop running away from the non-stop spankage you're

taking, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

>>> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
>>> operation is.

>> Bwaahahahaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard k'lames the cofunctionality of sin
>> and cos are "inverse operations" and not cofunctionality. + and - are

> Did i say sine and cosine are inverse operations???

You were discussing cosine being the derivative of sine via the
equation d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x). Then you started bleating about
"inverse operators" by bleating: "You still don't have a clue what a
derivitive is, or what its inverse operation is." (while misspelling
"derivative" LOL), you backpedaling spankard. Because you don't know
the difference between an inverse operation and cofunctionality.

So go on, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard... tell us what the "inverse
operation" of the derivative d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) is. Go on. Go rape
Google for as long as you need, then come back to prove yourself an
even bigger moron. LOL

> What an ignoranimous.

Backpedaling lying blither-blathering bleatfarting mathematical moron.
LOL

> You are desperately grabbing at straws there. Go
> google-scour for something you can actually understand.
> How bout, "borrowing" in subtraction?

Bwahahaaa! I've so flummoxed Shiny Tinfoil Spankard that the very best
diversionary bleat he can come up with is how to regroup during
subtraction... that's called being spanked back to grade school. LOL!

> What else would anyone expect from a kook who claims
> electronegativity is identically equal to atomic number?

That's what *you* claimed, you lying backpedaling bleatfarting moron.
I was the one who told you about electron shielding and Effective
Nuclear Charge, upon which you started backpedaling, lying and
bleatfarting. LOL

> And that RMS is a sinusoid?

Wrong. You continue fanficcing, lying and blither-blathering as an
attempt at squirming out of your getting continually SPNAK!d.

You have to use the mathematical approximation of RMS because you're a
GoogleRaping moron. Using Euler's sinewave summation equation, one can
arrive at the instantaneous RMS voltage without squaring or taking the
mean, hence it can be properly graphed, just as I did, to derive, for
instance, 208 volts RMS L-L from that 120 volt RMS L-N which was
derived from 170 volt peak L-N, all with the proper phase shift.
That's something you've _demonstrated_ you cannot do, Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard. LOL

>>>>> don't you mean that you took the SQUARE of sin(x) then you took the MEAN
>>>>> of that and then you took the ROOT of .5? and then you told us all that
>>>>> it was a sine wave function?

>>>> No, no square or mean was taken or made.

>>> Because you don't know how to do that.

>> Sure I do, but it's not required.

> LOL! Mean and square root are not required to compute
> RMS? What a maffemagickal maroon.

I properly graphed 170 volt peak L-N, used Euler's sinewave summation
equation to derive and properly graph 120 volt RMS L-N from that, then
again to derive 208 volt RMS L-L from that, all with the proper phase
shift... something you've demonstrated you're incapable of.

>> The RMS is a mathematical approximation...

> Complete nonsense, maffemagickal maroon. It's not an
> approximation.

It most certainly is. In fact, there are *three* methods of
mathematically approximating RMS.

<http://www.embedded.com/design/configurable-systems/4006520/Improve-your-root-mean-calculations>
"Three methods of calculating the RMS level are compared in Figure 5.
The averaging time is set to 100ms, and the input is one second of 1/f
noise with a 48kHz sampling frequency. The first trace is the true RMS
value calculated using Equation 6. The second trace is the RMS
calculation using Equation 14. The third trace is the no-divide
calculation of Equation 16. The fourth trace is the RMS value using
the reciprocal square-root method of Equation 13. For the most part,
the four traces line up nicely. All three approximations appear to
converge at the same rate as the true RMS value."

SPNAK! on the Maffemagickul Moroon. LOL

Have you figured out yet that RMS voltage is a mathematical

approximation, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that there are _three_ methods of
mathematically approximating RMS voltage, Mathematical Moron? LOL

>> the Euler sinewave summation equation will give

> a nonsense answer, it's just your nonsense buzzphrase.
> Which is why you can't even define it.

I've proven you wrong above, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. Now what will you
do? Cowardly snip, bleat, lie and run away? Again? LOL

>> mathematically precise answer every time. But you don't know how to do
>> that, even when given the equation. LOL

> Heheh... faketard, you really suck at this.
>
> You can't "give" anyone the "ESSE", since it doesn't
> exist, and you know you will be skewered if you dare try
> to stummble thru any math on usenet. You are being
> skewered anyway, so what have you got to lose?

I've proven you wrong above, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. Now what will you
do? Cowardly snip, bleat, lie and run away? Again? LOL

>>>> I used the correct Euler
>>>> sinewave summation equation to arrive at the correct results,

>>> No you didn't.
>>>
>>> There's no such thing as "Euler sinewave summation
>>> equation", except in your delusional skull. HTH.

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle>

> Ho hum, another red herring link. Nothing about "ESSE"
> there. Just more shit fakey can't understand.

Too stupid to follow the links, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle#Wave_superposition>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation>
"Swiss Mathematician and Physicist Leonhard Euler (b. 1707) discovered
the wave equation in three space dimensions.[5]"

SPNAK! on the Mathematical Moron. LOL

>>> you mean, Euler's Theorem, exp(jx) = cos(x) + j sin(x)?

>> Bwahahahaa! That's not Euler's Theorem, Mathematical Moron.

> It is, fakey.

That's one of his formulas, not one of his theorems. Do you not
understand the difference between a formula and a theorem, Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard? Little wonder, you demonstrated you didn't know
about formulas and equations, so why not throw in formulas and
theorems, too, eh? LOL

Have you figured out yet the difference between Euler's Theorems and
Euler's Formulas, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Whose theorem do YOU think it is?
> Fakey's theorem? Hmm... i think that one would say,
> "When caught in a lie, lie *harder*!"

>> <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulersTotientTheorem.html>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's one of Euler's Theorems, you fecking *moron*.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_named_after_Leonhard_Euler>

> LOL! Totients? integers? prime numbers?
> Not even close to adding sines, faketard.
> Can't you understand ANYTHING you google?

Bwahahahaaa! Way to hoist your own retard, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.

>>> The equation you can't understand?
>>>
>>> Sorry kooktard, i've already told you it's not for
>>> summing sines. You don't understand that because you
>>> don't know any math.

