I've never seen a market like this
Lawyerkill
remember seeing a market trade like this.
I have a real time chart of the DIA displayed on one of my monitors
and every once in a while I'll take my head out of a book I'm reading
at look up at it and it's crazy. The only thing I own now is CYCC and
it's tanking, oh well.
Lubow
And all this time I thought you were an experienced investor. I mean
you're still wet behind the ears. I mean you have not lived until you
are invested during a ten year bear market like teh one that started
around NIxon's second inauguration.
Wait a minute...
OMG... This IS a ten year bear market!
VegasNightOwl
"Lawyerkill" <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fb3b9d0e-eaad-4d7b...@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Just go for the good divdend paying stocks and wait for the looooooooooong
turnaround. For the past 2 years I'
ve been stating that the turnaround will not actually occur until about
2013-2014, and there's danger that will not be solid either.
VegasNightOwl
MS
Check out the DJI in 2004. It behaved pretty much like now just before
rising another 40%.
Bill Reid
So, could you describe how you "think" it should trade?
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: about a third of the days I've been watching
the market, not counting the hundred years+ of data in my
trading database
com...@webtv.net
congress it will rise, if the democRATS win again, it will crash worse
then 1929..
" Ya gotta be pretty dumb not to believe in GOD "
Lawyerkill
> On Jun 9, 1:34�pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've only been watching the market for maybe 13-14 years, but I don't
> > remember seeing a market trade like this.
>
> > I have a real time chart of the DIA displayed on one of my monitors
> > and every once in a while I'll take my head out of a book I'm reading
> > at look up at it and it's crazy. The only thing I own now is CYCC and
> > it's tanking, oh well.
>
> So, could you describe how you "think" it should trade?
>
Just said I've never seen it trade this way, not that it shouldn't
trade this way.
I'll get back to you in 150 years when I've seen all the ways a market
can trade.
Lawyerkill
> � � " Ya gotta be pretty dumb not to believe in GOD "
No, just pretty dumb to beleive in Gods made in man's image or
creation tales from mythology.
Shylock
>
>
Hello,
Another Jew got into our Christian nation’s gov. http://tinyurl.com/lbgov
to run it into the mud (crude): Meg Whitman of California http://judicial-inc.biz
.
These Jews thatare in Govt. now are predominantly Sephardick Jews, and
the ones of Oil-slick-Bush’s reign were the Ashcanazi. The Ashcanazi
(Asiatic) are Khazarian, barbarians, stupid and Communistic, while the
Sephardick are Arabic and somewhat civilized. The Sephardick will in a
somewhat civilized manner try to keep the market at 10,000, but for
their vacation, since they must go all the way to Israel now, because
of the Gulf http://tinyurl.com/USAgulf , will need to get it down to
8,000, in order to give them time to get back all the way from Israel
when it gets dangerously over 10,000. Remember! Thatis England in our
Gulf (itisnot their land, itisnot their Country), and they donot care
what they have to do to it to get what they want . . . Have you been
wondering whoare all these limey-talking-heads in our Media? Theyare
of The House of Rothschild http://tinyurl.com/houseRothschild
. . . Weare invaded from three borders/shores . . . just wait ’til
China, within our borders, feels abundant enough to start flexing her
muscles . . .
[Fema camp is calling you:
http://tinyurl.com/NukFemaCamps
http://tinyurl.com/NukMartialLaw ]
Truly
Truth will set you free, according to Jesus in John 8:32
com...@webtv.net
from monkey fairy tale.
Lawyerkill
> we have documented -eye witness proof of GOD,
Really, please name one. Oh and don't waste your time claiming the
people that wrote the gospels, we don't know who wrote then and there
are no recorded writing from the time of Jesus that speak of him and
the claims make by the gospels.
This is a subject I've debated and studies for about 20 years so I'm
well aware of the scholarly writings on it.
you have zero for your man
> from monkey fairy tale.
Well if I totally believed in evolution, which I don't, that may mean
something. I'll say this there is way more evidence for evolution than
a god.
Lubow
>
>
> Well if I totally believed in evolution, which I don't, that may mean
> something. I'll say this there is way more evidence for evolution than
> a god.
Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. That's
because we know more about evolution than we know about gravity.
Lawyerkill
Really? tell me how Sex evolved. Tell me how DNA evolved, tell me how
the first cell evolved, oh and prevent this with evidence that proves
it.