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_formula>
>> Complex exponentials can simplify trigonometry, because they are
>> easier to manipulate than their sinusoidal components. One technique
>> is simply to convert sinusoids into equivalent expressions in terms of
>> exponentials.
>>
>> Oh, what's directly below that text blurb, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?
>> Why, it's that bit of reality which you deny because you're a
>> Mathematical Moron. LOL

> What does that have to do with ADDING SINES, ersatziabelle?

"Complex exponentials can simplify trigonometry, because they are

easier to manipulate than their _sinusoidal_ components. ... See also
Phasor arithmetic."

And phasor arithmetic can be used to sum sinusoids of different
frequencies iteratively. Mathematical Moron.
<http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/phasor-addition.html#sub5>

> BZZZZZZZT... try again.

SPNAK! on the Mathematical Moron. Again.

>>>> I'll remind you that you've been given the correct equation to use
>>>> *three* *times* now, and you've _still_ not grasped what it was, let
>>>> alone how to use it properly. LOL

Awww, your cowardly snipping is fixored, you pathetic spankard. LOL

>>> Fakey, solve a problem using "Euler's sinewave summation

>> Have you figured out yet that velocity does not equal acceleration or
>> deceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>> equation".

>> Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and
>> cofunctionality, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

>>> C'mon, now.

>> Have you figured out yet that the inverse *function* of cosine is
>> arccosine, and the inverse *function* of sine is arcsine?
>> <http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

>>> Do the math, fakey.

>> Already done, graphed and SPNAK!s delivered. You're *still* running
>> from them, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

> Whatsamatter, fakey? You're speechless for once.

Your cowardly snipping doesn't equate to me being anything other than
winning, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.

> What's the effective temperature of the 700nm red-body

> emission radiating from your cherry-red, glow-in-the-
> daylight, re-spanked ass?

What's a "red-body", Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? And why are you
projecting? LOL

RUN, SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RRUUUUUNNNNNNNN!!!!

<snicker>

That RMS voltage is a mathematical approximation.

That there are _three_ methods of mathematically approximating RMS
voltage.

The difference between Euler's Theorems and Euler's Formulas.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in

<news:op.yfl0z...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:33:54 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Have you figured out yet that the inverse *function* of cosine is
>> arccosine, and the inverse *function* of sine is arcsine? LOL
>> <http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

> then why doesn't -cos(x) == acos(x)?
>
> also:
>
> -sin(x) != asin(x)

For the same reason you can't grasp why your kooky sinewave
subtraction equation produces sinusoids 180 degrees phase from where
they're supposed to be. For the same reason you have to use negative
phase angles in your kooky sinewave subtraction equation to even get
it to work. Because you're Robert Michael Wolfe the Mathematical
Mega-Moron. LOL

<http://i.imgur.com/4KfnZdN.png>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL

Obsessed Retard. LOL

Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL

Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL

Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 02:38:52 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler

Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
> socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in
> <news:op.yfl0z...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
> into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:33:54 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
>> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>>> Have you figured out yet that the inverse *function* of cosine is
>>> arccosine, and the inverse *function* of sine is arcsine? LOL
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>
>
>> then why doesn't -cos(x) == acos(x)?
>>
>> also:
>>
>> -sin(x) != asin(x)
>
> For the same reason you can't grasp why your kooky sinewave

is that the same reason that you can't even manage to produce a "euler
sinewave solution" to your 6 sinewave sum?

> subtraction equation produces sinusoids 180 degrees phase from where
> they're supposed to be.

http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png

explain to me the problem you have with that image.

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly

Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL

Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL

Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in

<news:op.yfoqn...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

> On Sat, 09 Apr 2016 02:38:52 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>> Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
>> DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
>> socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in
>> <news:op.yfl0z...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first
>> into the wood chipper again:

>>> On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 12:33:54 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood
>>> Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>>>> Have you figured out yet that the inverse *function* of cosine is
>>>> arccosine, and the inverse *function* of sine is arcsine? LOL
>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

>>> then why doesn't -cos(x) == acos(x)?
>>>
>>> also:
>>>
>>> -sin(x) != asin(x)

>> For the same reason you can't grasp why your kooky sinewave

> is that the same reason that you can't even manage to produce a "euler
> sinewave solution" to your 6 sinewave sum?

After your embarrassing yourself so badly over that, I felt that you
didn't need any further embarrassment. LOL

>> subtraction equation produces sinusoids 180 degrees phase from where
>> they're supposed to be.

> http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png
>
> explain to me the problem you have with that image.

Negative phase angles. LOL!

You can't even get your kooky sinewave subtraction equation to get the
proper phase shift without using them, and switching the phases in
your moronic equation changes the phase of the sinusoid. The Euler
sinewave summation equation fixes all that. Too bad you're far too
stoooopid to figure it out, though... and even if you were, you
wouldn't, because that'd mean you'd have to admit that I (and every
scientist and researcher using the Euler sinewave summation equation
since 1748) were right, and you're Robert Michael Wolfe of Pittsburgh,
PA, the Mathematical Mega-Moron. LOL

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 00:58:50 -0400, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler

when does that occur lotusLiar?

>
>>> subtraction equation produces sinusoids 180 degrees phase from where
>>> they're supposed to be.
>
>> http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png
>>
>> explain to me the problem you have with that image.
>
> Negative phase angles. LOL!

so *prove* it wrong?

can you manage? no? that's what i thought.

to model 3-phase you can define phase angles mathematically however you
desire as long as they are 120deg apart, dumbass. is that what threw you
for a loop?

are you mad that i just so happened to choose the standard definitions of
3 phase that most engineers use this time around?

phase A - 0 deg
phase B - -120 deg
phase C - +120 deg

?

>
> You can't even get your kooky sinewave subtraction equation to get the
> proper phase shift without using them, and switching the phases in
> your moronic equation changes the phase of the sinusoid. The Euler
> sinewave summation equation fixes all that. Too bad you're far too
> stoooopid to figure it out, though... and even if you were, you
> wouldn't, because that'd mean you'd have to admit that I (and every
> scientist and researcher using the Euler sinewave summation equation
> since 1748) were right, and you're Robert Michael Wolfe of Pittsburgh,
> PA, the Mathematical Mega-Moron. LOL

google my address sometime. your google-stacking is "defeatored".

all anybody will ever see is your fake lotus pics!

>
>>> For the same reason you have to use negative
>>> phase angles in your kooky sinewave subtraction equation to even get
>>> it to work. Because you're Robert Michael Wolfe the Mathematical
>>> Mega-Moron. LOL
>
>> LOL
>
>>> <http://i.imgur.com/4KfnZdN.png>

is that YOUR graph of 3-phase????

LOLOLOLOL

>
> Fag. LOL
> Idiot. LOL
> Moron. LOL
> Tranny. LOL
> Libtard. LOL
> Crackhead. LOL
> GableTard. LOL
> DildoRider. LOL
> Bad Musician. LOL
> Stick Figure. LOL
> Terrible Liar. LOL
> Obsessed Retard. LOL
> Sinewave Spammer. LOL
> Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
> Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
> Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL
> Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
> Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
> Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
> Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
> Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
> Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL
>
> <snicker>
>


--

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly

Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL

Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL

Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka
DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in

<news:op.yfouo...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

Same as it ever occurs... every time you post, Mathematical
Mega-Moron. LOL

>>>> subtraction equation produces sinusoids 180 degrees phase from where
>>>> they're supposed to be.

>>> http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png
>>>
>>> explain to me the problem you have with that image.

>> Negative phase angles. LOL!

> so *prove* it wrong?

The fact that you're the only one using your kooky sinewave
subtraction equation, whereas scientists and engineers have used
Euler's sinewave summation equation since 1748 proves you wrong,
Mathematical Mega-Moron. LOL

> can you manage? no? that's what i thought.
>
> to model 3-phase you can define phase angles mathematically however you
> desire as long as they are 120deg apart, dumbass. is that what threw you
> for a loop?
>
> are you mad that i just so happened to choose the standard definitions of
> 3 phase that most engineers use this time around?
>
> phase A - 0 deg
> phase B - -120 deg
> phase C - +120 deg
>
> ?

Look at the Mathematical Mega-Moron backpedal and attempt to justify
his mathematical mega-moronism! LOL!

<https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-does-a-3-phase-supply-mean>
===============================================================
What does R, Y, B mean?
It stands for Red, Yellow, Blue. Its just a conventional way to
represent each of the three phases. Red is assumed to start at 0
degrees, yellow at 120 degrees and blue at 240 degrees. The wiring in
3 phase machines is followed this way, so its easier to remember.
These are with respect to neutral (black).
===============================================================

Gee, DildoRider... the color coding in every 3-phase machine proves
you wrong.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor>
===============================================================
Power engineering
In analysis of three phase AC power systems, usually a set of phasors
is defined as the three complex cube roots of unity, graphically
represented as unit magnitudes at angles of 0, 120 and 240 degrees.
===============================================================

Hey, whaddayaknow?... electrical engineers use 0, 120 and 240 degrees,
just as the color coding of every 3-phase machine dictates. LOL

<http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/AppNotes/00889b.pdf>
===============================================================
This routine will update the PWM duty cycle on CCPx according to the
offset to the table with 0-120-240 degrees.
===============================================================

Oh, what's that, DildoRider? Why, that's a VFD microcontroller that
actual electrical engineers use to control 3-phase AC motor speed. And
it uses 0, 120 and 240 degrees, too.

<http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890016032.pdf>
===============================================================
The three converters are phase shifted 120 and 240 degrees to produce
a line-to-line six-step AC voltage.
===============================================================

Gee... NASA, even on Space Station Freedom (which evolved into the
ISS), uses 0, 120 and 240 degrees phase angles, at 440 VAC, 20 kHz,
created from solar power DC via inverters.

<https://www.aea.net/AvionicsNews/ANArchives/synchrosOct04.pdf>
===============================================================
These synchro stator voltages are expressed in the following form as
shown in MIL-S-20708:

Es3-s1 = N Er1-r2 Sin v t Sin u
Es2-s3 = N Er1-r2 Sin v t Sin (u+120)
Es1-s2 = N Er1-r2 Sin v t Sin (u+240)
===============================================================

Whoopsie... even the military uses 0, 120 and 240 degree phase angles,
DildoRider... all the way back to WWII. LOL

Imagine that, you're a lying backpedaling mathematical mega-moron. LOL

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetrical_components>
===============================================================
Physically, in a three phase winding a positive sequence set of
currents produces a normal rotating field, a negative sequence set
produces a field with the opposite rotation, and the zero sequence set
produces a field that oscillates but does not rotate between phase
windings.
===============================================================

DildoRider k'lames all motors spin in reverse! LOL!

Or didn't DildoRider know that to reverse the spin direction of a
3-phase motor, all one has to do is swap two of the phases? Moron. LOL

DildoRider's Psinewave Pspamming Psychosis:

1) You derived a higher RMS voltage than the peak voltage the RMS
voltage was derived from.

2) You k'lamed a *doubling* of voltage as a resultant of all three
phases of 3-phase AC, akin to shorting all three phases together.

3) You k'lamed a resultant of 0 volts between any two phases of
3-phase AC.

4) You demonstrated your inability to grasp why two phases *summed*
gave a sinewave of the same voltage but phase shifted 60 degrees from
each of the tributary sinewaves, such that the resultant is 180
degrees phase from the remaining third phase.

5) You demonstrated your inability to grasp why all three phases of
3-phase AC *summed* together gives a result of 0 volts.

6) You k'lamed you were feeding 240 volts to the *primary* of a
*substation* transformer, deriving 120 volts from the *primary* side,
then feeding that 240 volts to a 120/208 volt electrical feed... you
even went so far as to justify it with your kooky math, showing you
were deriving 208 volts from 240 volts. Then you backpedaled and
k'lamed you were instead feeding the primary with a voltage of "12
kVA" (DildoRider's blather), proving you don't know the difference
between voltage and apparent power.

7) You showed how you could derived any voltage of any polarity from 0
volts.

8) You *still* can't figure out why the resultant L-L of two phases of
3-phase AC would *lead* Phase A by 30 degrees... your kooky sinewave
subtraction equation graphed it *lagging*. To fix that, you started
using negative phase angles.