Lawyerkill
Oh and tell me in your own words and cut and paste crap.
ausound
04356a...@r20g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> Really? tell me how Sex evolved.
starts with eye contact and a smile
then somehow ya gotta figger how to get het have an alcoholic drink
Lawyerkill
Hell we don't even know how insects evolved.
d.
>On Jun 10, 2:31=EF=BF=BDpm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2:29 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 10, 2:22 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jun 10, 2:04 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Well if I totally believed in evolution, which I don't, that may me=
>an
>> > > > something. I'll say this there is way more evidence for evolution t=
>han
>> > > > a god.
>>
>> > > Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. That's
>> > > because we know more about evolution than we know about gravity.
>>
>> > Really? tell me how Sex evolved. Tell me how DNA evolved, tell me how
>> > the first cell evolved, oh and prevent this with evidence that proves
>> > it.
>>
>> Oh and tell me in your own words and cut and paste crap.
>
>Hell we don't even know how insects evolved.
I don't know if anyone can totally explain it at a genetic level, but
if you just sit back and look close enough you can probably see it
occuring right now. Like viruses, for example.
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
They can't and viruses remain viruses, they don't turn into multi cell
animals.
A really interesting book is, 'wetware: A computer in every living
cell' by Bray.
Lawyerkill
>
> - Show quoted text -
BTW don't get me wrong, I'm not saying evolution didn't happen, only
that there are big gaps in the theory.
It's non sequitur to compare what we know or don't know about gravity
to what we know or don't know about evolution.. For one thing gravity
is an effect, evolution is millions of different processors, some with
theory, some they can't explain, not even close to being the same type
of thing.
Right now it looks to me that evolution had to have some type of help.
I believe there may be a grand designer, but we don't have a clue
what he/she/it is.
Lubow
That's easy. Species evolved in a way to best survive the
environment. Some organisms reproduce without sex, like the first
organisms did. DNA evolved like any other chemical evolved and over
the first few million years of earth's existence many chemicals
evolved in the ooze that existed under the heat of an environment
where there was no atmosphere.
Now that we settled on evolution, tell us why you do not believe in
gravity. Or at least use your intelligence to tell us what particle
exists that generates a gravitational field whose force is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance from an object of matter.
And why is it the square of the distance and not, e.g., the cube of
the distance?
Inquiring minds want to know.
bob wald
unemployed.....
obama....go on vacation...it was better for usa...lol
Lubow
s to me that evolution had to have some type of help.
>
> I believe there may be a grand designer, but we don't have a clue
> what he/she/it is.
Nope. It's just the way things are. In the countless number of
galaxies and the even more countless number of stars one star system
in one galaxy is unique. It's like the case of the infinite number of
chimps placed before an infinite number of typewriters -- one of the
chimps will type Hamlet.
There may be another star system that is configured the same way our
solar system is configured. We do not have the technology to show
such is the case, but you never know.
In our configuration, the third planet is close enough to the sun to
keep it temperate but far enough not to be a perpetual desert. Then
there are those huge outer planets with their huge mini-systems
collecting and attracting space debris to protect the earth. Then
there is our huge moon that protects us even more. There does not
seem to be another system with this kind of configuration.
It's not a designer. It's the same math that produces a PowerBall
winner even though it is unlikely that the PowerBall ticket we buy is
a winner.
bob wald
but if they screw up the saints/nfl, new orleans football...this world
aint big enough for bp to escape my ratha.....if i were bp id watch what
i open in the mail....lol
Lawyerkill
> On Jun 10, 2:29�pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 2:22 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 2:04 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well if I totally believed in evolution, which I don't, that may mean
> > > > something. I'll say this there is way more evidence for evolution than
> > > > a god.
>
> > > Not believing in evolution is like not believing in gravity. That's
> > > because we know more about evolution than we know about gravity.
>
> > Really? tell me how Sex evolved. Tell me how DNA evolved, tell me how
> > the first cell evolved, oh and prevent this with evidence that proves
> > it.
>
> That's easy. �Species evolved in a way to best survive the
> environment. Some organisms reproduce without sex, like the first
> organisms did. �DNA evolved like any other chemical evolved and over
> the first few million years of earth's existence many chemicals
> evolved in the ooze that existed under the heat of an environment
> where there was no atmosphere.