9) You lied and claimed that electrical engineers use negative phase
sequencing to justify your having to use negative phase angles in your
kooky sinewave subtraction equation.

And you still don't know what a gable is. 150 IQ? LOL

>> You can't even get your kooky sinewave subtraction equation to get the
>> proper phase shift without using them, and switching the phases in
>> your moronic equation changes the phase of the sinusoid. The Euler
>> sinewave summation equation fixes all that. Too bad you're far too
>> stoooopid to figure it out, though... and even if you were, you
>> wouldn't, because that'd mean you'd have to admit that I (and every
>> scientist and researcher using the Euler sinewave summation equation
>> since 1748) were right, and you're Robert Michael Wolfe of Pittsburgh,
>> PA, the Mathematical Mega-Moron. LOL

> google my address sometime. your google-stacking is "defeatored".
>
> all anybody will ever see is your fake lotus pics!

Funny, all I see is real estate websites showing that your shitshack
shanty is worth less than half the average price of any of the
surrounding properties. Likely because you live in what's now
considered a high-crime area... that's what happens when you let
low-rent stalking crackheads like you move into the neighborhood...
you drag down the property values. LOL

Although I do note that after I get to the bottom of the second page
of results (all real estate websites above that point), just after the
obituary for Rose Goldstein, who died in *your* bedroom, DildoRider,
the results are pretty hilarious. LOL

>>>> For the same reason you have to use negative
>>>> phase angles in your kooky sinewave subtraction equation to even get
>>>> it to work. Because you're Robert Michael Wolfe the Mathematical
>>>> Mega-Moron. LOL

>>> LOL

>>>> <http://i.imgur.com/4KfnZdN.png>

> is that YOUR graph of 3-phase????

That's me SPNAK!ing you for your stupid question...

Some mathematical mega-moron dribbled:
====================================

then why doesn't -cos(x) == acos(x)?

also:

-sin(x) != asin(x)

====================================

It's not surprising that you don't understand it, Mathematical
Mega-Moron.

> LOLOLOLOL

LOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOL

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL

Diddler. LOL

Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL
Obsessed Retard. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL
Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL
Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL
Worst Maker Of Sinewaves In Usenet History. LOL

<snicker>

--

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka

[Skeet]

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:pvujgbtu76ehuqggf...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

> <meandering misdirection & desperate denial SNIPped>
>
> *yawn*...

I spanked you so hard you cowardly snipped it all out, you spineless
bleatfarting blither-blathering mathematical moron.

=========================================================

> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what
> its inverse operation is.

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard claims the co-functionality of sine and cosine
are "inverse operations" and not co-functionality.

Addition and subtraction are inverse operations, Moron. Multiplication
and division are inverse operations, Moron. This is exactly what I
mean when I say that you rummage through Google for some bit of

knowledge which you think will make you seem like "not-a-moron", run
to Usenet with it, and prove yourself a moron. LOL

The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL

<http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

You were discussing cosine being the derivative of sine via the

equation d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x). Then you bleated: "You still don't

have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse operation is."
(while misspelling "derivative" LOL), you backpedaling spankard.

Because you don't know the difference between an inverse operation and

co-functionality.

So go on, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard... tell us what the "inverse
operation" of the derivative d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) is. Go on. Go

ransack Google for as long as you need, then come back to prove

yourself an even bigger moron. LOL

=========================================================

RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!

[vallor]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:48:46 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
Emeritus wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
> <news:pvujgbtu76ehuqggf...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

>> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
>> operation is.
>
> Shiny Tinfoil Spankard claims the co-functionality of sine and cosine
> are "inverse operations" and not co-functionality.

Bub, take a look in the mirror.

It's clear you're in over your head. Your sentence above is almost a
complete non sequitur from what BMSMA just said. It would be a
_complete_ non sequitur if sine and cosine didn't factor in to what was
saying.

The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral. No matter what
the semantics, it's clear this is what he's talking about, and only the
most Derridian wackadoodle deconstructionist would go off on the
(literary) tangent that you did intentionally. But that's not what
happened.

Ordinarily, I'd be confused why in another post, you would go as far as
to state this very fact, then when parsing his statement above, have it
go right over your head.

But there's nothing confusing about that, because you are a chinese room
simulation.

> The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
> sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL

Except he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the inverse
operation of a derivative. That _happens_ to be a relationship between
sin(x) and cos(x), but you've gone off talking about cofunctions and
arcsine/arccosine and other irrelevancies that have nothing to do with
what BMSMA was talking about.

So, okay, you're learning something -- I get that. Go ahead and
integrate cos(x), just don't make the common trivial mistake that is the
source of some humor among mathematicians.

> RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!

I think my irony circuits just scrammed.

--
-v

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:m6ipgblkjoh7erqb2...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> Fakey realizes he is non-sequituring.

Awww, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard pops his head out from behind vallor's
skirt to bleat out his butthurt... without answering any of those
questions or addressing the massive SPNAK!age he's been taking. LOL

> He is quite deliberate about it. It's his typical MO...

Drop-kicking you for being a retard is my typical MO? LOL

> he is hoping to confuse the issue in the eyes of other readers, and
> hoping that i tire of replying to every evasive strawman
> he throws out. Which i do.

There's no "confusing the issue", Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. You've
fucked up multiple times, and each time you bleat hard, run away from
it and lie about it. My .sig is full of such examples. LOL

=========================================================

> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what
> its inverse operation is.

Shiny Tinfoil Spankard claims the co-functionality of sine and cosine
are "inverse operations" and not co-functionality.

Addition and subtraction are inverse operations, Moron. Multiplication
and division are inverse operations, Moron. This is exactly what I
mean when I say that you rummage through Google for some bit of
knowledge which you think will make you seem like "not-a-moron", run
to Usenet with it, and prove yourself a moron. LOL

The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL

<http://i.imgur.com/Ono41sn.png>

You were discussing cosine being the derivative of sine via the

equation d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x). Then you bleated: "You still don't

have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse operation is."

(while misspelling "derivative" LOL), you backpedaling spankard.

Because you don't know the difference between an inverse operation and
co-functionality.

So go on, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard... tell us what the "inverse
operation" of the derivative d/dx [sin(x)] = cos(x) is. Go on. Go
ransack Google for as long as you need, then come back to prove
yourself an even bigger moron. LOL
=========================================================

> Everything in his .sig is in the same vein. None of it
> is true, except sin^2 being a sinusoid. Most of it is
> shit i & others had to school fakey on... heheh.

See? You're still backpedaling and lying to try to escape the SPNAK!s
you've already taken. How's that working for ya, Spankard? LOL

> What else would you expect him to do... actually learn
> some maths?

Continue kicking your stoooopid ass? LOL

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dn3n3n...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:48:46 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus wrote:

>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in
>> <news:pvujgbtu76ehuqggf...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

>>> You still don't have a clue what a derivitive is, or what its inverse
>>> operation is.

>> Shiny Tinfoil Spankard claims the co-functionality of sine and cosine
>> are "inverse operations" and not co-functionality.

> Bub, take a look in the mirror.
>
> It's clear you're in over your head. Your sentence above is almost a
> complete non sequitur from what BMSMA just said. It would be a
> _complete_ non sequitur if sine and cosine didn't factor in to what was
> saying.

Bullshit. He was trying to say cosine is the inverse operation of
cosine.

> The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral.

No, the inverse function to the derivative is the integral.

> No matter what the semantics, it's clear this is what he's talking
> about,

If he can't even get the terminology correct, it's pretty apparent he
doesn't know what he's talking about.

> and only the
> most Derridian wackadoodle deconstructionist would go off on the
> (literary) tangent that you did intentionally. But that's not what
> happened.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_functions_and_differentiation>
In mathematics, the inverse of a function is a function that, in some
fashion, "undoes" the effect (see inverse function for a formal and
detailed definition).

> Ordinarily, I'd be confused why in another post, you would go as far as
> to state this very fact, then when parsing his statement above, have it
> go right over your head.
>
> But there's nothing confusing about that, because you are a chinese room
> simulation.

Or you're desperately squirming and attempting to dismiss those
"semantics" of using the correct terminology because you so want to
gain even a single point against your Usenet Lord and Master, even if
you have to give that point to the moron Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL

>> The inverse function of cosine is arccosine. The inverse function of
>> sine is arcsine. You're a moron. LOL

> Except he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the inverse
> operation of a derivative.

Anw what is this "inverse operation of a derivative"? Hmmmm?

> That _happens_ to be a relationship between sin(x) and cos(x),

You mean co-functionality? Words have meanings, you can't just throw
any old word in there and expect to be right.

> but you've gone off talking about cofunctions and
> arcsine/arccosine and other irrelevancies that have nothing to do with
> what BMSMA was talking about.
>
> So, okay, you're learning something -- I get that. Go ahead and
> integrate cos(x), just don't make the common trivial mistake that is the
> source of some humor among mathematicians.

It would appear that while I'm "learning something", you and Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard are stuck defending his fuckups while learning
nothing. Or while learning something but unable to admit it because
that'd entail admitting your Usenet Lord and Master was right.

<snicker>

>> RUN! SHINY TINFOIL SPANKARD! RUUUUUNNNNNN!!!!

> I think my irony circuits just scrammed.

You don't know the meaning of that word.

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

your post is late

have you heard about the lotusLoser?
he's a loser but he still keeps on tryin'...

2nd verse: (by: ben...@the.future)

have you heard about the lotusLoser

beaten by the queen of pembroke each time

have you heard about the lotusLoser

he's a luser but he still keeps on cryin'...

-

LOL

well i guess if we went to:

http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/color-summarizer/

and gave it the URL to the image THAT YOU POSTED IN POST:
<617072d3bd042b96...@dizum.com>

<http://i.imgur.com/gchDiBs.png>

I took that on my way to eat lunch. I tried to make an index card with
backward writing so the SPANKY-SPANKY! reflection would show up with
frontward writing, but apparently I can't write backward legibly, so
you gets what you gets."

it would say "definitely not green", right???

http://i.imgur.com/1CkNIDC.png

D'OH!!!!

*SPNAKITY-SPNAKITY*

http://i.imgur.com/Z4p1Z55.png

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly
Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL

Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL

Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL

Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

your post is late

[Skeet]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:58:40 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Or you're desperately squirming and attempting to dismiss those
>"semantics" of using the correct terminology

Oh teh Irony

[Skeet]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:58:41 +0200 (CEST), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>There's no "confusing the issue", Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. You've
>fucked up multiple times, and each time you bleat hard, run away from
>it and lie about it

Like you ran from the Lotus story?

[Skeet]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:20:14 -0400, "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder
living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117"
<ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> your post is late

Remailer latency.


Haw Haw Haw

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:50:14 -0400, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Skeet <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:20:14 -0400, "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder
>> living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
>> socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117"
>> <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>
>> > your post is late
>>
>> Remailer latency.
>>
>>
>> Haw Haw Haw
>

> lol
>

ROFL

Somewhere Abouts Round Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:03 -0500, Friendly

Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

[Mustaffa Sheboygan]

In article <op.yfvis...@benson.localhost>, ro...@127.0.0.1 says...

>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 15:50:14 -0400, Sn!pe <snip...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Skeet <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:20:14 -0400, "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder
> >> living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
> >> socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117"
> >> <ro...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >>
> >> > your post is late
> >>
> >> Remailer latency.
> >>
> >>
> >> Haw Haw Haw
> >
> > lol
> >
>
> ROFL

HARDY-HAR-HAR!

--
Mustaffa Sheboygan

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dncv8i...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2016 18:09:51 +0800, Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
> (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard) wrote:

>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>> Bwahahahaaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard is now claiming that x^2 is a
>>> trigonometric function whose value for the complement of an angle is
>>> equal to the value of 2x of the angle itself.

> I ALREADY TOLD YOU that that isn't what a derivative is.

I know that, and you know that... perhaps you should teach Shiny
Tinfoil Spankard what a derivative is. LOL

> The derivative gives the slope of the line tangent to the curve
> for varying values of x.

The first derivative, yes. But then I've known that for years... stock
trading kind of requires knowing that when you're programming your own
indicators.

> This is useful for finding a curve's minimum or maximum (where the
> slope will be 0).

It's useful for a lot more than that. One must find the first
derivative before one can find the second or third, after all.