Again tell us exactly how sex evolved and how DNA evolved. How did DNA
evolve with no atmosphere to protect it? Give it step by step. Maybe
you can start with how RNA, mRNA and tRNA evolved. You seem to know
more than leading evolutionist so we like to know what you evidence
is. Tell us how insects evolved and from where.
>
> Now that we settled on evolution, tell us why you do not believe in
> gravity. �Or at least use your intelligence to tell us what particle
> exists �that generates a gravitational field whose force is inversely
> proportional to the square of the distance from an object of matter.
>
> And why is it the square of the distance and not, e.g., �the cube of
> the distance?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know.
Total non sequitur, unless your now are claiming that gravity
evolved.
If you want to talk about how things work then why don't you tell us
exactly what every gene in the cell does, how the Genome works, What
causes the proteins to fold the way they do, where's the program for
it?
You know I can spend the next day just typing all the questions that
we don't have any answers for, and that just the cell.
Read about Molecular Cell Biology by Lodish, and see how little we
really know how the cell operates, then we can get to evolution.
Dr Tormento
04356a...@r20g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> Really? tell me how Sex evolved.
Came naturally after the invention of whiskey.
James Dale Guckert
Shouldn't this be taken to talk.origins, alt.atheism and/or the
religious newsgroups?
I'm not trying to censor, but those groups are dedicated to dealing with
such questions.
Of course if all you want to do is flame each other or rattle off dumb
questions that have been dealt with over and over by people who've put
serious thought to them, then I guess this is as good a place as any to
do it.
--
JDG
ausound
@storefull-3112.bay.webtv.net:
sounds like an actionable federal offense to me
Bill Reid
>
> Of course if all you want to do is flame each other or rattle off dumb
> questions that have been dealt with over and over by people who've put
> serious thought to them, then I guess this is as good a place as any to
> do it.
>
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: about equal to the dumb questions asked here
count in the same time frame
Bill Reid
> On Jun 9, 11:56 pm, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:34 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I've only been watching the market for maybe 13-14 years, but I don't
> > > remember seeing a market trade like this.
>
> > > I have a real time chart of the DIA displayed on one of my monitors
> > > and every once in a while I'll take my head out of a book I'm reading
> > > at look up at it and it's crazy. The only thing I own now is CYCC and
> > > it's tanking, oh well.
>
> > So, could you describe how you "think" it should trade?
>
> Just said I've never seen it trade this way, not that it shouldn't
> trade this way.
>
before in your experience?
> I'll get back to you in 150 years when I've seen all the ways a market
> can trade.
Well, markets have been around for MUCH longer than 150 years but
they always seem to trade the same, at least from MY perspective...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: billions less than all the times people have
said "this market just isn't trading the way it used to"
bob wald
driving at...lol
dum people....but then again.....who knows.....lol
bob wald
shell fish......huh! you worried about if i might of threatened them
animal killerssss...get ya head outa yass....i was born on the gulf
beach...n ive looked out more times than i can count...n bp ruined it
forever......
Lawyerkill
> On Jun 10, 1:13�am, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 11:56 pm, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 1:34 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I've only been watching the market for maybe 13-14 years, but I don't
> > > > remember seeing a market trade like this.
>
> > > > I have a real time chart of the DIA displayed on one of my monitors
> > > > and every once in a while I'll take my head out of a book I'm reading
> > > > at look up at it and it's crazy. The only thing I own now is CYCC and
> > > > it's tanking, oh well.
>
> > > So, could you describe how you "think" it should trade?
>
> > Just said I've never seen it trade this way, not that it shouldn't
> > trade this way.
>
> Can you describe how it is trading now that it wasn't trading
> before in your experience?
>
OK for one I've never seen the Dow lose 700 points in the matter of 15
minutes during the midday and then recover 600 of those points within
the next 13-20 minutes.
> > I'll get back to you in 150 years when I've seen all the ways a market
> > can trade.
>
> Well, markets have been around for MUCH longer than 150 years but
> they always seem to trade the same, at least from MY perspective...
>
> ---
> William Ernest Reid
> Post count: billions less than all the times people have
> said "this market just isn't trading the way it used to"- Hide quoted text -
RayLopez99
>
> OK for one I've never seen the Dow lose 700 points in the matter of 15
> minutes during the midday and then recover 600 of those points within
> the next 13-20 minutes.
>
> > > I'll get back to you in 150 years when I've seen all the ways a market
> > > can trade.
>
> > Well, markets have been around for MUCH longer than 150 years but
> > they always seem to trade the same, at least from MY perspective...
>
The Wall Street Journal had an article about a flash crash in the
early 1960s, cause unknown. Since the market is a random number
generator, chaotic, you'll get these freak occurrences more often than
you think.
RL
VegasNightOwl
"RayLopez99" <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a59d603f-6670-4fbd...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
RL
That's seems odd that a flash crash would occur in the early 1960's before
computers made most, if not all, of the decisions like today. My guess
would be that the flash crash in the early 60's was some very big boys
pulled too much money out at the same time. Wasn't Howard Hughes a good
market player at that time?
VegasNightOwl
Bill Reid
> On Jun 10, 8:54 pm, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 1:13 am, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 9, 11:56 pm, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 9, 1:34 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I've only been watching the market for maybe 13-14 years, but I don't
> > > > > remember seeing a market trade like this.
>
> > > > > I have a real time chart of the DIA displayed on one of my monitors
> > > > > and every once in a while I'll take my head out of a book I'm reading
> > > > > at look up at it and it's crazy. The only thing I own now is CYCC and
> > > > > it's tanking, oh well.
>
> > > > So, could you describe how you "think" it should trade?
>
> > > Just said I've never seen it trade this way, not that it shouldn't
> > > trade this way.
>
> > Can you describe how it is trading now that it wasn't trading
> > before in your experience?
>
> OK for one I've never seen the Dow lose 700 points in the matter of 15
> minutes during the midday and then recover 600 of those points within
> the next 13-20 minutes.
>
that was happening on June 9, 2010, and THAT didn't happen on
June 9, 2010.
In 1987, the DJIA lost almost 23% of its value in one day
(that would be over 2300 points today), most of it in a
"waterfall" in the last few hours of trading, and the following
day the market effectively shut down because the NYSE
specialists were broke and the banks refused to lend them
money to start trading again. It wasn't until later in
the day that the Reagan administration "secretly" agreed to
guarantee the loans that the market suddenly gained
much of its previous day's losses back in a matter of
hours.
You didn't "experience" that, but certainly you "experienced"
the astounding rise of the NASDAQ in 1999, the subsequent
"crash" in 2000-2002 that has left it at less than half of
its peak value for eight years now, the related furious
short-covering "rallies" in 2000-2002 that in some cases caused
major averages to rise over 20% (2000 Dow points today) in
a single day, the various sudden "mini-crashes" in the late
'90s and most recently 2008-2009 where the markets lost
substantial value only to have equally sharp recoveries,
and so forth and so on...
None of which seems "unusual" to me, again from MY
perspective...just business as usual, if you don't like
it or don't understand it and can't deal with it, you
would be making the correct decision to stay out of it...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: millions less than all the Dow points
lost or gained in "unexpected" market moves
Bill Reid
wrote:
> "RayLopez99" <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a59d603f-6670-4fbd...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 11, 7:41 am, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > OK for one I've never seen the Dow lose 700 points in the matter of 15
> > minutes during the midday and then recover 600 of those points within
> > the next 13-20 minutes.
>
> > > > I'll get back to you in 150 years when I've seen all the ways a market
> > > > can trade.
>
> > > Well, markets have been around for MUCH longer than 150 years but
> > > they always seem to trade the same, at least from MY perspective...
>
> The Wall Street Journal had an article about a flash crash in the
> early 1960s, cause unknown. Since the market is a random number
> generator, chaotic, you'll get these freak occurrences more often than
> you think.
>
> computers made most, if not all, of the decisions like today.
Well, "Ray Lopez"'s "facts" often seem a little "odd"...take
them with a grain of salt unless he can provide verification.
Remember, he believes bridges that were blown down by high
wind actually collapsed due to "sympathetic vibration" or
some such nonsense...
> My guess
> would be that the flash crash in the early 60's was some very big boys
> pulled too much money out at the same time.
In all cases, that's what triggers "crashes" of any sort,
kind of. The 1987 one-day "crash" occurred because seven big
"institutional investors" wanted to sell a $billion worth
of stock each. The market makers and specialists couldn't
handle that kind of "action" gracefully so good-bye market...