> (Hopefully this is still taught with a unit on graphing curves by hand.
> I really don't know, maybe someone else can chime in.)

>>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? Are you
>>> confused, Mathematical Moron? Yeah you are. LOL

>> Rolf & Lol! with a bwahaha too.

> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it. (Got just a couple of
> paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)

You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
co-functions? That's because he's a confused little kooktard.
Remember, he's the moron who confused the mathematical derivatives
using stock trading indicators with stock options. LOL

> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment
> for the budding mathematician:
>
> d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2

d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x

Did you forget to simplify? LOL

> d/dx( 4x^2 ) = 8x

d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x

> d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7

d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7

> DO YOU GET IT YET?

I always have gotten it. You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard. LOL

> You can't fake knowing math.

Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL

> Prediction: the response to this will be "jess trollin'".

Wrong. Again. LOL

> Finally, the eager student asked:

>>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?

> Since 2x is the slope of the curve tangent to f(x) = x^2 for varying
> values of x, your question doesn't even half make sense.

That was the point, Idjit. Shiny Tinfoil Spankard asking if x^2 and 2x
were co-functions didn't even half make sense, so I highlighted that
by asking him a question he couldn't possibly answer because it has no
answer.

> And I hesitate
> to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific point x, because
> _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the reasons you think.
> for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is the angle. But let's
> take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin air)
> and see what we get:
>
> x = 5
> f(x) = (5)^2 = 25
> d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>
> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>
> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>
> What is the slope? It is the ratio of y/x.
> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5
> would be solved by using the trigonometric function that solves for y/x
> ratios -- arctan. (Remember tangents? This is a song about tangents.)

But we're not talking about the slope of x^2, we're talking about the
slope of its derivative, for which the only two true conditions are
[0,0] and [2,4].

> $ mbc.sh
> My bc
> bc 1.06.95
> Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006 Free Software
> Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
> For details type `warranty'.
> arctan(10)
> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>
> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>
> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>
> 2*pi()
> 6.28318530717958647692528676655900576839433879875020
> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323/.
> .23413724128472321524251144069934899969033566370304
> .*360
> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>
> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from vertical,
> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.

It's just as easy to graph it.

<http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
<http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>

Gee... I got the same answers you did. Seems I have an intuitive grasp
on the mechanics and the mathematics of it, whereas Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard has yet to produce even a single graph *or* correct equation.
LOL

Now... what's all that got to do with the fact that Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard is a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering liar
desperately raping Google for diversionary topics to cover up his
having been SPNAK!d silly, as outlined in my .sig?

That x^2 and 2x are not co-functions.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:p5d1hbpiu6c0iirnv...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>> Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

>>> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

>>>> vallor, in <news:dn3n3n...@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump

> How ever did i miss these gems?...

Possibly because you were backpedaling so fast you zipped right by
them as you cowardly snipped out all the SPNAK!age I delivered upon
your brightly glowing ass. LOL

>>>>> The inverse operation to the derivative is the integral.

>>>> No, the inverse function to the derivative is the integral.

> And then you discover:

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral>
>> "Roughly speaking, the operation of integration is the reverse of
>> differentiation. For this reason, the term integral may also refer to
>> the related notion of the antiderivative"

> See where it says "operation"?
>
> Self-SPNAKKY!

I see where someone's been editing the Wiki in a desperate attempt at
proving himself "not wrong". LOL

I've said all along that integration is an operation. You're the moron
who claimed that sine and cosine were inverse operations and not
co-functions, for which you got soundly SPNAK!d. LOL

>>> The derivative of x^2 is 2x. Does that make them also
>>> "co-functions"?

>> Bwahahahaaa! Shiny Tinfoil Spankard is now claiming that x^2 is a
>> trigonometric function whose value for the complement of an angle is
>> equal to the value of 2x of the angle itself.
>>

>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? Are you
>> confused, Mathematical Moron? Yeah you are. LOL

> Rolf & Lol! with a bwahaha too.

You're attempting to divert attention away from all that SPNAK!age
you've taken for being a moron. Again. LOL

Have you figured out yet that finding the anti-derivative is the same
as finding the integral, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Fakey thinks derivatives are a mysterious "something"

Have you figured out yet that the derivative of a constant is always
equal to zero, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> applicable only to trig functions. Fakey thereby

Have you figured out yet that stock trading requires mathematical
derivatives, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that s/h/it not

Have you figured out yet that the first derivative velocity does not
equal the second derivative acceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> only doesn't understand what derivatives & integrals are,

Says the moron who confused the mathematical derivatives used in stock
trading with stock options. LOL

Have you figured out yet that mathematical derivatives as used in
stock trading are not stock options, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> but has been successful in resisting any enlightening

Have you figured out yet that wave interference and superposition are
the same thing, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> influence through hours of midnite "google-raping"

Have you figured out yet that wave interference works the same for
standing and traveling waves, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> sessions. Not to mention my stern but fruitless

Have you figured out yet that formulas are math, Mathematical Moron?
LOL

> mentoring.

Projection. You're the one being mentored. Your desperate GoogleRaping
then scurrying back to Usenet to tell everyone how much you've learned
is proof. LOL

Have you figured out yet that there's a formula in that plain text
LaTeX notation, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Here's a suggestion, betelnut. Google up the derivative

Have you figured out yet that the first derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is velocity, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the second derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is acceleration, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the third derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is jerk, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the fourth derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is snap, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the fifth derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is crackle, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that the sixth derivative of the position
vector with respect to time is pop, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> of d/dx(x^2),

You mean d/dx(x^n) = nx^(n-1), therefore d/dx(x^2) = 2x.

Your differentiation is only true for x=0 and x=2, Mathematical Moron.

<http://i.imgur.com/EMD7k2a.png>

That's because differentiation is a linear operation, thus it
satisfies the additivity and homogeneity properties of the
superposition principle, which you've already demonstrated your
ineptitude on. LOL

Have you figured out yet that wave interference and superposition are
the same thing, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that wave interference works the same for
standing and traveling waves, Mathematical Moron? LOL

Have you figured out yet that Euler's sinewave summation equation is a

result of superposition and the additivity rule of vector summation,
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> then come back here wailing, "See? Shiny

Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and

cofunctionality, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> Tinfoil Brain didn't know that the derivative of x^2 is 2x."