Nowadays, super-fast scalping computer programs go haywire
under the same circumstances, but it's still the same
underlying cause: a "sudden" large set of sell orders
hitting a market that can't absorb it...
> Wasn't Howard Hughes a good
> market player at that time?
>
I think he was mosting into urine and fingernail
futures...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: less than the points that will be gained
or lost in one day in the future if the "capitalistic"
system as we know it survives
RayLopez99
> Well, "Ray Lopez"'s "facts" often seem a little "odd"...take
> them with a grain of salt unless he can provide verification.
> Remember, he believes bridges that were blown down by high
> wind actually collapsed due to "sympathetic vibration" or
> some such nonsense...
>
Google Takoma Narrows bridge disaster Reid...
RL
Bill Reid
via your idiotic Google(TM) stated that the bridge was
actually blown down by a high wind, contrary to popular
misconception...YOU DIDN'T READ YOUR OWN GOOGLED LINK,
FOOL!!!
Plus, on "NovaScienceNow" recently, they showed the
film of the bridge collapsing, clearly showing the
bridge was blown down by a high wind, and the Ph.D
who hosts the show commented that after that event,
all bridge designs are now tested in a wind tunnel
to prevent future occurrences...FOOL!!!
But welcome to MIS, you fit right in with the
Tenenbaums and the Matskos with your amazing grasp
of engineering, science, math, the markets, and
life in general...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: can't keep up with all the scientifical
"facts" posted by the FOOLS!!! here
shortT
> On Jun 10, 4:10 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 4:53 pm, d...@noospam.com (d.) wrote:
>
> > > Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jun 10, 2:31=EF=BF=BDpm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 10, 2:29 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Jun 10, 2:22 pm, Lubow <dynamitem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > > On Jun 10, 2:04 pm, Lawyerkill <Lawyerk...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >an
> > > >> > > > something. I'll say this there is way more evidence forevolutiont=
> > > >han
> > > >> > > > a god.
>
> > > >> > > because we know more aboutevolutionthan we know about gravity.
>
> > > >> > Really? tell me how Sex evolved. Tell me how DNA evolved, tell me how
> > > >> > the first cell evolved, oh and prevent this with evidence that proves
> > > >> > it.
>
> > > >> Oh and tell me in your own words and cut and paste crap.
>
> > > >Hell we don't even know how insects evolved.
>
> > > I don't know if anyone can totally explain it at a genetic level, but
> > > if you just sit back and look close enough you can probably see it
> > > occuring right now. Like viruses, for example.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > They can't and viruses remain viruses, they don't turn into multi cell
> > animals.
>
> > A really interesting book is, 'wetware: A computer in every living
> > cell' by Bray.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> that there are big gaps in the theory.
>
> It's non sequitur to compare what we know or don't know about gravity
> is an effect,evolutionis millions of different processors, some with
> theory, some they can't explain, not even close to being the same type
> of thing.
>
>
> I believe there may be a grand designer, but we don't have a clue
> what he/she/it is.
I agree!
If you want proof then just look at Pamela Anderson's tits then tell
me there is
no intelligent design.
shortT
RayLopez99
> On Jun 12, 1:31 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 11, 5:26 pm, Bill Reid
> Plus, on "NovaScienceNow" recently, they showed the
> film of the bridge collapsing, clearly showing the
> bridge was blown down by a high wind, and the Ph.D
> who hosts the show commented that after that event,
> all bridge designs are now tested in a wind tunnel
> to prevent future occurrences...FOOL!!!
Nope. You don't understand physics. You are referencing this
revisionist paper, which has not been published in any very
prestigious journal: Billah, K.; R. Scanlan (1991). "Resonance, Tacoma
Narrows Bridge Failure, and Undergraduate Physics Textbooks" (PDF).
American Journal of Physics 59 (2): 118–124. doi:10.1119/1.16590.
This paper is a revisionist attempt to make a very fine distinction
between so-called Karman vortex vs a flutter vortex.