That's called the Power Rule, Moron. You weren't talking about the
Power Rule, Moron. You were talking about x^2 and 2x being
co-functions.

> Maybe, if you really pay attention, you can find another

Have you figured out yet that "gaffe" is not spelled "gaff",
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> misspelling upon which to pounce. Hey, when you're a

Have you figured out yet that "mnemonic" is not spelled "mneumonic",
Mathematical Moron? LOL

> k00k without a Lotus, you gotta take what you can get.

Hey, when you're a backpedaling history-revising spankard, you've got
to fanfic and backpedal like crazy. LOL

Have you figured out yet that there are three methods of
mathematically approximating RMS voltage, Mathematical Moron? LOL

>>> The schooling you get here on auk doesn't seem to make
>>> you any smarter, even when you get a warm, cherry-red,
>>> glow-in-the-daylight ass to help you remember.

>> Have you figured out yet the difference between inverse operations and

>> cofunctionality, Mathematical Moron? LOL

> You weren't paying attention to anything i explained to
> you, fakey.

You didn't explain anything. You bleated out your incorrectitude, you
cowardly snipped out my SPNAK!ing you silly, you raped Google, then
you came back and attempted to k'lame you'd explained it. LOL

> Let's reduce & simplify for you:
> Have you figgered out yet that if you stop beating
> yourself on the head with a hammer, it feels sooooo good?

You'd know that. LOL

> --
> "Water has *no* 'negative poles' "

Have you figured out yet that monomolecular water is not tetrahedral
like methane, rather having a bent geometric configuration per the
VSEPR theory's AXE method, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard? LOL

> --His Nibs reveals the shocking discovery that the
> water molecule is an electrical monopole.

Still trying to figure out what makes a dipole a dipole, Shiny Tinfoil
Spankard? LOL

You're the *moron* who k'lamed the water molecule had 2 positive poles
and 2 negative poles which is blither-blather from a moron. LOL

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_molecule.html>
==================================================
Ab initio calculations on isolated molecules, however, do not confirm
the presence of significant directed electron density where lone pairs
are expected. The negative charge is more evenly smeared out along the
line between where these lone pairs would have been expected, and lies
closer to the center of the O-atom than the centers of positive charge
on the hydrogen atoms (as left).

Early 5-point molecular models, with explicit negative charge where
the lone pairs are purported to be, fared poorly in describing
hydrogen bonding, but more recent models show some promise. Although
there is no apparent consensus of opinion [116], such descriptions of
substantial sp3-hybridized lone pairs in the isolated water molecule
should perhaps be avoided [117], as an sp2-hybridized structure (plus
a pz orbital) is indicated.
==================================================

<http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/molecul2.gif>

The *difference* in electronegativity between the O and H atoms,
combined with the molecule's bent geometric configuration, gives water
its dipolar properties.

Aren't you the *moron* who k'lamed that water is tetrahedral, like
methane? LOL!

SPNAK!

I bet you wish you could be right just once, huh, Moron.

That x^2 and 2x are not co-functions.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass (aka Shiny Tinfoil Spankard), in

<news:0121hbp5g8rtt6gd8...@4ax.com> did thusly jump head

first into the wood chipper again:

> FNVWe stomped a retard's brain flat. Again:

> <350 lines of fakey arguing with itself... and losing>
>
> *yawn*

Bwahahahaa! And yet again I SPNAK! you so hard you're forced to snip
out *everything* and run away from it. Next, you'll molester Google
and come slithering back like a retarded Columbo, "Dahhhh, just one
more thing.", upon which you'll get SPNAK!d again, rinse and repeat.
LOL

That x^2 and 2x are not co-functions.

[Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band]

In article <4f8ddb4f2d99a9d5...@dizum.com>,
FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx says...


> brightly glowing ass.
>



--
Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band

[Skeet]

[vallor]

He never did that.

> That's because he's a confused little kooktard.

Looks more like you are _very_ confused.

> Remember,
> he's the moron who confused the mathematical derivatives using stock
> trading indicators with stock options. LOL

He uses them to compute the price of tea in China.

>
>> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment for the budding
>> mathematician:
>>
>> d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2
>
> d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x
>
> Did you forget to simplify? LOL

That isn't "simplifying" you did, you took the second derivative.

No where in my post did I try to muddy the waters with second
derivatives, I was talking about the basics. Obviously.

So you get an "A" for effort, but I'm going to have to mark you down for
being over-enthusiastic with the process.

>
>> d/dx( 4x^2 ) = 8x
>
> d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x
>
>> d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7
>
> d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7
>
>> DO YOU GET IT YET?
>
> I always have gotten it.

Sure, sure.

> You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil Spankard.
> LOL

I'll let you in on an open secret:

He knows more about this than you do.

>
>> You can't fake knowing math.
>
> Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL

Actually, no, it was you who over-enthusiastically took the second
derivative when all we were dealing with were first derivatives.

>
>> Prediction: the response to this will be "jess trollin'".
>
> Wrong. Again. LOL

Except, see below...

>
>> Finally, the eager student asked:
>
>>>> What's the angle of x^2 and 2x, Shiny Tinfoil Spankard?
>
>> Since 2x is the slope of the curve tangent to f(x) = x^2 for varying
>> values of x, your question doesn't even half make sense.
>
> That was the point, Idjit. Shiny Tinfoil Spankard asking if x^2 and 2x
> were co-functions didn't even half make sense, so I highlighted that by
> asking him a question he couldn't possibly answer because it has no
> answer.
>
>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific
>> point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the reasons
>> you think.
>> for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is the angle. But let's
>> take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin air)
>> and see what we get:
>>
>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>>
>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>>
>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>>
>> What is the slope? It is the ratio of y/x.
>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the trigonometric
>> function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan. (Remember tangents?
>> This is a song about tangents.)
>
> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,

Actually, we are. In purely mathematical terms, that's what a derivative
is _for_.

Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a child.

The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.

In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately 32 ft/
sec/sec. I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this works.

d = -16t^2

This is a parabola. First derivative (as you point out elsewhere) give
velocity:

s = -32t

This is a straight line, but its units are in a different frame of
reference. You don't plot this line with the parabola and hope to see
something meaningful -- you use this resulting formula (the first
derivative) to develop the formula that gives you a line tangent to the
curve for any given x.

> we're talking about the
> slope of its derivative, for which the only two true conditions are
> [0,0] and [2,4].

I'm afraid you're still confused.

>> arctan(10)
>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>>
>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>>
>> Oh, you want that in degrees?

>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>>
>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from vertical,
>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.
>
> It's just as easy to graph it.
>
> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
>
> Gee... I got the same answers you did.

No you didn't, you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to
each other.

Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:

x = 3
f(x) = x^2
so for the point in question, you have (3,9)
d/dx(f(x)) = 2x
so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at (3,9) is 6.

But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_. So the
formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph with
it -- is

[ insert here: you know the formula for the line of a given slope
is y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope. If not, then welcome to first
semester algebra.]

y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through
(3,9). (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).

So solve for c:

9 = 6(3) +c
c = -9

So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:

y = 6x-9

*NOW* you can start plotting:

http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj

The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9). It passes through
(3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.

All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted -- but
you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that changes
from point to point.

_That_ is how you use a derivative. Look at the graph. Do you see now?

> Seems I have an intuitive grasp
> on the mechanics and the mathematics of it,

I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were
orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious to
plot, given what a derivative is _for_.

Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the line
indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line tangent to
the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're utterly at sea.

(Say...are you on a bote?)

> whereas Shiny Tinfoil
> Spankard has yet to produce even a single graph *or* correct equation.
> LOL

But he knows how to take a derivative, and doesn't call them "co-
functions" (or claim that other people are using the term when they
clearly haven't).

>
> Now... what's all that got to do with the fact that Shiny Tinfoil
> Spankard is a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering liar
> desperately raping Google

You know, you'd get a lot farther in this process if you'd learn a little
charity.

I'm x-posting this to afn so that interested parties that can't
participate in this group can comment.

--
Won a Checky(tm) on 2016-04-15
...for schooling a kook about derivatives.
(Including working through a sample problem.)

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

notice how he doesn't deny:

1) being a k0ok.
2) not having a lotus.

[Jed Clampett]

In article <dn3n3n...@mid.individual.net>,

vallor <val...@cultnix.org> wrote:

> So, okay, you're learning something -- I get that. Go ahead and
> integrate cos(x), just don't make the common trivial mistake that is the
> source of some humor among mathematicians.

"integrate cos(x)" is not completely defined.
Now I can make of it what I will, within some limitations.
For instance, I could answer zero or answer 42.

--
Jed Clampett

[noTthaTguY]

it seems that most vortices arise from the adiabat with water

> Right. As I indicated, vortices originate from the jet stream, the mother vortice, and then grow down along vertical or semi vertical boundary layers.
>
> Nutcase Dude:
> That warm moist updrafting air tilts this horizontally spinning air vertically, creating a mesocyclone.
>
> James McGinn:
> This is one theory. It's a very poor theory. (Meteorologists are not physicists.) The problem is that this theory fails to account for the concentrated energy that eventually emerges in a tornado/storm. In other words, it asserts a reversal of entropy that has no explanation. It's kind of like the notion of spontaneous generation in biology. Where does the concentrated energy come from? According to this theory, it just appears spontaneously. It's a pseudoscientific notion. But I suppose that if you believe there is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then this is not that much of a stretch.
>
> Nutcase Dude:
> This can, under strong updraft, generate cyclonic vortexes... and hence tornadoes.
>
> James McGinn:
> So, if you can imagine strong updrafts you can imagine tornadoes. Right? Is that your argument? Once again, if you believe there is such thing as magical wedges that appear as a consequence of thin air then, I guess, this is not that much of a stretch. The reality is you don't have a comprehensive, self-consistent theory.
>
> Nutcase Dude:
> This is why I told you that roller clouds are failed tornadoes...
>
> James McGinn:
> LOL. You told me? I think you are confused. Remember, I am the expert. I am the physicist. You are a guy with a PC, internet access, and a bad attitude.
>
> Nutcase Dude:
> Roller clouds are the horizontally spinning air which the warm humid updraft air tilt vertically to form tornadoes. Roller clouds are formed and not tilted vertically because insufficient warm humid air exists to tilt them.
>
> James McGinn:
> Jet streams and their tributaries run horizontal also. And, just like your theoretical roller clouds, they tend to run along boundary layers. And so, calling them roller clouds doesn't explain where the energy comes from that, eventually, causes a storm/tornado. In contrast, recognizing that they are connected to the jet stream does explain the origin of the energy in that these extensions of jet streams act as conduits of the low pressure energy associated with storms, something your dimwitted convection model completely fails to explain. Along these lines, my explanation doesn't depend on magical, lighter than dry air, warm, moist air which has never been detected in a laboratory. Sorry to burst your bubble. But there is more to doing science than doing google searches.

[James McGinn]

On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 1:24:48 PM UTC-7, noTthaTguY wrote:
> it seems that most vortices arise from the adiabat with water

Wind shear boundaries between moist aid and dry air.

[Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus]

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Robert Michael Wolfe the Pittsburgh Pied Piper Of Penis (aka

DildoRider) of 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey),
socked up as suck...@127.0.0.1, in
<news:op.yf0qc...@benson.localhost> did thusly jump head first

into the wood chipper again:

> notice how he doesn't deny:
>
> 1) being a k0ok.
> 2) not having a lotus.

Proof, Stalky McCrackHead?

<snicker>

Fag. LOL
Idiot. LOL
Moron. LOL
Tranny. LOL
Libtard. LOL
Crackhead. LOL
GableTard. LOL
DildoRider. LOL
Bad Musician. LOL
Stick Figure. LOL
Terrible Liar. LOL

Obsessed Retard. LOL
Sinewave Spammer. LOL
Cracky McCrackhead. LOL
Outerfilthing Stalker. LOL

Photofuckering Fuckwit. LOL

Talentless FrothMonkey. LOL
Math Challenged Halfwit. LOL
Klimate Katastrophe Kook. LOL
Defeated Tearful Spankard. LOL
Waster Of Time To Save $10. LOL