To be honest, it's a somewhat pedantic distinction only of interest to
engineers and rocket scientists like myself. Let me make it as clear
as possible for an ignorant layman like you. The former, a Karman
vortex, is developed by external forces --and this is the predominant
view of what caused the Tacoma Narrows bridge to fail--whereas the
latter is a vortex induced by the body itself. Even more clear for
somebody as pig ignorant as you: the former view is that the wind
caused the bridge to fail by blowing in such a way that it created
energy that accumulated in the bridge--because of the way it was
built-- like a slinky going faster and faster down stairs. But the
'revisionist' latter view is that it was more subtle than this: the
wind caused the bridge to fail by blowing in such a way that the
bridge itself --because of the way it was built--trapped the energy
but then changed one form of motion--up and down (because actually
this bridge had been built to go up and down--it was nicknamed
Galloping Gertie)--into 'twisting' or tortional motion, which it was
not built to withstand.
To be honest, I doubt 99% of the public would understand this
difference, even if true. Also with physics you can model something
to fail with two different models that produce the same result. I'd
like to see how the "traditionalists" rebut this paper, but it's not a
topic of much current interest so I doubt we see that.
Conclusion: you are pig ignorant. This paper is revisionist. The
traditional view of forced resonance as opposed to flutter vortex
resonance for the TN bridge failure has not been conclusively
rebutted.
Your case is dismissed with no possibility of appeal.
Next!
RL
RayLopez99
> I agree!
> If you want proof then just look at Pamela Anderson's tits then tell
> me there is
> no intelligent design.
>
Yes, her plastic surgeon had a very intelligent design.
RL
Bill Reid
Here we go folks, for the umpteenth time, watch as some
Usenet crank spews out a bunch of blather to hide the fact
that he doesn't know anything about anything except what
he can Google(TM) from Wikipedia (BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!) for the
purpose of...for the purpose of...well, Usenet cranks lead
a purposeless-driven life, don't they?
On Jun 13, 4:27 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 5:14 pm, Bill Reid <hormelf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 12, 1:31 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 11, 5:26 pm, Bill Reid
>
> > Plus, on "NovaScienceNow" recently, they showed the
> > film of the bridge collapsing, clearly showing the
> > bridge was blown down by a high wind, and the Ph.D
> > who hosts the show commented that after that event,
> > all bridge designs are now tested in a wind tunnel
> > to prevent future occurrences...FOOL!!!
>
> Nope. You don't understand physics.
I don't have to, I let the guy with the Ph.D in
physics explain it to me on the TV, and I can see
the bridge blowing in the wind in them thar movin'
pitchers...
> You are referencing this
> revisionist paper, which has not been published in any very
> prestigious journal: Billah, K.; R. Scanlan (1991). "Resonance, Tacoma
> Narrows Bridge Failure, and Undergraduate Physics Textbooks" (PDF).
> American Journal of Physics 59 (2): 118–124. doi:10.1119/1.16590.
>
No, I'm not, I'm referencing two things: the Wikipedia
entry you didn't really read after Googling it for the
purposeless point of spontaneously telling me my car on
very rare occasions under certain conditions displays
massively non-linear behavior in its engine mounts wasn't
"chaotic" (even though what I just described is the
textbook definition of "chaos"), and a TV show hosted by
a guy with a Ph.D in physics.
> This paper is a revisionist attempt to make a very fine distinction
> between so-called Karman vortex vs a flutter vortex.
>
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzhmpflghgh, sorry, this is the point at which
I get VERY bored, when the Usenet crank furiously does a
bunch more Google(TM)s trying to obfuscate his idiocy with
more erroneous Wikipedia entries on topics he doesn't
understand...
> To be honest, it's a somewhat pedantic distinction only of interest to
> engineers and rocket scientists like myself.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You know who believes that crap,
old lady Tenenbaum, who of course was a professional commodity
trader for 20 years and has a masters in computer science
from MIT and was an assistant VP for Citibank and lives in
10,000 sq. ft. waterfront mansion on an acre of land and
drives a Lincoln Town Car and has a massive rare watch
collection and runs a 44-person company that his father
founded that still bears the "Lubow" family name and is
faithfully paying pensions to former employees from decades
past...he/she/it believed some old crank who blew in here a
couple years ago telling everybody that he was a "rocket
scientist" and that in two years everybody would be driving
cars running on biodiesel from algae, he'll/she'll/it'll
will SAY he/she/it believes ANYTHING some anonymous Usenet
crank tells them...
Me, I'm a little more skeptical, given the difference
between the way you "think" and behave and the way the
dozens of SUCCESSFUL engineers and physicists I've known
(some in my own extended family) think and behave...although
you DO think and behave the way some idiotic FAKES behaved
when given an engineering task they couldn't handle...
> Let me make it as clear
> as possible for an ignorant layman like you.
We all know what's coming here, nothing will be clear,
because that's not the point or even possible...remember,
Einstein said that true genius was being able to explain
a complicated topic to a six-year-old, and we're clearly
not dealing with a genius here...
> The former, a Karman
> vortex, is developed by external forces --and this is the predominant
> view of what caused the Tacoma Narrows bridge to fail--whereas the
> latter is a vortex induced by the body itself.
ZZZZZZzzzzzz...
> Even more clear for
> somebody as pig ignorant as you:
Oh, that reminds me, I have to prod "Pod Pead" to post
another of HIS crank cut'n'pastes, great fun here, kind
of like bum fights...
> the former view is that the wind
> caused the bridge to fail by blowing in such a way that it created
> energy that accumulated in the bridge--because of the way it was
> built-- like a slinky going faster and faster down stairs.
You know, you didn't have to go to all this trouble, everybody
already knows you're a blathering fake, even old lady Tenenbaum,
even though she'll tell you differently, but remember, she's
a pathological liar and a psychopath, she tells you what you
want to hear to manipulate you...me, not so much, I just
deal with the truth, and let the chips fall where they may...
> But the
> 'revisionist' latter view is that it was more subtle than this: the
> wind caused the bridge to fail by blowing in such a way that the
> bridge itself --because of the way it was built--trapped the energy
> but then changed one form of motion--up and down (because actually
> this bridge had been built to go up and down--it was nicknamed
> Galloping Gertie)--into 'twisting' or tortional motion, which it was
> not built to withstand.
>
Who cares? This has nothing to do with my car, or the
stock market, and in your Google(TM) haste you clearly
didn't read any actual detail about this bridge collapse
because you never said anything about the wind causing
it to collapse, rather you were clumsily trying to find
some Wikipedia entry about "sympathetic harmonic vibration"
or some unrelated nonsense because as an idiot, you are
under the impression that bridges just collapse for
"well-known" reasons, that's why the engineers designed
them that way, they think it's cool to watch them
collapse (the film of the collapse WAS cool to watch).
I KNOW what you looking for, you were looking for
the justification for soldiers breaking march step
to avoid collapsing bridges, and if you ACTUALLY
understood the FIRST THING about physics you would
know why they do that and why it has NOTHING to do
with the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse or my car
or the stock market...
> To be honest, I doubt 99% of the public would understand this
> difference, even if true.
But you're special, you're in the tiny fraction of 1%
who doesn't understand anything about physics but pretends
to to impress three other looney Usenet fakes...
> Also with physics you can model something
> to fail with two different models that produce the same result.
Sure, why not, everything is possible on Usenet, except
a solid bowel movement...
> I'd
> like to see how the "traditionalists" rebut this paper, but it's not a
> topic of much current interest so I doubt we see that.
>
Oh, I'm sure it would be front page news at the Usenet
crank rest home...
> Conclusion: you are pig ignorant.
Thanks again, I'll get my "Prod Screed" post out today...
> This paper is revisionist. The
> traditional view of forced resonance as opposed to flutter vortex
> resonance for the TN bridge failure has not been conclusively
> rebutted.
>
Well, I guess that settles it: you ARE the weakest link...
> Your case is dismissed with no possibility of appeal.
>
Yes, a classic Usenet crank also knows nothing about law,
just like every other subject...
> Next!
>
When this generation of senile geriatrics dies, there
will be a senile geriatric "bust", which will have interesting
consequences on the economy, if the "economy" actually
survives the current "boom" of senile geriatrics like
"Ray Lopez"...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: millions less than all the blathering words
used by Usenet cranks to try to fool people they actually
know what they're talking about
RayLopez99
[evasion deleted]
Not much to discuss with you, Bill Reid, after we delete all the
evasive responses.
Vamos!
RL
Lubow
> I agree!
> If you want proof then just look at Pamela Anderson's tits then tell
> me there is
> no intelligent design.
>
> shortT
They are not intelligently designed. They look like she had two
basketballs stapled to her chest.
shortT
> On Jun 13, 2:31 am, shortT <dev.gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I agree!
> > me there is
> > no intelligent design.
>
> Yes, her plastic surgeon had a very intelligent design.
>
> RL
Exactly.... thank you.
shortT